Banging the populism gong wildly, Boris Johnson's apparently going to try and change the EU system of flight compensation for a home-grown alternative.
Of course, the effect is predictable: if this costs airlines more, they'll raise the cost of flights to the UK to compensate.
Remember, the UK's sovereignty stops at our borders. So any change can at best only affect two categories of flights:
A) Flights by UK-registered airlines
B) Flights originating from or ending up in the UK
A) will encourage more airline firms to move domicile away from the UK.
Going back to the Express article, it's vital to note that all that's actually been announced is the start of a consultation process.
So UK consumers will see zero benefits "now" and the compensation scheme remains exactly as it was.
Also worth noting that the UK already has the world's highest departure tax, so anything that increases airline firms' costs further will just widen the gap between what we pay to fly and what everyone else does.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Daily Mail health reporting team are a real piece of work.
Yesterday, there was a throwaway comment about Scotland's missing covid stats (invalidated the entire article) and today both NI and Scotland's stats are missing - the latter unacknowledged.
And look at the wording!
NI and Scotland are running at about 8,000 new daily cases at the moment, meaning the Daily Mail disregarded the missing 8,000 cases to calculate its nonsensical statistics and produce an utterly false headline.
It's not a secret that the data is delayed (see below) - just LOOK!
So it wasn't "the lowest tally since December 14" at all, because that involves an 8,000 case fiddle factor.
This is a verified blue tick Times columnist still spreading the discredited false claim that Brexit somehow advantaged the UK when it comes to the vaccine.
Has long since been fact checked to death and found false by many separate sources.
The Express are ranting about an EU law that the UK can now repeal.
There are two gaping flaws with this: 1) The EU recognised the issue and has already changed its own law 2) The EU has also allowed member states to diverge from EU law to eliminate the last dregs of the problem
Here's the EU's existing revision to the old EU law in question (it would have been revised for us too had we still been a member, but we're stuck with the "dated photocopy" we made pre-Brexit)... eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2021/2…
And here's an analysis last year describing how the EU fixed the problem, and how the UK needs to play catch-up. 12ft.io/proxy?q=https%…
Have you noticed that the main UK government sources of information still de-emphasise the primary source of transmission (droplets and aerosols in the air) and over-emphasize the danger of catching it from surfaces?
It's particularly telling when you compare with international information (WHO, Mayo Clinic, EU etc.) which all place a much greater emphasis on the primary transmission route of droplets and aerosols suspended in the air, sometimes for hours, after they're breathed out.
This seems honest. It's in the middle of a long document from the Cabinet Office: "Coronavirus: how to stay safe and help prevent the spread"
But all the stuff about airborne transmission, speaking, singing etc. magically disappears in other core docs. gov.uk/guidance/covid…
BBC's "justification" for inviting those who've refused the vaccine onto Question Time. (They're now having to screen applications for rabid anti-vaxxers.)
Ridiculous non-logic, because belief in a Flat Earth can't put the lives of others at severe risk. theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2…
Can you imagine the mindset of someone who's essentially saying: "f*** reality - if people want to believe stuff that's KNOWN OBJECTIVELY to be untrue, we should give them a platform anyway"?
Having them anywhere near the flagship national broadcaster is beyond ridiculous.
It's the old "from the point of view of representation, Mrs Miggins the pie shop owner knows as much about international trade as customs specialists" Brexit argument all over again.