There was more bad Brexit related news yesterday: as the BBC has reported, “British regional airline Flybmi has cancelled all its flights and filed for administration, the airline has announced … The company said it had been badly affected by rises in fuel and carbon costs and uncertainty over Brexit … The East Midlands-based airline, which has 376 staff, operates 17 planes flying to 25 European cities”.
A spokesman for the carrier told “The airline has faced several difficulties, including recent spikes in fuel and carbon costs, the latter arising from the EU's recent decision to exclude UK airlines from full participation in the Emissions Trading Scheme … Current trading and future prospects have also been seriously affected by the uncertainty created by the Brexit process, which has led to our inability to secure valuable flying contracts in Europe”.
Brexit is a significant influence here, including participation in the Emissions Trading Scheme, which won’t affect the likes of Ryanair (based in Ireland), BA (now a Spanish-registered company) or EasyJet (now registered in Vienna). But for those who imbibe the Brexit Kool-Aid, there can be no admission, and definitely no ownership, of blame.
So when the Guardian told “FlyBMI collapses, blaming Brexit uncertainty”, semi-detached Labour MP Kate Hoey snapped “Typical @Guardian ignoring airlines point re spikes in fuel and carbon costs and EU decision on Emissions Standards”. Yes, typical Guardian reporting the facts. Ms Hoey was soon called out for her dishonest spin.
Steve Peers from the University of Essex was one of them. “Typical lie. The Guardian is quoting from the airline's own press release. The carbon emissions point is a consequence of Brexit. Take some responsibility for your actions”. Privacy Matters was also on her case: “linked to ‘EU’s recent decision to exclude UK airlines from full participation in the Emissions Trading Scheme’ & why would that be? Perhaps read FlyBMIs statement and the role Brexit played in its demise … Be honest”.
From Ireland - Ms Hoey’s home patch - Andrew Quinn was equally unimpressed by an MP in whom her local party no longer has any confidence. “You are without question one of the toxic politicians I’ve ever encountered. Flybmi explicitly stated they’ve gone into administration because of Brexit. Take responsibility for what you and others did. The rising carbon costs are a direct result of Brexit!!!” So they are. Except in Hoey World.
And one former London Borough CEO had this to say about one of his local MPs: “And typical #DUPMPforVauxhall reaction. Attention span doesn’t last long enough to read quote from #FlyBMI before she dismisses airline’s own statement as a lie . Or maybe she just doesn’t care. Lie early and lie often seems to be her maxim”. Ouch!
Kate Hoey, like so many committed Brexiteers, is so unable to admit that her actions have consequences that she is prepared to deny reality just to keep faith in the cause. She was told there would be economic disruption. Now it’s coming. But she can’t admit it.
She needs to get used to the bad news. Because it’s only going to get worse.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at
I don't like and wouldn't buy Viner's Graun but if all the quotes are accurate it seems to be clean on this one.
ReplyDeleteHoey, on the other hand, is not. A truly appalling woman who shouldn't be in the Labour Party - the sooner she's out of it the better for everyone.
So the cost of fuel has gone up? Why? And which companies and individuals decided the new price? What were the factors involved? Or is it just one more profiteering scam?
“Typical @Guardian ignoring airlines point re spikes in fuel and carbon costs and EU decision on Emissions Standards” say Hoey.
ReplyDeleteA very good point, well apart from the fact that they didn't. The Guardian article literally says..
"including spikes in fuel and carbon costs, the latter arising from the EU’s recent decision to exclude UK airlines from full participation in the Emissions Trading Scheme"
They didn't even try to bury it down at the bottom of the piece, it's in the second bloody paragraph.
There are so many Leave Brexiters still imperiously lying and even when caught out in the lie continue to brazen it out as the Shrewsbury MP did for so long over his Marshall Aid tweet.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to judge them is to watch their actions and see where their god, the money, goes.
As Paul Johnson has tweeted:
-Brexiter: Jim Ratcliffe, UK’s richest man, plans move Monaco -Brexiter: James Dyson moves company Singapore
-Brexiter: John Redwood advises investors to put money abroad -Brexiter: Jacob Rees-Mogg firm opens funds Dublin -Brexiter: Nigel Lawson seeks French residency
Whether it is true or not there is a general perception that Corbyn is quite happy foer Brexit to go ahead so that the Tories will shoulder the blame for the results. Presumably part of the "blinder" he is playing by "Lexiteers".
Whatever happens now it is obvious both the major Parties are split and with calls for deselection of those of independent mind, much like the old Corbyn?, the political scene is going to be interesting for some time to come.
And the divisions over Brexit won't be going away anytime soon. Another parallel we have going with the US along with the foreign interference of our elections/referendums by cyberwar or finance.
Taking back control? As if..............
How come thr Right Wing preens want Anna Soubury deselected because she supports remain and her constituents voted leave, but nothing is said about Kate Hoey, who wants a no deal Brexit, when HER constituents voted remain?
ReplyDelete@ Anon 13:46
ReplyDeleteAnd a number of Labour MPs were allowed to vote against a main amending motion without any apparent recrimination?
It certainly supports the notion that Jezza, who hasn't seemed to be bothered too much about illegal funding of referendum Parties, regards the majority of his members position on Brexit as an irritant to his power ambitions. Likewise his sidelining of Starter, the only Labour front bencher with a forensic attention to detail, in discussions with No 10.
rob 13:46.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such call from the Labour Party. Quite the opposite - see John McDonnell on The tory Marr Show today.
But there ARE some constituencies where a majority of members have decided the MP no longer represents their views and wishes and they would prefer someone who does. This is called democracy. If the MP cannot reconcile then he or she should be subject to ballot and if lost find themselves a constituency that agrees with them*. Which means members are as entitled to be as "independent" as MPs.
There are too many examples of MPs who regard Parliament as an exclusive, corrupt club for themselves. It's one of the reasons the place is held in such deep contempt. The same goes for corporate media.
*Example, much loathed Frank Field, long rejected by a majority of constituency members. He decide to jump before he was pushed. If he stands as an "independent" I'm willing to bet he'd get his electoral arse kicked from one end of the Wirral to the other.
@ Anon
ReplyDeleteThat's all well and good for the narrow view of the Party. But remember that they will be accountable to their constituents first as their representative in Parliament whether just a club or not. And that the harder working members, possibly the majority, are not deselected just because they have alternative views on policies that don't accord with the leadership.
That photo at the top of this item.......says it all; should be deselected immediately
ReplyDeleterob 23:26.
ReplyDeleteThey certainly will.
Which is why I hope they stand as, say, "independents" or even "independent tories" IN THE SAME CONSTITUENCIES......Want to bet on the likely outcome, give or take a point or two?
Those MPs rode into position on the backs of the Labour Party, not the other way round. So did Blair/Brown, now the most discredited pair in British politics - Do you want a list of, for instance, their war crimes? Let alone their intensification of gangster ripoff PFI?
@ Anon 11:30
ReplyDeleteWell by that historical argument you could say that Corbyn rode in on the back of the Labour Party during the Blair/Brown years whilst not being totally supportive of the leadership (whether you believe it to be good or bad)?
You have obviously delved deep into the history of Labour MPs and I find interesting your use of a label such even "independent tories". I would be even more interested in the labels you would apply to the remaining (at least at present) "current Labour Party MPs".
How many do you think for example are independents/independent tories in waiting? And do you have any more "choice" labels to append to the rest you don't like?
Rob 23:37.
ReplyDelete1. Corbyn always made his opinions clear, often when he was in a clear minority. His voting record speaks for itself. He stayed and argued his case against policies he found abhorrently right wing and often nothing more than intensification - sometimes much worse - of thieving tory policies.
2. As for Blair/Brown, both of them should be arraigned for war crimes - do you want a list? To say nothing of presiding over and ignoring economic conditions which underpinned the 2008 Great Depression. Just months before Brown claimed to have "...abolished boom and bust..."
3. "Labels"? Sure......How about "red tories", "quislings", "political traitors" or "right wing liars". All of them are applicable. There are plenty more. You can bet the recipients won't like their own "labelling tactics" being thrown back in their faces - to which the good and sufficient answer is, "Tough. You started it. Now suck it up."
4. I have no idea or much interest in how many there are of the above. The sooner they leave the better for the political health of this country and the sooner the Labour Party can attempt to regain its founding principles. They have corrupted the party for too long. Good riddance to the lot of them. The public record of their voting patterns speaks for itself.
5. You can guarantee there'll be more quisling leavers. This is merely the planned "first wave". The others will go when it is calculated they can do the most pr damage. Except this time they and their media propaganda can be brushed off as merely SDP2. People won't be fooled twice.
Hope this helps. But given the tone of your previous stuff I doubt it.