Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, off you go: Snout of UK space forcibly removed from EU satellite trough From the department of "you only just realised this?" come reports that the UK government has been somewhat taken aback that the EU plans to exclude Britain from the Galileo satellite programme due to Brexit. Galileo is a European satellite constellation which, when complete in 2020, will be an alternative to the US Global …
@codejunky
"I am glad you see that as a problem too. Brexit should be a full brexit, out of the EU and its dictats."
I only see it as a bad thing because we are hurtling down this potentially disastrous course. If we are to leave the EU, we need to back it up with a strong negotiation or we are going to be well and truely in the ****.
"Actually we have a very strong bargaining position. As strong as it could ever be. We are leaving. There is sweet F-all the EU can do about that."
But they do not have to, or need to, give us decent terms on future trade. We are a tiny island, with little they need which they can't get from elsewhere in the block. It would hurt them a little to have no free trade agreement, but it would hurt them a lot more to give favourable terms which encourages other countries to leave the block. However, we will be severely hurt with no free trade agreement. This gives the EU the stronger bargaining position, as well as a good incentive to ensure it is not a good deal for the UK, whereas we have a weaker position with a strong incentive to get a deal of any sort.
"As per the examples the EU is a child on isle 5 banging their head on a wall and screaming its our fault for not giving them what they want."
I see it the other way around: We want out of the EU, but we still want to keep certain bits which we like, and are having a tantrum every time the EU says No.
" As for what good news I assume you are confused? I quote you "Yes, there has been some good news around Brexit.". That is from the same comment and you say not anything you have seen!"
There is a difference between the 2 points. I have seen some good news stories (though not many), which are all based on potential future successes not what is happening immediately. I have not seen us "doing well" out of it now.
"If this is their strength in negotiation we are better off out."
And to hell with the consequences?
"That is where you are viewing it as an optimist for the EU."
I will admit that I'm biased in favour of the EU. I see it's flaws, but believe that on the whole it is a good thing.
However, you are also showing your own bias against them. Everything the EU does is shouted down as being petty and childish.
"The EU is desperate for a border in Ireland, the best we offer is a soft border that the EU cries about."
The EU, and Ireland, do not want a border. However, both their own rules (sensible rules which most countries or trading block apply) as well one of the main stated aims of leaving (control of borders) pretty much demand it unless NI (with or without the rest of the UK) remain within the customs union.
It is yet another contradiction from Leave: We want to control our borders, except that bit. We want to leave the EU, except that bit. We want to be free to strike our own trade deals, but we want to keep all the deals the EU already has in place.
"The EU want extra rights while not offering much for UK citizens in the EU, so far not getting too far."
The EU is offering reciprocal rights. So whatever EU citizens living in the UK get after we leave, UK citizens living in the EU will get after we leave.
"unless May sabotages negotiations (if she does that will be a remainer victory however much they will still cry about it)"
I don't think May will sabotage negotiations. She may screw up through incompetence and weakness, as well as putting party politics ahead of the country (which was what the referendum was in the first place). If that happens, it will not be a victory for anyone. We need to leave on good terms or not at all, or else the country will suffer. Personally, I don't see us getting good enough terms for the country not to suffer, but it's possible and I would be very happy if we did. I also believe that, if we don't get a good deal, May will get the blame anyway (not a bad thing, but Leavers will not accept that they put the country in this position, and will need someone else to blame: Probably May, but there would also be cries of "Remainers sabotaged us, we could have done great without them!")
At the end of the day, we are not going to agree. You are dead against the EU, and want us out at all costs. I quite like the EU overall, think we would be better off staying in and believe that we will be damaged by leaving. I don't think anything either of us say to one another will change that. We will find out who was right once negotiations are complete and we have left.
@ Dr. Mouse
"If we are to leave the EU, we need to back it up with a strong negotiation or we are going to be well and truely in the ****."
I agree. So instead of complaining remainers determined to sing our doom when the EU threatens to bloody its own nose and have May trying to get something to satisfy 2 very different groups she needs to get on with leaving the EU, even if it means no deal.
"But they do not have to, or need to, give us decent terms on future trade."
In didnt say they did. It doesnt matter. I said- "We are leaving. There is sweet F-all the EU can do about that.". We want to leave. Thats it, there is nothing to negotiate if the EU is unwilling to negotiate. A negotiation is almost completely for the benefit of the EU.
"However, we will be severely hurt with no free trade agreement. This gives the EU the stronger bargaining position"
No just no and that is probably where you are getting this so wrong.
"We want out of the EU, but we still want to keep certain bits which we like"
As remain yes. They want in even though we are leaving. Not possible. We are leaving and the EU can take back its toys, thats fine. Watching them bang their head on a wall and hurt themselves again is not our fault nor problem.
"I have not seen us "doing well" out of it now."
Then you either have not paid attention to the economic benefits of voting leave or you dont understand them.
"And to hell with the consequences?"
For the consequences. Being better than in. The opposing argument being to pin the country to a group in self inflicted crises and in a poor state.
"I will admit that I'm biased in favour of the EU." and "your own bias against them. Everything the EU does is shouted down as being petty and childish."
Your first statement proved by the second. EU negotiation starts with them refusing to negotiate and demanding money, Irish border and reduced sovereignty in the UK. Refusing practical solutions to the Irish border problem. Now refusing UK help with their toy and suggesting actual theft of private property without compensation (EU domain names). Yes petty and childish.
"The EU, and Ireland, do not want a border."
Except the EU does. And so there is the problem. The solution is a deal to allow no border or a soft border using electronic tagging. A system the EU is looking to implement itself elsewhere. Be aware they again refuse to negotiate until we agree on a hard border which apparently we must make. The EU version of the Trump wall.
"We want to control our borders, except that bit"
How is that a contradiction? Our choice to do that is our control of our borders. By not understanding such simple truth remain complaints consistently fall flat. And this is an insistence I get often no matter how many times I correct the remainer.
"The EU is offering reciprocal rights"
No. That is why it didnt get very far in negotiation because the EU refused reciprocal rights.
"I don't think May will sabotage negotiations. She may screw up through incompetence and weakness"
Either road is the same failure. And failure is not to leave the EU. Even by her own definition.
"We need to leave on good terms or not at all, or else the country will suffer."
I am not sure that is possible. The EU doesnt really have great support. Even the French president admitted the French would probably vote out. This is something well known by leave but rejected by remain but the fact stands that member countries mostly wont give the choice because the EU is unpopular. Funnily leave is popularism precisely due to being the popular opinion. And the EU dont like that.
"I don't think anything either of us say to one another will change that. We will find out who was right once negotiations are complete and we have left."
Hope so. As I said my fear is we wont leave. But a remain outcome will still make people unhappy as the country struggles and suffers for being in.
@codejunky
I'm not going to do another point-by-point. We will not agree, and you will dismiss my arguments again.
One point though: I know many people from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland and many other EU countries. All acknowledge there are problems with the EU, but all support it. I don't think it's falling apart any time soon: The UK had the most anti-EU sentiment, and it only managed a narrow margin in favour of leaving.
@ Dr. Mouse
"One point though: I know many people from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland and many other EU countries."
I too have friends in and from the EU, US, Russia, Asia and Middle east.
"The UK had the most anti-EU sentiment, and it only managed a narrow margin in favour of leaving."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/873266/Brexit-Europe-map-Italy-Ireland-Greece-France-EU
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jun/23/is-britain-most-eurosceptic-country
and more recently and localised-
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201803061062277107-italy-elections-eurosceptic-youngsters/
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/22/france-would-have-voted-to-leave-eu-too-if-in-uk-situation-french-leader-macron-says.html
Sorry to be contesting another point but the EU isnt popular.
Re: " As observed before they seem happiest in their belief that outside the EU the country will burn/be doomed."
Not at all. This is just an early symptom of what is to come as we make our own way in the world.
Hopefully, it will provide concrete evidence of the folly of betting the farm, so the public will demand, sooner rather than later, that we reverse course to avoid these inevitable car crashes.
Giving massively increase powers to incompetent British politicians, regardless of the consequences, is not what people of any political persuasion voted for.
"Hopefully, it will provide concrete evidence of the folly of betting the farm,[...]"
Farmers who voted Brexit are slowly coming to realise that - unless they are a big industrial corporation - the best they can hope for is to be paid a subsidy to leave their land fallow.
New trade deals will almost certainly involve trading partners' produce that is currently blocked by what the EU & UK consider unsafe food practices.
>As it is primarily a military/security project, it's quite understandable that they don't want third parties working on it, especially on any security-related parts.
That horse bolted, a long time go.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/1493301/China-aims-spy-network-at-trade-secrets-in-Europe.html
Among the companies targeted by the Chinese network, according to Belgian officials, is the French communications company Alcatel. It is contracted to build the €1 billion (£676m) Galileo satellite communications system that European leaders have promoted as a rival to the American Global Positioning System, which has a monopoly of satellite communications systems.
The Western intelligence official said that China had been brought in as an official partner on the technology, largely because its successful espionage made it futile to keep Beijing out.
https://www.reuters.com/article/breakout-beidou/special-report-in-satellite-tech-race-china-hitched-a-ride-from-europe-idUSL4N0JJ0J320131222
Blocked in America, China turned to Europe. European space companies had been collaborating with China through the 1990s. But tech transfers increased sharply when China in 2003 pledged to contribute 200 million euros ($228 million at the time) to join the European Union’s Galileo satellite navigation program.
There is a whole lot more information out there but basically the EU had no problems going to bed with China and thus enable their Beidou project, and now they want to kick out the UK. And that is not out of spite?
"And that is not out of spite?".
Leaving the EU your status within ESA will change and you will become an associated member like Canada, just a fact. Will that change anything, perhaps not that much, and I am fairly sure Brits involved with ESA will be so in the future too.
The relationship to all EU related institutions will change, of course.
https://www.ft.com/content/72ead180-229a-11e7-8691-d5f7e0cd0a16
"Britain is fighting to remain the home of two of the EU’s most prestigious agencies covering medicines and banking after Brexit, in a move that is likely to cause astonishment in European capitals.
David Davis, Brexit secretary, does not accept that the two agencies and roughly 1,000 staff will have to move from London’s Canary Wharf, even though the EU is about to run a competition to relocate them."
This move is inevitable if the UK is leaving the EU, nothing surprising there, nothing "petty" either.
Davis must be total idiot if he thinks he can decide about that.
And the UK will also have to make a new agreement with EURATOM and probably with Open Skies too.
"I know this will attract the downvotes from the usual EU apologists but I do wonder if any of them will be able to look at themselves and see the dripping hatred they seem to have for the country,"
The hatred of people's rights is not something that can be attributed to Remain. The divisive "if you don't agree with me you must hate your country" view is not something that can be attributed to Remain.
"can we have our money back please"
As was pointed out earlier, contributions to Galileo were offset by procurement from the contributing countries.
If you are ready to hand back the money from those contracts, I'd guess they would consider handing an appropriate percentage back to the UK, if it still exists as such, and the EU can keep the surplus/interest.
In all liklihood, Britain will continue to contribute to, and use, the Galileo system. In this period of negotiation, both sides are making big public statements, some sensible, some petulant, some bellicose. It is all part of the public negotiation process. Representitives of the EU are likely to make statements like this, in order to scare/influence/bargain with the other side and its citizens. And the UK will be saying similar things in return. This, in fact, is what really emerges from the "Department of the Bleednig obvious".
The UK has much engineering and scientific expertise. As time goes on, engineers, scientists and corporations on both sides are unlikely to repudiate one another's work just for the sake of it. That is also obvious.
Great cake jokes though.
Another bout of downvoting for reasons that are not clear. Just the briefest check with patent databases will show you that all major defence and aerospace companies file a lot of patent applications. BAE alone files about 1000 applications every year of which I see about 10 filings per year.
I didn't check what the British government has patented but British companies have at least done a bit to protect their inventions.
"BAE alone files about 1000 applications every year of which I see about 10 filings per year."
BAE is not a british company anymore.
It's not even a european company anymore.
That's by design, else it couldn't be building stuff for the USA.
"our Polish friends will use Galileo not the US sats that NATO uses, some how I don't think so! "
That is a very odd statement.
Perhaps you don't know how GNSS works?
Galileo does exactly what the US satellites do, only more accurately, being a later and more refined design. As a result, it is highly likely that NATO will use Galileo along with GPS for additional signals to speed locking.
Modern satnav receivers use several GNSS arrays simultaneously in order to speed/improve results.
I don’t think the Govt gives a toss. We have the Whitehall announcement of space launch and exploration programme from the UK -makes me wonder why it is being forced through quickly....has Mr Musk or messrs Bezos been poking around over here to avoid red tape of Congress? It really does make me think something’s coming and it will be quite interesting.
As for the EU and Brexit -it is always speculation until the event is confirmed complete I refuse to be stirred up by the big wooden press spoon of hate.
Love not War is best.
Comments here are suggesting that having an EU controlled GPS is motivated by political kudos or machismo, but nothing could be further from the truth.
The government wants a super-accurate GPS system that is (at least partially) under it's control so it can use it for road pricing and parking charges. Of course, we already have a system of road pricing (choose a congested road at peak hours, use more fuel, pay more tax) but even this so-called justification is an excuse. What they want to do is monitor our every journey and every visit, every day of our lives. It's nasty, it's intrusive, and there will eventually be a reaction to this. Denying them the tool to do it is a good start!
>Time for a good old punch up ... European history is full of it.
Before about 100 years ago, the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg would probably have been commissioned officers in the English Army. Both would likely have been shot in the back for leading yet another mad charge into a killing zone.
I have just finished a book on China's takeover of the South China Sea. It contained an interesting paragraph on a subject I was unaware. "Through the Sino-European Cooperation Agreement on the Galileo program China could access vital technologies. These provided navigation and guidance systems for its armed forces. This agreement provided full access to the technology and manufacturing processes of the Galileo system. It was one of the most damaging transfers of key dual use technology ever. At little or no cost China gained a vital military keystone. China required none of the usual subterfuge or spying. By 2008, China had everything needed for the Beidou network. Like the United States GPS system, Beidou is primarily a military network. China put the satellite network into space long before the Europeans launched Galileo. That in itself told a story. Those who should have sat up and taken notice did not. The betrayal was treasonous."
The Brexit balance sheet seems very one sided. It should at least include; continued access, or the UK gets its money back, or UK get to walk off with all the technology to do their own thing!
" By 2008, China had everything needed for the Beidou network"
China only went ahead with Beidou v2 (Compass) because it was kicked out of Gallileo at the USA's insistence.
It initially had no intention of building a V2 network and the Beidou v1 birds were _old_, which is why it signed into Gallileo.
Revisionism much?
>China only went ahead with Beidou v2 (Compass) because it was kicked out of Gallileo at the USA's insistence.
I hope you can document that because it flies in the face of numerous articles already posted in these threads. So: cite?
>Revisionism much?
Nice.
Much has been made of the lack of huge negative consequences by the Leave supporters here and elsewhere.
Unfortunately for them, it is hard to prove that certain deterioration is caused by Brexit, such as the decline of the pound, drops in economic activity and business investment, and so on.
Furthermore, much of the damage will be hidden as it will be a failure to grow, rather than a more obviously tangible loss.
A lot of those tangible losses won't kick in until either the Brexit date or the end of the transition period. It should be educational to take stock a year after that latter date.
Another intangible deficit that may only become fully apparent later on in the process will be the damage attempted or done by various lunatics and nut-bars who see Brexit as a chance to revive their weird hobby horse preferences.
For example, there seem to be politicians and others rhapsodizing about bringing back feet, yards, chains, pounds, tons, pints, quarts, ounces, tablespoons, teaspoons, and so on. Many of them wouldn't even realize that maybe one of the measures in the preceding list is not ambiguous, and several are probably used exactly nowhere else in the world.
Some of the enthusiastic dolts even tout trade compatibility with the US, blithely unaware that 'imperial' measures used in packaging are often not the same as the US units of the same name... they even think there are five cups in a quart, of all the crazy things!
Clearly none of them are aware that such silly measurement units risk lives and destroy spacecraft, as well as other bad things... yet for them Brexit seems the perfect excuse to export their personal madness into society without regard to the harm it will do.
That aside, the dominant impression - from a safe distance - is that the reason there has been so little damage so far is that too many people and businesses are ignoring the ever closer cliff edge, assuming that somehow the politicians will deliver on their promise of a gold plated bridge to trade nirvana and a banquet of special privileges suddenly granted by the EU in a complete and self-destructive abrogation of their own interests and policies.
I fear that this apparent blindness to oncoming events will only make the oddly unanticipated train wreck even more spectacular.
Well, it all goes to show that de Gaulle was right to to say "Non!"
"…in his address at the Elysée Palace on that November day 50 years ago,<snip> he told his invited audience that the British view of European construction was characterised by a deep-seated hostility and that the UK would require a radical transformation if it were ever to be allowed to join the Common Market.
Eventually the UK was allowed to join, which it did, somewhat unenthusiastically, until the benefits (and burdens) of membership became apparent.
The old General must ROFL…
Mac
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
