No fandango for you: EU boots UK off Galileo satellite project It's official: the UK is going to be booted off the Galileo satellite GPS program as a result of Brexit, despite furious protestations from Britain that it's a special case. The decision was reached by all 27 member states of Europe at a meeting on Tuesday and was confirmed in a slide deck [PDF] released on Wednesday. Just …
It's a mistake to portray leave voters as stupid in my opinion, especially when the government itself didn't know initially what leaving would entail. Expecting a member of the public to do so therefore when an entire civil service hadn't got to grips with it seems more than a little unrealistic. You could equally claim that remain voters didn't fully understand the implications of staying in the EU, however positive doing so may or may not be.
Not doing more to stop the over-spending, possible criminal behaviour and collusion with foreign states (*cough*Russia*cough*) to interfere with our democratic processes is, however, a different matter. People talk about respecting the result but from where I sit given the underhanded manner in which the result was secured I see nothing worth respecting. If this were to take place in any other country we would be loudly pushing for a rerun of the process. Funny how that doesn't happen when the mistake is made at home.
Decades of lies from Labour, Tory, Media, BBC etc about EU come home to roost.
In some cases Foreign owned media.
Russia wanted Brexit.
Commonwealth and Obama didn't
No-one wants a British Empire 2.0 either. Most countries didn't want 1.0 either.
No-one wants a British Empire 2.0 either. Most countries didn't want 1.0 either.
The concept of any other nation giving up their sovereignty to be part of and ruled by Britain is causing me laugh the tea I was drinking out my nose....
So Britain doesn't want to be part of the EU and reclaim its sovereignty but they want other countries to give up theirs and be ruled by Britain under Empire 2.0.
Pot... kettle.... black ass!
While I will declare right now I voted to stay, I have to say the problem with the brexiteers view of the world was that everything would be brilliant outside of the EU. We have all this freedom to negotiate new deals with lots of countries outside of the EU. (US? Who is now imposing sanctions on any country that is a threat), NZ and Australia (who only really provide lamb, wine and tourists), we can negotiate a good deal with the EU because we are sooo important to the rest of the EU (aren't we). Now its coming home to roost, we are likely to end up with no deal, we will end up re-enacting most of the EU directives because its just too difficult to put in place new laws in time available and suddenly we are on our own in science research, multi-country programs like galilleo, aircraft and intelligence. So why was brexit so good for the UK?
Perhaps a new guest article by Tim Worstall, detailing the upcoming boom, would be salutary in bring all you ungrateful straying sheep back in the warm fold of Theresa May’s leadership.
Some ancient wisdom in lieu:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/10/so_what_would_the_economic_effect_of_britain_leaving_the_eu_be/
This is all going according to plan /s
It's amazing. And that is from an "intelligent" brexitter, not the 'keep em out' xenophobic wing.
But like virtually all brexitters prior to the actual vote, he proposed staying in the EEA, so as not to lose the benefits of the single market and CU. Hardly any brexitters campaigned for 'hard brexit'. They all promised the prospect of customs checks etc. was 'project fear', and to be fair remainers typically raised the prospect of trade barriers without really thinking the UK would do that.
It would be really interesting to see Worstall's opinion now that the 'leave' vote has been hijacked by zealots who really want to walk away completely. I'd be genuinely interested if he still thinks the UK will be better off crashing out with no deal, than it would just staying in the EU.
"Yes"
"It would be really interesting to see Worstall's opinion now that the 'leave' vote has been hijacked by zealots who really want to walk away completely. I'd be genuinely interested if he still thinks the UK will be better off crashing out with no deal, than it would just staying in the EU."
I'm one of the zealots. Leave, get out entirely, allow them to sail off to perdition as they so obviously desire. I have no desire for us, nor anyone else, to stay in an organisation that can do something as stupid as the eruo.
There's also been a study on this. Patrick Minford. Revert to WTO rules, our exports to them face those tariffs. We decide to go for unilateral free trade. We don't charge ourselves tariffs upon the things that we desire to import. Essentially, what we did in 1846, Corn Laws and all that.
Net effect is to grow the UK economy by 3%. Yes, grow.
But I really am a zealot. I think the very existence of the EU is a bad idea, that everyone should leave it. And I believe that near whatever the economic arguments about it. Proper, full on, zealotry I'm afraid.
>I have no desire for us, nor anyone else, to stay in an organisation that can do something as stupid as the eruo.
The Euro might be stupid, but at least they can spell it correctly. :)
>There's also been a study on this. Patrick Minford. Revert to WTO rules, our exports to them face those tariffs. We decide to go for unilateral free trade. We don't charge ourselves tariffs upon the things that we desire to import. Essentially, what we did in 1846, Corn Laws and all that.
Is that the same Patrick Minford who admits that this will make most of the UK manufacturing sector uncompetitive to the extent that it can no longer survive? And farming?
No, that would be the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Boards "Impact Assesment."
Best case scenario. HMG replaces the CAP payments entirely from its own pocket.
Worst case scenario. Pig farmers do OK. Arable, Cattle, Sheep, Dairy all f**ked.
So much for saving money to spend on the NHS.
>There's also been a study on this. Patrick Minford. Revert to WTO rules
I read the report: From Project fear to Project Prosperity
Whilst he talked a lot about WTO, UFT and MFN it was clear that he was talking theoretically and not real-world - probably because real-world requires doing actual legwork and thinking rather than simply applying vastly simplified economic models and rote solutions - where markets and consumers behave in ways favourable to the model....
So Minford's viewpoint is interesting as it does try to present a different viewpoint; however, I compare it to other viewpoints and my experience and thus find it wanting...
The whole 'passport-must-be-burgundy' thing was a non-binding council resolution. We could have remained members of the EU *and* had blue passports.
Also ignore the fact that the blue colour was actually something brought about by the League of Nations in 1920 and the only reason we've bothered with biometrics is because of demands made by the US in regards to its own visa waiver program. (*muttermutter...bloodyforeigners...muttermuttermumble*)
True.
But British politicians (of whatever supposed persuasion) can never have too many complaints to beat the EU with, despite it really having nothing to do with them.
How many of the supposed "EU" issues really originate from the British Home Office?
Quite a few I'd suggest.
> Expecting a member of the public to do so therefore when an entire civil service hadn't got to grips with it seems more than a little unrealistic. You could equally claim that remain voters didn't fully understand the implications of staying in the EU, however positive doing so may or may not be.
Sorry but no - anyone making the decision that because they don't currently like something then they will vote to jump in to an unknown void without thinking about it, was either stupid, lazy or gullible. Even my fourteen and twelve year old children spent some time at school going through the various EU declarations including bringing home the Cameron missive and taking that apart. They came up with some very rational explanations about why leaving was a foolish idea and were utterly gob-smacked when the vote came in supporting Leave. How on earth could adults be so dumb?
I'm fed up of the semi-defending for Leave voters on the basis that the issue was too complicated. The details are going to be tricky and some people did have valid reasons for voting Leave (one guy I knew had seen his children's school fall apart under the weight of unmanaged, localised immigration). But these primary outcomes like being kicked out of Galileo were easy enough for children to work out well before the vote even occurred.
I have always argued that remain voters entered the voting booth knowing exactly what they were voting for. They knew what the EU had been like so far, they knew what direction the EU was heading and they preferred that known future instead of taking a gamble on what leaving might look like.
Leave voters on the other hand went with the gamble. That, in my opinion, considering they're gambling with the security of their own and their offsprings futures, could well be described as stupid.
I have family outside the major urban centres. Many of them voted Leave because they thought that all the arguments about the economy were protecting the "city folk". They didn't care if "we" were worse off, because they resent the "city folk" talking down to them all the time - and by extension the EU are just remote city folk. So all the arguments about whether the UK would be better or worse off outside the EU were completely wasted on them. It was the "taking back control" meme that resonated with them.
The Leave/Remain split isn't stupid vs clever. It is more about the focus on economy vs control.
I live outside urban centre and did not vote leave (though the local racists did)
Take back control ... FFS
The less control in the hands of May, BoJo etc. the better, as negotiations are showing (if it was football it would be EU 100, GB 0) UK gov are not very competent compared to EU.
Any concept of control is a fantasy, with skewed first past the post system, many peoples votes are essentially wasted as their voice never heard *currently "Control" is via homophobic, anti abortion DUP medievalists - great!)
e.g. if live in Con stronghold but prefer a different party, live in Lab safe seat but hate Lab etc, etc
Vote for the runner up, regardless of your actual views.
In the UK, under whoever-the-f**k-turn-up-on-the-day tactical voting is the only way to have a chance of dumping the incumbent.
Maybe.
I think it's also worth saying that when people voted, many brexitters were convinced that the UK would be no worse off, would not lose single market access and so on, because this is what they were promised. So to them, there seemed no risk. They effectively believed that the UK would be able to opt out of freedom of movement, stop paying fees, but still continue to trade as before.
It's clear that isn't the case, even the brexitters now accept this. And yet they still keep using the referendum vote as justification for leaving the same single market they insisted during the campaign we'd remain in.
What the government, the people and parliament need to decide now is which is more important. You cannot have everything you want. So, do you want to control immigration, or do you want to retain frictionless trade with Europe and avoid a hard border in Ireland? Because a vote in which people essentially voted believing they could have both things is now worthless, because it's clear they will not and would never have got both.
When you put it like that it really does sound completely f**king delusional, does it not?
You really would have to believe in unicorns and moonbeams to beleive such contradictory ideas at the same time.
>It's a mistake to portray leave voters as stupid in my opinion, especially when the government itself didn't know initially what leaving would entail. Expecting a member of the public to do so therefore when an entire civil service hadn't got to grips with it seems more than a little unrealistic.<
The remain campaign was run by the then-Prime-Minister, and warned of very dire consequences of leaving - but it was dismissed as fear-mongering by the leave campaign, if you remember.
>You could equally claim that remain voters didn't fully understand the implications of staying in the EU, however positive doing so may or may not be.<
As 'remain' literally meant 'carry on exactly as we are' I think we all knew the implications, even if leave voters WERE too stupid to realise that.
Actually, I don't think remain was going to be "carry on exactly as we are", for me that was perhaps the worst aspect of the whole referendum. I could just see the next thing after a remain vote being, "Right, you're staying. Now - get with the programme". ie the ever-closer-union stuff which was what I was extremely worried about and wanted to avoid. If the referendum had gone the other way, would we now be being forced into the Euro? I suspect all too likely.
As 'remain' literally meant 'carry on exactly as we are' I think we all knew the implications, even if leave voters WERE too stupid to realise that.
Except any remainer who thought that is equally stupid. Remain was never "carry on as we are", rather it was "you want into this ever tighter controlled group, lock, stock, the fucking lot". For the EU there is no "as you were" in the grand project. They want countries to be all in or in our case...get out. It is about ever close union and that does not mean "the bits you want and veto the rest". Those are the choices that were realistically on offer. The tolerance in the EU for the UK's selective pick and choose membership was seriously coming to a head. If you cannot recognise that then you should pay a little more attention. Stupidity and ignorance is abundant on both sides.
The tolerance in the EU for the UK's selective pick and choose membership was seriously coming to a head.
@Mark 65 - So do you wait it out and get them to make you an offer to leave, given you already have committed to a UK referendum over any treaty change, or do you leave (invoke Article 50) and then hope to get a favourable deal, having told everyone that you would be prepared to walk away with no deal?
Remain always was about a lot more than what the Leave campaign portrayed it as...
@ Roland6
"Remain always was about a lot more than what the Leave campaign portrayed it as..."
Fear-
>Of change! Change is scary.
>Of the Chancellor! Osborne making a clear and direct threat against the population with the punishment budget.
>Of the EU! Because they might try to punish the country in their civilised temper tantrum.
>Of the US! They might try to take advantage by selling us things! The worst being chlorinated chicken proven safe even by the European food standards.
>Of China! The Chinese might try to take advantage by selling us things.
>Of foreigners generally! Those foreigners might take advantage and sell us things. Without protectionism we might actually deal with counties poorer than ourselves and that is beneath us.
>Of economic recovery! Oh no we are doomed. We get the inflation we need to increase the base rate as is needed to prepare us for the next recession due approximately each decade yey business cycle. Brexit delivering what the BoE and gov have been trying to do since 2008.
>Of our own standards! Because apparently dictated foreign standards are better than those who are complaining about it. With so many 'educated, successful, none of that hoi polloi trash" remain voters one would assume they had a part in setting the standards they so fear.
>Of losing other peoples money! As a net contributor to the EU through tax money and then some comes back the people sucking that source of money dont want it to remain with the ones who earned it.
Many more to add?
@codejunky - QED :)
All your points are reasons given out as to why you shouldn't vote Leave. In you haste to mock the Remain campaign, you totally missed the point I was making about the strategy adopted to achieve an end. It is clear the Brexit rabble-rousers became obsessed with invoking Article 50 and as soon as possible, without any regard to negotiations - well you can't negotiate with the EU so why bother, just walk away. Yet now the same people want to negotiate with the EU and are complaining about how unfair things are, whilst totally failing to see it was their own haste that got them into the current negotiating mess...
If however, the Brexit rabble-rousers had more than one brain cell between them, they would have realised that the EU couldn't force the UK to leave and thus by Remaining in the EU the UK, would automatically have a seat at the table at the next round of negotiations and for progress to be made, the UKs concerns and interests would have had to be addressed... Hence why I've always maintained that in-order to leave it may be better to remain...
@ Roland6
"All your points are reasons given out as to why you shouldn't vote Leave."
I am not sure you read the points. Living in fear is not a way to live. Just because the remain case was the fear of the world does not make them right, actually having to resort to such fear tactics and direct threats should raise questions.
"In you haste to mock the Remain campaign"
If it makes you feel any better I dont feel any sympathy for the official leave campaign being mocked. Both official campaigns put on a poor show.
"well you can't negotiate with the EU so why bother, just walk away. Yet now the same people want to negotiate with the EU"
If the EU wont negotiate and we choose to walk away, if the EU still wont negotiate then nothing changes in that respect (an issue some remainers and leavers need to accept particularly in government).
"whilst totally failing to see it was their own haste that got them into the current negotiating mess"
This mess is the result of desiring to remain. The negotiation is simple, the floor of the negotiation (the last resort option) is hard brexit no deal for the UK where the EU and UK are entitled to nothing from the other. I think thats a good outcome, some think it the best outcome, those who wish to remain of course think its the worst outcome. We should accept nothing less than that (i.e. a deal that chains us to the EU or keeps us in nor some 'punishment' agreement). As I said neither side is entitled to anything, no money, agreements, nothing. Of course that leaves a lot of room for both sides to negotiate to mutual benefit if both sides want to.
"they would have realised that the EU couldn't force the UK to leave and thus by Remaining in the EU the UK, would automatically have a seat at the table at the next round of negotiations"
The EU could if they want. The EU is forging its way with rules and agreements and breaking them at will. Greece nearly got thrown out when the recession exposed the weakness of the Eurozone. But even if we remained, the EU didnt want to negotiate. And the EU could not negotiate the freedom of the UK without the UK leaving the EU. So the EU could not negotiate what we want.
@codejunky
>I am not sure you read the points. Living in fear is not a way to live.
Yes, I did read all the points and they made me (ruefully) smile; from the emotive language being used across many forums, it would seem that many Brexit supporters are living with an unhealthy level of paranoia about the EU...
But once again you demonstrate that you don't understand what I'm saying. So let us be clear, there was the Referendum which fundamentally was about Leave-Remain and living happy ever after, and then there was after the Referendum, where the focus was on implementation and "honouring the result". I'm talking about after the Referendum.
>This mess is the result of desiring to remain.
No the mess is entirely down to the Brexiteers, remember whilst the various Brexit camps could agree that the UK should leave the EU, there were vast differences in viewpoint of just what 'Brexit' meant. The Leave camps (and specifically those in the Conservative party), in their haste to grab on to power, just didn't bother to clarify matters, probably because they thought once in a position of power they would be able to prevail over those with different ideas. Hence why T.May has repeatedly asked for people to get behind her - she wasn't talking to Remain supporters but to the various Leave camps - particularly those within the Conservative party and thus preventing the development of a coherent government stance.
>The EU could if they want....
I read this as just another outing of paranoia...
@ Roland6
"I'm talking about after the Referendum."
Ok go on. I will look with fresh eyes.
"there were vast differences in viewpoint of just what 'Brexit' meant"
That is very true. But that isnt wrong or invalidating, there were many different views of what remain was. Remainers were on the same page about wanting to remain and leave on the same page about wanting to leave, that was it.
"The Leave camps (and specifically those in the Conservative party), in their haste to grab on to power, just didn't bother to clarify matters"
Nobody could possibly clarify. Simply the vote was rigged, and yet people want to leave the EU enough even rigging it wasnt enough. Simply-
>Cameron will support leave if his 'amazing demands' (damp squib) wernt met.
>They were not. So Cameron supports remain anyway.
>Cameron refuses to negotiate anything to do with the possibility of a leave vote nor allow clarity. To enforce this further promises to stay to negotiate if leave is voted.
>Cameron abuses tax payer money to print propaganda. Obama is over to make an empty threat. Carney presents good news with a negative spin. Osborne makes a last ditch effort of directly threatening the population if we do not comply.
>Leave wins, Cameron continuing his jellyfish act runs away.
>The only party to have a plan to leave was Farages UKIP and they were not the gov. A weak remainer takes over the party and refuses to accept a no deal brexit when the EU refuses to negotiate.
Is it a shock leave have a level of paranoia.
"she wasn't talking to Remain supporters but to the various Leave camps"
I can believe that. We voted leave, expect leave and she keeps trying to offer leave soft aka remain. All the while the remain propaganda continues. Even the dire state of the EU/Eurozone is presented as positives. The only reason to pretend the EU is doing well is to try and keep us in.
@codejunky - The referendum occurred on 23-Jun-2016; nearly two years ago, I think you do need to move on...
>Nobody could possibly clarify. Simply the vote was rigged
Your "fresh eyes" are clearly still in referendum mode...
>Is it a shock leave have a level of paranoia.
The trouble is that as Brexit has progressed, their level of delusional paranoia has markedly increased...
>I can believe that.
Good! :)
>We voted leave, expect leave and she keeps trying to offer leave soft aka remain.
T.May is clearly just an administrator, not a leader and so whatever it is she has put on the table - which has been very little, is what her Brexit monkeys have given her...
@ Roland6
"Your "fresh eyes" are clearly still in referendum mode..."
The rest of my post was about the rest of yours. I am interested in hearing of how negotiations could be pushed better.
"The trouble is that as Brexit has progressed, their level of delusional paranoia has markedly increased..."
To what particularly do you reference? Not saying you are wrong but I am aware the EU are being awkward for awkward sake. Not that that should be a problem as we just walk away until the EU realise they are not acting smart.
"T.May is clearly just an administrator, not a leader and so whatever it is she has put on the table - which has been very little, is what her Brexit monkeys have given her..."
She isnt much of a leader but I think she has more say than I like. The negotiations stalled when the EU tried to dictate demands and the UK shot down the fantasies of the EU (e.g. brexit bill line by line). The problem seemed pretty solved until May went to the EU to make a conditional offer of money to continue talks (condition of a trade deal. I hope she sticks to the condition rigidly).
I have no love for the EU but I dont think this gov is doing a good job.
@codejunky
>I am interested in hearing of how negotiations could be pushed better.
?! where to begin...
Given we are where we are...
Remember, the "EU are being awkward" and are sticking to the rules and thus have been very clear: the UK is leaving on 29-March-2019. So I fully expect as this deadline creeps ever closer, T.May et al will accuse the EU of "being awkward" by not being flexible about this deadline...
I suspect there are more corkers that will befuddle T.Mays Brexit monkeys, so I expect March-29 will come and go and the UK won't have a deal... then the fireworks will start as the recriminations begin...
The only real way forward is for T.May to find her backbone and sacrifice "Conservative party unity", it doesn't really matter which way she goes, the negotiations will go better; albeit not necessarily in the direction some are wanting. [Aside: As I don't see Labour being any more capable, there is a flaw in this plan... :) ]
>Not that that should be a problem as we just walk away until the EU realise they are not acting smart.
So basically, by "walking away" you are implicitly accepting the EU are right to exclude the UK from the Galileo project, because that is what the rules - as amended by the UK - say...
>To what particularly do you reference?
Well, given those who voted Leave didn't expect to 'win' the referendum, it is notable how to many (ie. those who express a public opinion) the bogeyman EU has grown in size and maleficence.
@ Roland6
"So I fully expect as this deadline creeps ever closer, T.May et al will accuse the EU of "being awkward" by not being flexible about this deadline"
You think it will take her that long? It didnt take them long to complain they wanted more time and a transition time. May seems about as good a leader as Cameron, just as a jellyfish.
"The only real way forward is for T.May to find her backbone and sacrifice "Conservative party unity", it doesn't really matter which way she goes"
I think the direction matters plenty but that is what I consider necessary to lead. Would probably remove a lot of the uncertainty too.
"So basically, by "walking away" you are implicitly accepting the EU are right to exclude the UK from the Galileo project, because that is what the rules - as amended by the UK - say..."
Absolutely. A no deal hard brexit is just that, neither side is entitled to anything. I cant say I care about the galileo project anyway as its just another willy wagging vanity project (a millennium dome. unnecessary, expensive but a political achievement). Obviously negotiating mutually beneficial deals would be better but if the EU isnt willing then what is there to negotiate?
"Well, given those who voted Leave didn't expect to 'win' the referendum, it is notable how to many (ie. those who express a public opinion) the bogeyman EU has grown in size and maleficence."
I am not sure the EU has grown much in size and maleficence, just a continued commentary of their ongoing incompetence and their tantrums. The bogeyman is more reserved for the constant attempts to undermine or dead-stop progress, which to us is getting out of the EU. We didnt expect to win the rigged vote and for me it just demonstrates the extent that people really dont want to be in the EU that we won after all that. Leave didnt have the position of authority to abuse to directly, 100% shamelessly and with no attempt to hide it threaten the population to vote their way. And support for the EU was less than 50% or as some people like to call it 'statistical noise'.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
