From the department of bleeding obvious
Cake. Lovely cake. Love cake. Have cake. Eat cake.
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 …
..you now have no cake.
Well, the Russians helped convince you about the cake, is what happened. Nobody actually knew what flavor the cake was, or what colour the icing was, but enough people listened to those shouting about the cake that they decided that they had to vote for the mystery cake instead of the cake that most people were actually quite happy with. Turns out....there was no cake.
What is cake? Well, it has an active ingredient which is a dangerous psychoactive compound known as "dimesmeric andersonphospate". It stimulates the part of the brain called "Shatner's bassoon", and that's the bit of the brain that deals with time perception. So a second feels like a month. Well, it almost sounds like fun, unless you're the Prague schoolboy who walked out into the street, straight in front of a tram. He thought he'd got a month to cross the street...
"Since the UK are voluntarily withdrawing from this project, why would they get the money back they've already spent?"
The UK is not voluntarily withdrawing from the project.We're withdrawing voluntarily from the EU. Kicking us out of this is just pressure to keep the rest of the EU project going with all our other funding of it.
The upside is that we will be able to use the GPS system withouth having to fund any more a project which is to go 50% over budget.
If someone offers you cake, they might call it looney toad quack, russell dust, chronic Basildon doughnuts, Joss Ackland's spunky backpack, bromicide, ponce on the heath, cool thwacks and charlie, argue barmies or Hattie Jacques' pretentious cheese wog.
"Why on earth would we be due a refund? We are choosing to leave."
For the same reason we will paying £billions for "current and future obligations" to be allowed to leave. As the first many posts point out, having cake and eating it. I wonder how much any UK patents and software is worth it to the EU to keep, or, if refused access, how well it will work if any UK patented kit or software is withdrawn. The UK seems to have a had a significant hand in security side of it.
"It's bleeding obvious we should get a full refund of all the cash we've wasted on this EU vanity project."
A world of warning, life is hard. Let me tell you about a friend of mine who was a member of a yacht club. Then one day he read about the wonderful Chinese yacht clubs and as he wasn't that pleased about paying for his membership he decided to leave and show them who is actually in charge.
First he told them he is actually quite pleased but would rather be a free member.
But they turned difficult and refused to listen.
Then he told them he had been a member for 40 years and that he had contributed to the new building and leaving he was entitled to empty the bar, and perhaps take the front door with him.
But they turned difficult and refused to listen.
And then they asked him to move his yacht out of the marina. And that indeed made him very upset, and he told them that the marina was indeed, if only for some time, rather acceptable and he could perhaps agree to pay a little for it.
But they turned difficult and refused to listen and told him his berth has gone to an other member already, but they might rent him a space to anchor his yacht outside the marina.
Well, I haven't met him since then, perhaps he is a reformed member now, or perhaps he went for China.
Forgive me but there is reality in reality, should I perhaps go for "reality means reality".
Sure...just so you know, we will be reliant upon the "public" facing GPS, which can be switched-off as the controllers want, or made inaccurate as they want.
Also, Galileo is better (theoretically) than either the USA/Russian?Chinese systems...
Presumably, SSTL will be departing for EU pastures new soon then...
Well it was eye wateringly expensive cake and though we aren't getting money back for supplying the ingredients the time will come that it becomes free cake for us. With 3 or 4 cakes that can all be eaten together to improve the taste do we really need to be pouring money into the trough?
"[...] until 52% of you decided to shoot yourselves [...]"
The referendum wasn't binding. It was up to our representatives in Parliament to take a considered view of the situation.
$DEITY knows why they just rolled over without apparently thinking about the consequences. They aren't elected to be popular - they are elected to do their best for the country.
The referendum wasn't binding. It was up to our representatives in Parliament to take a considered view of the situation.
$DEITY knows why they just rolled over without apparently thinking about the consequences.
A case of naive optimism overriding history and common sense?
I got a distinct impression the reason we ended up with a referendum is that "our representatives in Parliament" didn't do their jobs over several decades...
"I got a distinct impression the reason we ended up with a referendum is that "our representatives in Parliament" didn't do their jobs over several decades..."
Much of the "problem" has been caused by weak-kneed UK politicians (i.e. all of them) who didn't want to be responsible for enacting unpopular legislation. So they hatched a cunning plan of lobbying Brussels to get their unpopular legislation issued as an EU wide directive. Then they could shrug and say "Oh deary me, look it's the EU wot dunnit, not us." Even though the directives were drafted by UK civil servants then passed to the EU for rubber stamping.
After forty-odd years of using that particular wheeze they got bitten in the bum by it because the electorate were convinced that everything horrible in their lives was done by Brussels.
The bit that the MPs haven't worked out yet is that now they will have to implement ultra-austerity because there is no money, there will be no trade to create money and UK manufacturing such as it is will decline. We can't sell our services to new markets because the biggest new markets (Asia Pacific including China, the USA, South America, India) don't want our services. So more belt tightening on its way and now they won't be able to blame Brussels so it will be obvious that the pain is being caused by UK government. Enjoy.
"So more belt tightening on its way and now they won't be able to blame Brussels so it will be obvious that the pain is being caused by UK government. "
'This is all the fault of the EU! They selfishly refused to give us everything we could think to ask for without any cost, obligation or responsibility on our part! If they'd just given us everything we asked for and paid for it too, we would be living in paradise now! It's not our fault, it's Them! It was a conspiracy, I tell you - They are all plotting against us!'
- random UK government / politician / commentator / journalist
"The referendum wasn't binding. It was up to our representatives in Parliament to take a considered view of the situation."
Yes it was !!!
Because, Cameron stated it would be.
Why, because Cameron thought the result would be in favour of staying in
Therefore, making the result binding would prevent the same argument being used to fight the result.
Classic example of being 'hoist by your own petard' to quote the idiom. :)
The only people to 'blame' are the Torys and their arrogance.
Finally, it is getting so so tiring to read/hear yet more 'moaning' about BREXIT !!!
At what point is the result accepted and the effort put into making the best of the situation ?
All the moaning and griping will NOT change the result.
If it DOES then I hope that the same people are prepared for the same tactics to be used when the General Election result does not please 50% of the people and THEY moan/gripe/campaign to change the result, which of course is perfectly valid in the same way as the 'Remainers' neverending campaign.
>Yes it was !!!
>Because, Cameron stated it would be.
You should know by now never to trust a politician. It doesn't matter what Cameron stated - he could have put it on the side of a bus and it wouldn't make any difference. What matters is what is written in velum for the act of Parliament. There is no provision in the Referendum Act to enact the result (unlike the AV/PR referendum IIRC) - therefore it is only advisory under the various scattered parts of the British constitution.
"Just 52% or those who could be bothered to get out and vote. "
A lot of people were under the impression that the votes would be counted on a seat-by-seat basis and thought they were in safe "remain" areas, so their "leave" vote would be a suitable protest.
The fact that it was an advisory referendum, with fast-and-loose advertising rules (a binding one would have had much stricter ones) and that the remain camp were openly threatening that a 52:48 vote the other way would result in them continuing to force more referendums until they got their own way are all factors which need to be taken into account.
The country didn't so much shoot itself in the foot as blow its leg off and the politicians "in charge" are doing nothing to staunch the bleeding.
A lot of people were under the impression that ... their "leave" vote would be a suitable protest.
Really? Name some of these people who have no clue as to the point of voting.
A vote is a statement of your will and intent. Far from being suitable, a "protest" vote which is in direct contradiction of your desired outcome is nothing but an admission of incompetence.
A vote is a statement of your will and intent.
Not in the UK it isn't
The majority of seats are safe, your vote only counts in a few marginal constituencies. When people vote in a by-election they do so to give the government of the day a kicking. Knowing that it will have no effect.
This was the mother of all by-elections and for most, the only chance of a real democratic vote in their lifetime.
"your vote only counts in a few marginal constituencies. "
The government of the UK is decided in a small number of marginal seats, by the "swing voters" and the "non voters"
Nothing terrifies the establishment more than the prospect of the great unwashed actually bothering to head to the polling booth.
A vote is a statement of your will and intent. Far from being suitable, a "protest" vote which is in direct contradiction of your desired outcome is nothing but an admission of incompetence.
If that were the case, the parties would be bound to implement every single election promise made, and not dump the manifesto in a black bag marked bio-hazard at the door of their new offices.
Yet somehow a badly thought-out nationalistic impulse referendum suddenly becomes a legally binding contract signed in blood after the fact?
"I have heard of lot outlandish excuses but that is the best."
Judging by the English people I know - many of them have little insight into the way our representative democracy functions.
The Leave voters amongst them were generally unhappy about things that had nothing to do with the EU. eg they objected to too many immigrants from the Indian subcontinent. In some cases the EU's moderating influence had actually been to their personal benefit.
"The Leave voters amongst them were generally unhappy about things that had nothing to do with the EU. eg they objected to too many immigrants from the Indian subcontinent."
You mean the same "Leave" a leading Tory (Priti Patel) was campaigning for on the basis it would let Britain *increase* the number of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent?
It's almost as many of those who voted "Leave" didn't pay any attention or think it through.
"remain camp were openly threatening that a 52:48 vote the other way would result in them continuing to force more referendums until they got their own way"
I don't recall remain saying that... Farage certainly did... He must have been a secret remain campaigner :)
"A lot of people were under the impression that the votes would be counted on a seat-by-seat basis and thought they were in safe "remain" areas, so their "leave" vote would be a suitable protest."
I don't believe that at all. I think there were some people who assumed remain would win, so voted as a protest. But I think everyone understood it was one person one vote.
The issue was that few people really understand the benefits or drawbacks, so it was relatively easy for the negative campaign to twang nationalistic heart strings.
Ironically, if you remember the campaign, it was the LEAVE side insisting it was preposterous to suggest the UK would lose access to the single market, hailing Norway and Switzerland as successful nations outside the EU, while it was the REMAIN side insisting that voting out of the EU meant the UK would lose access to it.
Yet the LEAVE side now insists the vote meant completely the opposite - to leave the single market and customs union, and go hard brexit, even though during the campaign, they claimed that was a scare tactic coming from remain.
My issue isn't really with the vote, at least if the promises made were kept to. My issue is that the vote was gained by promising one thing, and as soon as it was won, the winning side claimed it was a vote for everything they said was a remain scare tactic.
"Not quite. Just 52% or those who could be bothered to get out and vote. Oh well, too late now."
Unfortunately the politicians couldn't be bothered to tell anyone that the result would be binding until after the event. If they had it might have encouraged more to vote.
The Swiss have negotiated to pay €27m a year to be part of the development program but Swiss access to PRS (the mega-secure crypto infrastructure part) is AFAIK, after more than 10 years of negotiations, still just an aspiration. It's loss of access to PRS keys through the security treaties that will lapse when the UK leaves the EU that's preventing UK firms getting contracts.
Norway also contributes but doesn't get PRS.
Just more petty politics.
Exactly. Galileo is overseen by the EU and the ESA (and is way behind scheduled and over budget). The ESA isn't even an EU organization, the UK is still a leading member of it. This is just more childish EU politicians (Selmayr likely has a finger in it) threatening to take their ball & go home because we've said we don't like them. If they want our money, they'll find a way to kiss & make up.
"The ESA isn't even an EU organization, the UK is still a leading member of it."
The ESA may be such, but Galileo is a critical piece of civilian infrastructure, and a key piece of military operational infrastructure, which must needs be protected from outsiders.
If you decide to become outsiders, then you must expect rational adjustments, conforming to security imperatives.
Exactly. Galileo is overseen by the EU and the ESA
Exactly! To a blue blood Brexiteer leaving "the EU" means not having the EU have any influence over the UK, hence why the UK has to also leave the EEA, EFTA, Euratom, etc. etc.
At some point, some Brexit nutter is going to decide the UK should leave the WTO because the EU has a bigger influence over the WTO than the UK, and thus if the UK were to abide by WTO rules it would be abiding by rules originating in Brussels and we can't have that...
"Just more petty politics."
That's what Brexit's about.
Brexit started as a cynical ploy to pander to some segments of the population for votes, by a politician who neither expected it nor wanted it.
Similarly, May's snap election was another piece of political opportunism which returned the opposite of the expected result.
Now England will pay a price for such self-serving petty politics, and it is anyone's guess how united the kingdom will be when the dust finishes settling.
"Now England will pay a price for such self-serving petty politics, and it is anyone's guess how united the kingdom will be when the dust finishes settling."
If history is any guide, it's worth remembering that in 1971 the UK was Europe's sick man, with an economy down the shitter and a population that was in freefall - with the skilled and talented leaving in droves (leaving the unskilled and untalented behind - who make up large tracts of the aging population that voted "leave"). Joining the EU saved the country, but at cost of tearing up all existing trade agreements with former colonies, many of whom suffered very badly as a result.
Memories are long. Mother England is a distant memory. New trade agreements may be brokered, but Boris and his Etonian chums are about to find out that when you're over a barrel, the terms negotiated will not be in your favour. This isn't the old days of empire and the British Army/British Navy can't come in to enforce Pax Brittania to keep those pesky natives down and get trade deals on terms which suit the Empire.
Memories are long. Mother England is a distant memory. New trade agreements may be brokered, but Boris and his Etonian chums are about to find out that when you're over a barrel, the terms negotiated will not be in your favour. This isn't the old days of empire and the British Army/British Navy can't come in to enforce Pax Brittania to keep those pesky natives down and get trade deals on terms which suit the Empire.
I am sitting on the other side of an ocean, watching from a safe distance.
I've been reading sources from around the world for many years, and I can't help getting the impression that a number of people in the UK, particularly politicians and activists of various stripes don't really have a firm grasp on the world as it exists today.
Some seem trapped by ideology, some by ingrained class indoctrination (social class, nothing to do with education - except in Britain, which may be part of the problem), some by a world view rooted in the reality of decades or generations ago.
Assumptions and expectations abound, and from here it seems like they keep getting in the way of dealing with the issues raised by the current situation in a reasonable and effective manner.
The world has moved on, and is continuing to do so. The Commonwealth is no longer an extension, but independent, with countries putting their own priorities first. Former backwater agricultural nations and colonies are turning into high tech industrial economies. Trade patterns and alliances emerge, evolve, and shift. Countries that lag in trade, or technology, or productivity suffer. Protectionism becomes less and less effective, and ever more harmful to the instigator, as global trade and technological convergence erode old principles of dominance and manipulation. Adaptability, economic flexibility and global integration leaves governments and overly prescriptive policies farther and farther behind.
In the end, the results are unlikely to be as bad as they might be, nor as good as politicians tend to promise. One should not, however, underestimate the ability of competing political agendas and maneuvers to snatch disaster from the the possibility of a better result.
If the various parties could step back from posturing and selling snake oil, and talk reasonably, it would present a more hopeful picture.
Good luck over there.
Sadly N.I., Ireland, Scotland & Wales will too.
London, N.I. & Scotland voted remain.
Ireland wasn't asked. No consideration given to GFA. Now Tories propped up by DUP (28% of NI 1st preference vote in Assembly and only party campaigned actively for Exit in N.I., as well as ads in UK mainland.) So UK government is partisan in N.I. and ignoring will of majority in Scotland and N.I.
in 1971 the UK was Europe's sick man,... Joining the EU saved the
WE DIDN'T JOIN THE EU IN 1971, WE JOINED THE COMMON MARKET
Jesus on a flying bike, can you people not get your brains in gear long enough to understand what you're commenting on, FFS? We joined the EU (without a referendum, and when opinion polls showed a majority were opposed) as a result of John Major signing the Maastrict treaty in 1992.
The EEC worked, it was useful, it met a need. We would have stayed.
The EU does not work, it is not needed, and it serves only to pamper the vanity of politicians who want to be in control. Of everything.The sooner it dies the better for all of Europe.
" and it is anyone's guess how united the kingdom will be when the dust finishes settling."
Recent YouGov poll:
"Brexit started as a cynical ploy to pander to some segments of the population for votes, by a politician who neither expected it nor wanted it."
Even *that* is an almost generous interpretation. It was as much to do with Cameron keeping the hard-right, Eurosceptic elements *within* his own party within the fold and under control by throwing them a bone. At best it was pandering to stereotypical Tory voters in their heartland in the South East of England.
"Now England will pay a price for such self-serving petty politics"
Wish it was just England- and Wales as well, since they voted for it- that were going to have to suffer the consequences, but Scotland will be facing them too, despite the fact we voted by a *far* larger margin to remain- and worse, that the case for *remaining* in the Union three years ago was our place within the EU might be at risk if we voted for Independence.
I'm certainly glad enough of my countrymen bought that line. Thank f*** our place within the EU is safe because we loyally stuck with LIttle England.
Ditto Northern Ireland. I can guarantee 100% that almost none of the navel-gazing Leavers elsewhere were remotely thinking of NI when they voted, let alone what the consequences would be.
"it is anyone's guess how united the kingdom will be when the dust finishes settling."
"Actually it was the traditionally labour voters in places like the North East who largely voted for leaving the EU. ""
The Leave areas also appear to be those who currently have benefited most from EU grants. They are now slowly realising that the government may not make up the shortfall post-Brexit. Gove has announced the removal of farming subsidies in favour of leaving land fallow and relying more on food imports.
"Actually it was the traditionally labour voters in places like the North East who largely voted for leaving the EU. Much of the Southeast didn't - London, for example."
My fault for not being clearer there. I meant that the motivation for *calling* the referendum in the first place was internal Tory politics and (at most) placating the right-wing element of their own voter base mainly in the English South-East. (#)
I'm well aware- unfortunately- that the Leave vote was carried by disillusioned voters in the patronisingly-named English "regions"- and Wales- using it as much as a protest vote against being ignored by Westminster.
As a Scot who's spent years complaining about the London/English-South-East-centric navel-gazing mindset of Westminster and might otherwise have sympathised on that point, my response is... utter contempt. Seriously, you treated the future of the United Kingdom as a protest vote, a political football to send a "f*** you" to those Tories in London, thinking you were voting "against" them when in fact you were being useful idiots to the worst hard right aspects of that same party (along with those who joined UKIP because the Tories weren't Tory enough)?
F*** *you*. You dragged us all into this, I hope (as predicted) you get the worst of it.
(#) And as much- if not more so- the "Telegraph-reading retired army colonel living in the home counties" types than "metropolitan" Londoners, though I'd still have expected a sizeable percentage of more traditional London Tories to vote leave.
I don't think someone who wants Scotland to leave the UK after 400 years can have anything sensible to say about the UK wanting to leave the EU after 40.
For those that think, going forward, there's nothing to fear about the EU, have a read of this:
All the EU has to offer is ever more nepotism and corruption as its elite - whose total grip on the EU's bureaucracy means they are the masters, today, tomorrow and for the future - share out the spoils.
At the same time as we have the EU's chief clerk appointing his successor, he is writing letters (to Putin) as though he were not an unelected civil servant but a head of state in his own right.
Wish it was just England- and Wales as well, since they voted for it- that were going to have to suffer the consequences,
Vindictive much? You seem to be under the impression that everybody in Wales voted for BRexit.
Hint: We didn't. Just like "The UK voted brexit", but some - like you and me - didn't.
Now England will pay a price for such self-serving petty politics, and it is anyone's guess how united the kingdom will be when the dust finishes settling.
England will be England - for all it's foibles and faults, it's the union that's in dire straits, with both Scotland and now Wales straining at the leash, and N.I. - well it's a mess anyway, merely sanguine 'cause the people are fed up of conflict, although unsure why they keep voting the same extremist morons in when it was the middle of the road parties that actually sorted the agreement - I think maybe they've gotten used to their politicos fighting in their own little playpen and staying out of the way.
"Free of un-elected bureaucrats."
Brexit secretary David Davis has announced a large increase in UK bureaucrats over the next few years.
A spokesperson for Downing Street, at a press briefing after the meeting, said: “Nearly 3,000 new posts have now been created in support of EU exit across government – including in specialist functions.”
This includes 300 lawyers, who have joined the government’s legal department.
The spokesperson added: “The government expects the number of posts to continue to grow next year as we move into the next phase of delivery.
"Free of un-elected bureaucrats"
Which ones? The ones appointed by our elected governments? Those ones? Or do you mean the EU civil servants, which a re clearly much worse than our own unelected civil servants, right? Looks like you swallowed the UKIP nonsense hook line and sinker.
"Free of un-elected bureaucrats. That's a starter for me"
In what world will leaving the EU leave us free of unelected bureaucrats?
The numbers are Bureaucrats employed by the EU 46k employed by the UK 332k. Thats right the UK has 7 times more bereaucrats than the whole of the EU. Many of the EU Bureaucrats will have no dealings or impact on the UK at all so once the UK adds civil servants to deal with things the UE dealt with there will almost certainly be a substantial increase over what we have now.
In terms of 'red tape' I can't point at numbers but I have had to deal with EU and UK regulations and the EU stuff is much shorter and more focussed on what is important and necessary rather than pointless , arbitrary and intrusive like typical UK stuff. The EU also changes and updates regulations less frequently than the UK.
The idea that leaving the UK woudl lead to a bureaucrat and red tape free nirvarna is total fantasy. The reality will be the opposite.
The Brexit referendum is the end result of multiple great acts of stupidity from politicians on all sides.
The EU lot aren't blameless, in that they have viewed Britain as a milch cow to be exploited but largely ignored; the UK lot used the EU as a whipping boy to blame for unpleasant legislation that was necessary and would have been enacted whether the EU was there or not.
UKIP was always only ever a one-trick pony. The one trick UKIP had was to force a referendum; the way to get shut of UKIP permanently was to give it the referendum it wanted (much as the SNP were given their Scottish Independence referendum to shut them up). The trick to all of this wass to get the EU to give Cameron concessions that sounded big, to convince the electorate that he was looking out for them.
In all of this, the EU behaved illogically and frankly rather stupidly. When their second-biggest contributor comes to them asking for a favour to help put down some local anti-EU activists, then cooperation should be the order of the day so as to prevent this sort of foolishness breaking out all over the place. Instead of this, Cameron got the cold shoulder treatment and got no concessions at all; the EU put themselves in a position where it was easy to paint them as uncaring, arrogant foreign would-be overlords. There's a section of the population that is xenophobic, jingoist and really loves attacking foreign politicians.
It was, in effect, absolutely ideal UKIP propaganda material, which they exploited to the full and when "Project Fear" chimed in too strongly, too bluntly and far too late, the idea that the EU were arrogant vermin, the government a bunch of twits and UKIP the party of the common man came to the fore.
Brexit is happening because two lots of politicians who should've known better made a mess of things, and a few grubby populists didn't.
"A whopping 4 1/2p per person in the EU per day."
I bet the EU rounds it up to 5p a day so they can use the extra 1/2p to pay French workers to take 25 hour lunch breaks. That's why they forced us on pain of death to get rid of our beloved 1/2p coin, just like they did with our blue passports! (#)
(#) Disclaimer; this may be utter bullshit. As is the bit about them forcing us to get rid of the 1/2p coin- mainly because I made it up two minutes ago.
So many errors in your comment, Britain is not the second-biggest contributor.
The EU did not viewed Britain as a milch cow to be exploited but largely ignored*.
Nor is it true that "Cameron got the cold shoulder treatment and got no concessions at all".
He did get some concessions, but returning to your claim of "second-biggest contributor" which isn't true, it is "four", it's not how a union could, or should, if democratic, operate.
What if Germany as the biggest contributor could, whenever, ask for new concessions and get them, not to mention France, the second biggest contributor, should they also be able to have whatever concessions they like because of that.
Cameron was stabbed in the back, poor boy, still I am fairly sure he is a decent father, husband and human being, but still a hapless boy. With his face and voice he looked less convincing speaking even the truth than both Farage and Boris not to mention JRM in full rubbish mode.
This is not to say I don't agree with some of your comments.
* if you really believe that I would claim it's because you, like so many Brits, are just totally unused to cooperate with anybody on equal terms, as that has never been required of you before, it was hard even with the Americans during WW2..
"That's the problem with remoaners, they never leave their comfort zone to hear other opinions."
And then there's the Brexiteer heroes galloping to the rescue to save us from the nasty foreigners, whether we like it or not. Take the blinders of and try to see that many people, on both sides, have their own, differing reasons for how they voted. You need a narrower brush.
Agreed, ESA has nothing to do with Brexit. From ESA's own website: https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Welcome_to_ESA/ESA_and_the_EU
> "The European Union (EU) and ESA share a common aim: to strengthen Europe and benefit its citizens. While they are separate organisations, they are increasingly working together towards common objectives. Some 20 per cent of the funds managed by ESA now originate from the EU budget.
> "ESA is an intergovernmental organisation, whereas the EU is supranational. The two institutions have indeed different ranges of competences, different Member States and are governed by different rules and procedures."
"ESA is an intergovernmental organisation, whereas the EU is supranational. The two institutions have indeed different ranges of competences, different Member States and are governed by different rules and procedures."
The issue is not the ESA, the issue is Galileo.
There are currently no high accuracy ICBMs or IRBMs or SLBMs without GNSS support. If you don't have your own GNSS, you don't have an independent nuclear capability.
You do not hand someone else control over your nuclear deterrent.
When the UK chose to become an external party, participation in Galileo became a nuclear security issue, and thus one of the things that nuclear powers take rather seriously.
Participation by an external party in any key elements of Galileo became logically and inevitably unacceptable.
NO ONE should have been surprised by that.
We haven't even looked at the considerations with respect to other military operations and capabilities, such as GNSS guided bombs and artillery shells, GNSS integrated IFF for ground forces, etc.
"ESA is an intergovernmental organisation, whereas the EU is supranational"
ESA contracts are awarded based on a formula heavily dependent on which country provides what percentage of the funding.
The UK hasn't been meeting its obligations in this respect for a long time (and the situation has steadily been getting worse) which has meant that contracts have been going to other countries for some time.
It may be a supranational organisation, but the funding model makes it effectively an EU-controlled organisation.
The Swiss option is not on the table for Brexit negotiations because of Theresa May (and the far-right Brexit mob) and her red lines.
Leaving the EU, the Single Market and the Customs Union makes us a third party to all these.
Once the UK goes beyond the point of no return at the end of March next year, we will finally see how the EU treats a third party in negotiations. It won't be pretty for the UK.
I have no doubt Britain can and will apply to join again but ESA is not just financed by member states but also through the EU budget so things do change with Brexit.
I would however advice Davis to be a bit more careful with his mouth at home, the other day he was there again with "Britain could refuse to pay EU £40 divorce bill, theoretically,", things like that hardly add to his credibility in the EU.
I am also fairly convinced he knows the "nothing is agreed before everything is agreed" is true only if both parties agree to change something previously agreed. I suppose he is grinning for the home front as before, though.
"Well I believe that we are the only country to develop orbital capability and then kill it off..."
I wonder what sort of funding, if any, Reaction Engines Ltd will get? I can see them upping sticks and moving, lock stock and barrel, to where the money is.
"we are the only country to develop orbital capability and then kill it off..."
We actually officially killed it off BEFORE the first launch was achieved.
The launch was a case of "Well, we've almost completed the job now, so let's go ahead and do it anyway"
"We used to have one. Google blue streak. Cancelled by the usual short sighted politicians who thought sucking up to the USA was a better idea."
Blue Streak continued to fly up until 1972, as the first stage of Europa which was, a bit of usual national politicking aside, pretty much the Farnborough designed Black Prince built by a European consortium. That work lead to Ariane. Effectively, as ever, when faced with relatively modest costs the UK government bailed out before the payback point. A story that can be seen to happen over and over again.
Of course it is. We are deliberately cutting ourselves off from a huge market right on our doorstep.
If you work with this stuff in Stevenage (BAE) or even at Surrey Uni in Guildford then you should be wary about making long term plans.
As for the 'security' reasons... Well it is clear to me that the EU wants to take over European Defence from NATO. Understandable given the behaviour of POTUS.
Then we will be on our own. Well, we voted for it. We had better get used to this sort of news.
Good times if you are in the Pan European removal busness though.
I wonder if the leader of the Opposition will dare say something about this ar PMQ's?
Re:If you work with stuff you should be planning to move abroad.
Except the 19th March green-highlighted draft negotiations document seems to have accepted that freedoms to travel and work and have family life ‘abroad’ (EU-MS) stops at midnight end of 2020. [frozen status, you can continue to stay in the country where you are economically active, probably?]
If you have a language, a masters degree , then you must go now to start establishing rights, you will likely only get a working residence card for a single EU country after a few years of residence. You may need a visa to cross from DK to DE, and another one to then go to AT, and it will need to be a multiple entry, if you need to return.
Hopefully, some further working rights might be negotiated before October, I think there will remain many job opportunities for skilled UK workers, but the bureaucracy could be a killer.
I started work in NL in January 1992, on the start of the single market, and things have worked out well.
Disclaimer: I work for [a small quiet bit of] the EC and have no idea what everyone is up to!
I’m personally quite neutral on the whole brexit debacle, as since at least the late 1950’s the UK has honestly been politically divided on the level of integration into the whole European project.
Galileo will be quite important in the future smarter things, if we get them working, and it makes GPS no-longer a single-point of failure. Good luck.
"Galileo will be quite important in the future smarter things, if we get them working, and it makes GPS no-longer a single-point of failure. Good luck."
Most current GPS systems lock to GPS and GLONASS, and would likely keep functioning, with slower lock times, and likely with reduced accuracy, if either failed.
Looking forward to adding Galileo to the mix! That should reduce location error by more than 66%... my GPS will finally be sure which lane I am in.
"If you have a language, a masters degree , then you must go now to start establishing rights, you will likely only get a working residence card for a single EU country after a few years of residence."
Some of the most critical staff in the space arena have neither. Engineering matters just as much as the theory.
Well it is clear to me that the EU wants to take over European Defence from NATO.
Given their unwillingness to spend any budget on defence, unwillingness to co-operate with the UK or USA and a process that allows a parish council in Walloonia to veto any decision - pass the popcorn
If you work with this stuff in Stevenage (BAE)
AIRBUS Defence and Space in Stevenage and Portsmouth.
or even at Surrey Uni in Guildford
SSTL at Surrey Research Park. It's off the campus down past Tesco near the student accommodation. It's also part of Airbus Defence and Space. They built Giove-A which was the first Galileo test bird. Giove B was partly built by Stevenage when it was still Astrium.
Neville Swinebucket, Member for Much-Widdling-in-the-Cut:"When will the prime minister next visit her constituency?"
PM:"I refer my honorable colleague to the answer I gave previously."
Swinebucket:"I have a follow-up question: Regarding Project Galileo. WTF???!!!???"
Cries of "Shame! Shame!" from the opposition back bench.
"If you work with this stuff in Stevenage (BAE) or even at Surrey Uni in Guildford then you should be wary about making long term plans."
Or at any of the UK's other space science establishments. (MSSL, RAL, Harwell, etc)
The future of most ESA-partnered programs appears doubtful, despite soothing noises from Whitehall. The UK has been felt to be laggardly in its contributions for a long time and this is a perfect opportunity to get rid of it. The academics can easily find work elsewhere but engineering staff are a lot harder to replace or rehome and their knowledge plus experience is absolutely critical. Lose them and you put things back 20+ years.
>As for the 'security' reasons... Well it is clear to me that the EU wants to take over European Defence from NATO.
The EU might want the power and the glory, or at least the money. I had hoped people had not forgotten already how EU reacted to the Balkans war: total paralysis until the US and Russia moved in on what essentially is the European back yard. We need not repeat the jokes about French war heroes but we might consider EU war heroes. And before anyone starts mounting their high horse of outrageousness, please remember Srebrenica.
>Understandable given the behaviour of POTUS.
That is a thin excuse about one US president who will be out of office at the latest in 7 years.
"That is a thin excuse about one US president who will be out of office at the latest in 7 years."
Seven years is a long time. The fact alone that the US *chose* to elect a guy like Trump- knowing what he was like in advance (or intentionally ignoring that)- is bad enough. This also ignores that it's quite possible they'd elect someone else along similar lines after his second term- maybe even one of his odious sons, who knows?
Or maybe not, but regardless, it sends out the signal that the US is no longer as reliable or as stable an ally as it once might have been, and people need to plan accordingly.
"This also ignores that it's quite possible they'd elect someone else along similar lines"
Entirely possible. I just read that he is more popular now than Obama was at the same point in his first term.
There are a lot of people in the US who like what he says*, and additional millions who regard him as a necessary evil, given the alternatives. In another ten years, we may have enough information to judge.
It was clear by the time the primaries were winding down that there would be no good choices available.
*note that a lot of Americans don't understand the real world any better than a lot of British politicians... they just make different mistakes.
Hello, Mr Desk. Meet Mr Head.
Hello, Mr Head Meet Mr Desk.
Repeat until clinically braindead. At which point you can get a job in the the DExEU.
You'd *almost* think some people loudly reminded these simians what was likely to happen if they started down this road, and they put their hands over their ears and shouted "la la la blue passports!"
Well, we now have a company with the classic anglo-saxon name "De La Rue" throwing a tantrum because it is (probably) not getting a free hand to name its price from the UK taxpayer. Something of the Ryanair business model.
Didn't the old passports have some kind of inspirational slogan on? "Dieu et mon Droit" springs to mind.
throwing a tantrum because it is (probably) not getting a free hand to name its price from the UK taxpayer.
No, it's throwing a fit because the French wouldn't give it their passport business on the grounds of "national security", yet UK civil servants are happy to give the UK's business to a French company.
Either "national security" is a problem (which I doubt) and the UK should not be going to France, or this is just French protectionism-as-usual, in which case we shouldn't be supporting them.
Either way there are some civil servants that need their collective arse kicked.
>No, it's throwing a fit because the French wouldn't give it their passport business on the grounds of "national security", yet UK civil servants are happy to give the UK's business to a French company.
>Either "national security" is a problem (which I doubt) and the UK should not be going to France, or this is just French protectionism-as-usual, in which case we shouldn't be supporting them.
>Either way there are some civil servants that need their collective arse kicked.
Except the French still produce their passports in-house, so can do them how they want. We outsourced the printing of passports (IIRC in 1996 with the privatization of the stationary office). Once outsourced, the government has two options - insource (against the Tory dogma) or put the contract up for competitive tender.
And those rules that make us put things up for tender... they originally come from the WTO.
Re: National Security problem related to secure biometric passports.
There was a transient and speculative news item in a minor security journal that postulated the wild rumour that a large antipodean country was contracted to produce the ePass for North Korean officials, 200K of 'em.
The heinous article suggested, obviously falsely, that 200K + "n" were produced instead, with the overproduction being handed to the highly trustworthy(*) South Korean intelligence service.
This lead, to the possibility, not a probability, that agents of the South could do something, anything, drastic somewhere, anywhere - yet leave a valid digital secure biometric NORK trail. (probably NOT this event? **)
Presumably UK doesnt do False Flags, or suffer from an opponent, any opponent, being able to do the same to blighty. Hence we can outsource our secure biometric documents to the lowest bidder on the planet. All highly conjecturous and probably made up, but . . .?
You mean the same blue passports that the UK *could* have retained *if* it hadn't made the choice of its own volition to use the standardised but non-mandated EU format ?
You mean blue passports like the ones that Croatia- an EU member- has? You mean the blue-coloured passports that were imposed on "us" by the League of Nations in the first place?
The ones that it was obvious the lying scum who chose to play political football with the future of the UK over such trivialities were going to use as their flag-bearer for "taking back control", even though it was "our" own f*****g choice in the first place?
Yeah, I thought so.
I'd like to be able to make a joke about where they should have their newly-manufactured blue passports inserted once they're shipped over from France, but frankly there's nothing funny about any of this any more.
What plan? There is a plan?
The current plan seems to be pick a fantasy, and keep asking for it and telling people you will get it for them, until you absolutely have to accept that you won't get it, declare a victory, then pick another fantasy.
Also, never, ever pay attention to reality until it manages to mug you in a dark meeting room.
It's easy to find out how that will go : just look at any divorce where the guy walks out on the faithful woman.
First, there will be the shouting about how unfair it all is, with the EU reminding the UK that it's its own fault (current step in progress).
Then there will be petty revenge and pathetic pleas to "let me in just this one time", which will be denied (as they should be).
Over time, there will come the chilling realization that you're on your own now, deal with it.
Whether that realization will come under a bridge with a bottle, or in a new appartment - well, time will tell.
<i.It's easy to find out how that will go : just look at any divorce where the guy walks out on the faithful woman.</i>
Except that in this case there wasn't a faithful woman any more, just the in-laws who never wanted the marriage in the first place. Right now they're refusing access to the children, but those children will grow up and have their own opinons.
@Pascal "Whether that realization will come under a bridge with a bottle, or in a new appartment - well, time will tell."
Often, when that point is reached the desperate bloke goes to a singles club or somewhere equally dreadful and picks up anyone lacking knicker elastic, who is willing to accept a drink.
What does that bode for the UK?
The UK will have to turn to stripping - at least it's not prostitution.
That is until some rich creep offers enough money to go home with them - just this once!. it'll be enough money to change their life, to stop stripping and live a good life.
Or so they tell themselves, but they go back to stripping anyway. And when the next creep offers them money, even tho it's less this time, they'll go home with him to. And since the money is less, they'll do it again, until they turn to full blown prostitution, probably entering the porn industry to do films.
And when that happens, they'll have to put out for powerful people, like Donald Trump.
It's easy to find out how that will go : just look at any divorce where the guy walks out on the faithful woman...
You missed the bit about finding exciting new international relationships. Only to find that it's Ursula from the Ukraine or Ting Tong from Thailand who seem interested. Then eventually discovering that they aren't really interested in you and only want to extract as much money from you as they can.
Not sure whether this would apply to Galileo (or, to be honest whether I've even remembered correctly) but I think that, for example, ESA funding is based on a certain substantial fraction (or maybe all) of each countries contribution being spent back in that country by ESA. So, if this is the case, then a starting negotiating position from the EU would be that we've already fully or near fully benefited to the amount of our contribution so that's that.
ESA and Galileo are very different even though it is the same basic industry:
All of the countries that pay in to ESA get a moderately equal share of that back via contracts and staff employment, and generally all projects are open to all members to bid. Provided the UK does not do anything even more stupid like stopping this, we still get to bid.
Galileo was driven by EU political goals to be independent of the USA/Russia/China (a later comer) in the area of precision navigation and timing. AFIK there is requirements from the very start of the project that for any work on Galileo (certainly anything to do with the security system) to be an EU national. The UK was part of the process that originally created this. Shortly we will not be EU nationals.
Remind me again why is anyone surprised at this news?
As I understand it the structure is not as straightforward as you'd think at first. The EU has funded Galileo and then appointed the European Space Agency as one of the main 'contractors' (probably not the best word but it comes close). The ESA is not strictly an EU organisation but ever closely aligned, with ESA and EU coordinating their activities through a Joint Secretariat.
This means that the relationship is not as simple as it could be. Not all EU members are members of ESA and not all ESA members or associates are in the EU (Norway and Canada for instance).
The UK might stay in ESA post-Brexit to try and keep some lucrative deals for its industry but outside of the EU those deals will not be as good as those for EU members. Particularly not for Galileo as that is purely an EU project, managed and paid for by the EU. They will want the core to be operated by and available to EU members only.
In the long run it may mean that people working in aerospace in Britain need to start considering relocating to Aerospace Valley in Toulouse (if they can get a work permit). Not a bad move, great city, better weather, better food, better housing and better overall quality of life.
"Remind me again why is anyone surprised at this news?"
Because we were only getting rid of the bad bits of the EU. Bits like the ECJ which provided a modicum of restraint on some of the more swivel-eyed ideas of various govts. But we were then supposed to get an agreement which allowed us to keep all the good bits. It's absolutely unbelievable that the EU should take on like this.
think the last 'negotiator' that had a sufficiently large pair to gain anything from the EU was Maggie
Maybe initially when it came to the rebate but her strategy became obvious and the rest worked around it. This meant Britain thought it got crowd-pleasing exemptions but was actually being excluded from the good stuff. This worked so well that they stuck with it all the way to the referendum.
So the Europeans will be refunding what we’ve paid so far?
If we refund the amount that was paid for work done in the UK.
These projects are all pork-barrel, you pay X% you get (X-bit)% of the work, small countries get the %bit.
Overall it costs a lot more because some system that makes up 50% of the budget has to be built by 5 different 10% partners, small parts are normally just duplicated.
... rather it is expected to lose a wheel or two. Having worked on a few pan-European projects I am not worried. It is mostly about pork barrelling money to own industries while doing as little as possible. Even Russia has been able to restart Glonass while Galileo is a collection of hope and aspiration but nowhere as operational as GPS. And with operational I also mean things like cryptographic key handling.
The UK has been instrumental in making actual physical things as opposed to endless Power Point presentations. Even with drop shadows it will not help you drive your car.
There are also uncomfortable questions unanswered about who will control the switch for denying the various capabilities, or service levels, in Galileo.
So chances are the UK will get back in.
"There are also uncomfortable questions unanswered about who will control the switch for denying the various capabilities, or service levels, in Galileo."
Almost certainly someone in the EU - nothing else would make any sense at all.
Critical military and civil infrastructure has to be protected from outsiders.
>Almost certainly someone in the EU
That is so blindingly obvious I did not even think it would be necessary to point it out. The issue rather is which country. It is unlikely to be a part of the EU since the Srebrenica massacre shows beyond doubt the reaction time is too slow. From my time in the defence industry the rumours were that France was making a push for it to "safeguard" the European safety and security on behalf of the lesser members of the EU.
I think the UK Government will try and stay in the ESA and UK companies may still be able to be involved in some parts of Galileo. Galileo is, however, an EU project that the ESA is paid by the EU to implement so I would expect the strategic parts of development, control and maintenance to be reserved for EU members.
Similarly one should expect the switching of the various capabilities, deciding who gets access to what etc. to be done at EU level, not at ESA level. The key decisions (is third country X a reliable enough partner of the EU to give them XYZ?) will likely have to be taken by the Council and Parliament.
There are also uncomfortable questions unanswered about who will control the switch for denying the various capabilities
The USA, that was the agreement for their promising not to simply jam it or shoot it down.
IIRC, the actual deal struck with the US to appease them was putting the Galileo frequencies far enough from the GPS frequencies that the US could jam Galileo without affecting GPS.
"I think the UK Government will try and stay in the ESA"
I don't have much confidence that they will and less that they'll succeed.
The best outcome of stuff like this is that enough Brexit shit hits the fan over the next few months that enough MPs realise they have to demand another referendum and that a sufficient number of previously non-voting remainers vote whilst a few disillusioned leavers decide to stay at home.
>The best outcome of stuff like this is that enough Brexit shit hits the fan over the next few months that enough MPs realise they have to demand another referendum and that a sufficient number of previously non-voting remainers vote whilst a few disillusioned leavers decide to stay at home.
A not insignificant number of older majority-Leave voters have already shuffled off the voter register. A lot of younger, mostly remain voters have joined it. Demographics has probably removed most of the majority without anyone having to change their mind.
I don't think the government have thought that far ahead. It's like their ideological decision to leave Euratom without bothering to consider the consequences for the UK's energy security, the supply of radioisotopes and our non proliferation obligations. AFAIK the negotiations on that haven't even been timetabled yet.
Why should space be any different?
OK so I received 19 down votes on a topic I used to work on for quite a few years. This has me intrigued. I would appreciate if any one of you guys could clarify the following issues:
- ESA is not part of EU, why should the UK leave ESA?
- ESA is contracted to work on Galileo, why should contracts be redrafted retrospectively? Having worked on aerospace and defence contract for a few years I can assure you that these contracts are large and that in spite of all the jokes about UK politicians the UK legal experts actually working on the contacts are quite competent. So why should EU cut off and violate existing signed contracts?
- Galileo is not progressing well. Success requires skills, and many of these are found in the UK. Denying UK experience is not going to make Galileo leap forward, so how will the EU take it forward without major delays, breaching further commitments?
- A lot of technologies involved are protected by patents held by British companies. Why should they let EU use their technologies without compensation such as work contracts?
I am not British and have no nationalistic flag to wave. Nor am I a EU citizen so I do not have a pony in this race. I have just been a student in the UK for some years and I have worked for years in this field so I am just really curious.
Brexit is a cluster-fuck of apocalyptic proportions, the only redeeming factor is the people who voted for it are going to be worst off.
The way I see it - It's like a blind man trying to give directions to a deaf man.. it had some funny elements to start with, but now, its just fucking stupid.
I shouldn't worry about it for too long, by the look of it they both bought autonomous cars..
Its going to end in tears but who the hell cares? By the time anything moves we'll be more worried about rising sea levels/Trump II/Putin III/Deccan Traps 2.0 (delete as applicable).
Rising sea levels will totally spoil the old joke..
Kiss me somewhere warm wet and smelly..
Sorry love, Canvey Island is looong gone..
On reflection that's probably not a bad thing.
It seems true that France was less willing to hand control of their defence over to the Americans. What is odd is that many in the UK seem comfortable with it.
Well the jury has brought their decision on this one: France has a working nuclear aircraft carrier and carrier aircraft for it. UK does not.
EU tech companies screaming out for investment and we give them Brexit as a reason to take it to them. Isn't the first, won't be the last.
Still kind of scuppers Number 10's 'center of technical excellence' crap that Teresa Dis'May keeps harping on about. When the EU are doing what the EU do, play behind the walls of fortress Europe.
We need a 'state the bleeding obvious', 'saw this coming' type icon.
I expect the day before Galileo goes live with a full constellation, someone might announce the Antipodean version that uses pulsars that are already out there as the main clock ticks. Such a theoretical system would use far more complicated maths but what is the difference between a 12th order 3d polar polynomial and an 18th order when it also works on the moon as well as Proxima b?
The very ironic thing for the Galileo consortium is the fact they tweaked Dr Parkinson's Navstar (aka US GPS) system just enough that the chipsets have to isolate the pulsar pulses in hardware lest they get confused. Those pulses have been used to measure RF energy patterns from pulsars to map parts of distant stars down to about 2 meters. There is also the real world issue that it is very hard to jam signals that smart phones can pick up inside even with something on the order of -450 db signal loss.
The difference is that GPS/Galileo broadcast a time and position signature on a defined frequency. Pulsars MAY become useful for space navigation, but you'll never get centimetre level precision from them because the location of the source and the time offset are not as precisely known. If you have centimetre level precision (which GPS, even in Block III form - which currently isn't due to go live until around 2023 - can't match) then you can use the system then you can use it for precision airfield approaches or automated vehicles.
You may well be right that pulsars will never achieve the accuracy needed for some important applications.
Improvements in accuracy with Galileo look like they will make it quite a bit more useful than GPS for some things, including precision vehicle navigation.
On the other hand, a friend of mine who uses such stuff tells me that certain GPS receivers, given a short stationary time to refine data, can achieve cm level accuracy... very useful for surveying.
"One of them looks to be drifting off into the Irish Sea."
This is one of the more hopeful aspects because of the DUP's likely reaction and May's need to avoid that. It could be the issue that politically* derails the whole thing. To think that I'm actually looking forward to the DUP doing something useful!
* AFAICS it would need to be derailed politically. Logic and reality aren't going to have any effect on these clowns.
including the key secure elements which the UK has unique specialisms in and have helped to design and implement.
Would they be those Majestic Algorithms? ... that Following COSMIC Source Supply for Lead with AIDirections Shared in the Likes of Now Here in Simple Plain Text for Transcription and Engagement with Similar Bodies Mastering the Sowing and Reaping of Immaculate Almighty Bounties ...... in Furtherance of a Lien on Payment for Guaranteed Perfect Future Shows? :-) .... Mark BofE Carney Pay Grade Stuff to Mull Over/Ruminate On and then Sign Up the Program that Succeeds and Never Fails Badly or Sadly.
Hmmmm ‽ .
We choose to go with AIMars. We choose to go with AIMars in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too. ..... :-) which is not quite copied from here .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon
Methinks there's at least a Similarity and Singularity at Greater IntelAIgent Play there.
What's says IBM Watson on the TranSubStantiation Station ...... a Great Creative Melting Pot in the Sky Beaming Down Magic Rays and Dream Waves to Sun Worshippers ..... AIgents of Light for the Turning On of Darker Forces and Deeper Sources.
Capiche, Amigo? Are you AIReady to Rumble and Deliver Merry Mayhem to Monolithic Markets? A Consequence of their not being Reflective of Future Markets .... and that may just be because they are totally unaware and perfectly unprepared for Rapid Transition to Alien Landscapes with Virtual Terrain Teams Streaming New Programming Models which Supply Easy Access to Command and Control Centres of Future Imaginative Source.... which I will assure you, is an Almighty COSMIC Force too.
Or are you really busy doing something else for someone else if not solely for oneself.
UKGBNI does have some Sterling Stirling Shenanigans in Stores to Explore and Assess for Grand Global Release. One wouldn't want to be thought reckless and always rushing into things, for too much AIMagical Excitement can easily kill you, and the thrill/shill.
You might like to consider, for immediate practical and virtual realisation, Secret IntelAIgent Servering Services are Offering Moribund Systems a Novel NEUKlearer HyperRadioProACTive Command with a Mutually Beneficial AI Rewarding Control with Contracts via Contacts.
The government has been clear that we want our critical role in this important project, which will help strengthen European security, to continue as we develop our deep and special partnership with the EU.
Translation: Wah Wah Wah, I don't want to be your friend or come to your house any more, but I still want to play with your toys. Muuummmmyyyy, they're being mean to meeeeee, waaaaaaah!
At the end of the day, Galileo is supposed to be a military/security system (with commercial use secondary). Outside the EU (as it's an EU military/security system) we will by default get the same access as everyone else. Remember that part of the reason was that GPS is a US military system, and access to it could be withdrawn at any time.
The fact we have spent money on it matters very little. We funded an EU programme, then decided we didn't want to be part of the EU. As with everything, people are now screaming "But we wanted to be part of that bit, just not the rest!" and "The EU are being so mean to us!" when, truthfully, anyone with an ounce of common sense expected this.
>Two words; "Beagle 2"
That it failed was more attributable to the funding bodies than Colin PIlinger's team.
You can't suddenly make scads of money available far too late for anything other than the prototypes to be sent (no time to build flight models) and expect miracles. Knowing the provenance of the airbag (used for prototype testing, patched, badly overweight and still containing atmospheric moisture when packed for flight) I'm surprised that it didn't leave a deep impact crater, let alone manage to partially open its shell. It probably hit hard enough to bust a gear, which is a hell of a lot less hard than I was expecting.
The general population is not equipped to make big decisions like Brexit. They have neither the experience, nor relevant education for it. There is a reason why you have governments elected in charge of making these tough decisions on your behalf.
This should NOT have been a referendum, left up to the common ignorant rabble to decide.
No - I think the point is that the general population can (and will) vote on a matter for spurious reasons. “I don’t like Cameron, he says vote X so I’ll vote Y”.
That’s the voter’s right. But what comeback does anyone have? Whereas if an elected representative acts like an idiot they can be voted out of office. That’s the difference.
We vote for representatives in the expectation (hope?) that they act in a certain manner. They lose their job if they don’t accord with that expectation. Democracy is for everyone*. It’s just that we shouldn’t vote on everything first hand.
* with some small exceptions ofc
> Democracy - only for the elite. Right?
I don't consider myself too much of an idiot, but there're plenty of subjects I feel I should have zero say in, purely because I comprehend my sheer lack of grasp of them.
If by 'elite' you mean those best placed to make specific decisions within the domain of their elitedom, then sure - pass the votes along! If you biliously spat 'elite' out when writing that, then no, I don't think I agree with that, or with you.
I header an apt example.
A group of 10 people are asked to come up with specs for a new car. There is one engineer from the car industry, the rest being from a wide variety of background with no detailed knowledge of car design or manufacture.
After much discussion, they all agree that they want a cheap car, with lots of power and very economical. The specs that they decide on are:
- Produces 500BHP
- Does 100mpg
- Costs £10,000 OTR
The engineer tells them it's not possible to meet their spec, but the rest of them vote in favour, giving 90% of the vote to it.
The democratic will of the people is that the design should go ahead. But, in this instance, the 10% vote (from the person who actually knows about the subject) should carry more weight.
>The general population is not equipped to make big decisions like Brexit.
Attitudes like this is what brought us Brexit in the first place and also Trump.
>They have neither the experience, nor relevant education for it.
Yet British education is considered pretty good. BTW I am not British, I just attended one of your universities since, well, British education is considered pretty good. And I don't regret my going there though the university fees were eye watering large.
>There is a reason why you have governments elected in charge of making these tough decisions on your behalf.
As long as this attitude remains and until we see some introspection Brexit (and also Trump) will be with us. My hunch is that Trump will be reelected, as things progress nowhere.
Also, at what point should you permit the "rabble" to act? Perhaps they should not even be allowed to elect the government either? Extrapolating yor line of thought leads us to unpleasant places.
There is a large difference between deciding on who will represent you in parliament and deciding on a highly complex issue directly.
Personally, I don't speak of intelligence. However, what most people lack in such big decisions is in-depth knowledge of the situation. Most people I spoke to, on either side of the Brexit debate, had very little understanding of the complex situations involved. They relied mostly on the information provided by the press and the politicians. There were also many leave voters I spoke to who were "fed up of the experts", so ignored all those who did have an in-depth understanding of the situation.
I will admit, I am no expert. I did attempt to gather as many facts as possible before making my decision, from all sides of the argument, experts, and from raw data. It made my head swim, but it was necessary for me to make an informed decision. The vast majority of people I have spoken to didn't.
This is why I believe the referendum was a mistake. It's nothing to do with the intelligence of those voting, but that the sheer volume of information you need to read and make sense of to understand the issues involved makes it near impossible for the average person to make an informed decision. They will, in the main, vote with their heart rather than their head, which rarely produces optimal results in the long term.
"It's nothing to do with the intelligence of those voting, but that the sheer volume of information you need to read and make sense of to understand the issues involved makes it near impossible for the average person to make an informed decision."
Fully agree with that. It's because many issues are complex and time-consuming to study that we, as voters, have decided to contract the detailed decision-making out to our MPs (parliamentary democracy). If we do want to use a referendum (direct democracy) than we should also make the effort to inform ourselves in some detail. That's feasible for relatively straightforward issues but not for something as complex as this with manifold, often unexpected, aspects. In short, the right to vote comes with the obligation to inform yourself and consider all aspects of the issue at hand.
No, they shouldn't be tried for being stupid / wrong, they should be tried for giving succour to the enemy for all the division and strife they've caused.
But seeing as it's going to end up as a totalitarian state, if TM gets her way, they won't be held to account for anything. John Major was right. Bastards.
This is the UK version of the look on the Congresspersons' faces when, having scrapped the 30-year old and hence obsolete space shuttle launch platform and confined the US Manned Space Effort to lifting in 44 year old and hence state-of-the-art Soyuz vehicles, they were told the Russians were going to react to a spate of negativity from the USA by taking their space ball home.
Classic, and bleeding obvious to everyone but those at the helm.
Co-incidentally, AMC ran "A Night To Remember" last night. I'm now envisioning the UK Govt standing on a capsized collapsible lifeboat with the PM standing at the front yelling which way for everyone to lean so they don't all end up cold, wet and dead.
In this vision, Farage is the one dressed in a fur coat sitting some miles away in a lifeboat, safe and sound, listening to the screams of the drowning steerage passengers.
Is this actually a thing yet?
I did come up with a design for a GPS-less parcel tracking system, that is patentable but unfortunately can't develop it due to an annoyance called the Invention Secrecy Act.
Very similar concept and can make it work using less than £1 worth of parts, has a neural network based on a very *very* cheap micro but with some tweaks to get adaptive navigation even indoors.
The fiddly part is optimizing code for low power and high accuracy at the same time.
I estimate based on measurements here that it should be accurate to +/- 75m minimum but thats fine for most applications when in fact 300 metres is more than good enough.
If anyone wants to know more I can be contacted via my backup number ie +44 778* ******
You forgot about grants. Open calls *are* open to British participation, but only for projects that can be completed by June(?) 2019. Future calls are not expected to be open to UK participants.
On the plus side, the UK will still be able to benefit from EGNOS, albeit not having a say in it.
The Germans are ahead too. But in a way I have given up regarding this "world-leading" sentence, it seems to be "hardwired" into the British mind and education since a long time ago and I doubt any other Europeans have it as "hardwired" as the Brits.
I suppose one reason is how British history is read and written, as world history, so that when a Brit writes about the world's first war correspondent I should understand it's not the worlds first but the first in British history. Still it's a bit funny. And this reflex seems to pop up all the time, Britain, the "fifth or sixth wealthiest country", will that turn into the "fifth or sixth or seventh wealthiest country" in due time.
On this thread we already had the "second biggest contributor to thee EU", and some time ago there was the "second biggest contributor to the UN".
You work it out, it should not annoy me, but when you start to spot it, it's sort of disturbing.
Lars, 180cm or 200cm of world leading height
Reminds me of Beyond the Fringe; Alan Bennett's minister for science (?) proudly announcing that Britain already has the world's second largest radio-telescope. And will soon have the world's third and fourth largest. And all with the same equipment!
> Not feeling so patriotic now, are you Brexit-voting idiots?
Oi! What is it with the insults and the aggressive tone?
That was precisely the sort of shenanigans that likely prevented the vote to be decided on a rational basis¹. You are not helping there mate.
¹ And led to having an ill-planned vote in the first place.
""Now England will pay a price for such self-serving petty politics"
I think you mean the United Kingdom. (The bit I live in voted Remain and will pay a price for England's self-serving petty politics)"
The bit I live in is in England and voted Remain, heavily, as we don't want to see jobs thrown away for no quantifiable tangible benefit, dont want to walk away from our friends and neighbours, dont see why EU citizens who came and made their homes here in good faith should now be treated like second class citizens, dont see why we should lose rights we've had for pretty much all of our lives (especially as PM said she would protect rights), etc etc etc.
Before someone says "bubble", yes, I do know some who voted Leave. One is an out and out bigot; one believed Farage on "Norway" and several more believed that with Farage/Hannan/Patterson/Johnson all saying or implying we'd stay in Single Market meant that is what would happen - EEA. Only the first one is happy with how things are going.
Seems that Galileo has a fatal flaw: the atomic clocks are in the process of failing.
It appears that of the four clocks three (on one sat) have failed and this seems to be a systemic problem.
Hopefully this is a minor glitch because problem seems to be clock drift not outright failure but in terms of navigation accuracy its not a good thing.
I did wonder if the problem might be mechanical: the Rb modules have an annoying problem where Rb vapor condenses elsewhere and isn't available for use but with earthbound clocks this is fixable with a very minor repair.
The EC moved to bar UK firms from Galileo procurements immediately after the Brexit vote but the wording of new draft contracts was not entirely clear as to the status of UK subcontractors. Even now, the EC has been vague about effect of the transition period and the whole affair leaves Galileo in an extremely difficult position as regards ongoing development. Essentially, they don't have plans/options to replace UK suppliers and the move of facilities out of the UK represents contract changes for which existing suppliers are demanding huge compensation.
>The EC moved to bar UK firms from Galileo procurements immediately after the Brexit vote
Did they actually bar UK firms or just talk about it? I would be interested to see the legal basis for doing this. Since nobody expected Brexit there is no reason to expect contracts had provisions for this.
>but the wording of new draft contracts was not entirely clear as to the status of UK subcontractors.
Playing the FUD card is easier as most newspapers cannot tel the difference between talking and doing.
>Even now, the EC has been vague about effect of the transition period and the whole affair leaves Galileo in an extremely difficult position as regards ongoing development.
Very true. These skills are not available everywhere, same with intellectual property rights of which there are many.
>Essentially, they don't have plans/options to replace UK suppliers and the move of facilities out of the UK represents contract changes for which existing suppliers are demanding huge compensation.
That is more what I would have expected.
"your shit at politics"
translation - you don't post endless flag-waving drivel supporting insane decisions.
Good to see the obligatory brexit fan immediately going for "remoaner" and "shit" as an example of letting us know how great brexit will be and demonstrating his wit.
@Edward Kenworthy; "You seem to have left your "Funded by The European Union" logo off your web site."
@Edward Kenworthy; "Stick to the tech, cos your [sic] shit at politics"
You're obviously shit at grammar, stick to the... well, for your sake I hope you're good at something.
@Uncle Slacky; "Good grammar is the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit."
Or, just as likely, "Good grammar is the difference between knowing your shit and not knowing you're shit."
"One condition that they are already signalling on general trade is that the UK job market, especially the higher ranked jobs, would have to be opened up to their nationals."
That could well be one of the few positives from Brexit.
Britain at the higher levels is much too dominated by the members of a rather small number of families who have been to a small number of schools and predominantly one university. The irony being that had Eton and Oxford been taken out of the Conservative Party, Brexit probably wouldn't have happened.
Since the US dropped Selective Availability the case for a separate EU positioning system is less obvious unless it is seen in the context of establishing EU 'me-too' political credentials against GPS, BDS and GLONASS, The UK could save a shitload of money by remaining with GPS despite sunk costs in Galileo. We hardly need reminding that we are both family and long term strategic partners of the USA - Europeans by geography rather than nature. Out of the EU we will need to strengthen our ties for our own security - financially and militarily. Trade is global but if there is a conflict I know who I would prefer to stand alongside.
"Since the US dropped Selective Availability the case for a separate EU positioning system is less obvious"
Galileo is more accurate than GPS. The Galileo constellation covers more of the sky, especially in northern latitudes compared to the US-centric GPS system so it's easier to get a lock in built-up areas in European cities which are somewhat shaded from the various positioning satellites already in orbit.
>Galileo is more accurate than GPS. The Galileo constellation covers more of the sky
Given that GPS has a full constellation and Galileo has only 14 of 30 satellites operational I must really question your statement regarding accuracy as well as coverage.
Secondly Galileo has 56° inclination vs 55° inclination for GPS. PLEASE explain to me how this difference and the orbit radius makes such a big difference over GPS.
The us can encrypt it for sure.. as they regularly do when doing operations, or turn it off.
Basically, in 30 years, when most of the things run using satellite positioning they could make outrageous demands should they want to, or diminish the quality of the signal in your region, etc etc.
The SA is a capability the state they have removed. Now, how do you know? do you have the source code? the diagrams? I doubt it...
>The us can encrypt it for sure.. as they regularly do when doing operations, or turn it off.
L2 is encrypted all the time, please let me know when you last heard it was unencrypted.
Also I would like to know when the US last turned off the GPS system. The US is commercially so dependent on a functioning GPS that they cannot afford to turn it off. And that is why SA was turned off back in Clinton's days.
"L2 is encrypted all the time, please let me know when you last heard it was unencrypted."
IIRC, they were having enough GPS problems when they invaded Iraq that they turned off encryption to make their systems more reliable.
I'll have to look that up again for details.
"Snout of UK space forcibly removed from EU satellite trough."
Who put the swill in the trough in the first place? Where does that come from?
The EU is depriving itself from further funding of a project that is to go 50% over budget, so are cutting off their noses to spite their face.
"The EU is depriving itself from further funding of a project that is to go 50% over budget, so are cutting off their noses to spite their face."
This is the EU that failed to handle the recession and has put itself into numerous self made crises. The EU set up to negotiate trade but struggles to do so with an exiting member that already meets trade standards. This seems par the course.
Why are the gov surprised by EU actions that are bad for the UK?
.. Obv I know why, the gov are clueless fantasists that my cat could outsmart at will .
As (for a mix of racist, clueless & protest vote reasons) UK (although obv some areas e.g. Scotland didn't) voted to leave EU.
It is not in interests of EU to give UK a good deal
.. Given that there is populist (AKA racist & retard) surges in a few EU countries, the EU does not want to risk any other countries exiting (after all, the more members the more powerful the EU is in baragining)
Thus the UK will be shafted big time (and not in a good way).
That way, any other country that might think about leaving EU, will see the catastrophic effect EU exit has on the UK economy and think exit is a very bad idea.
Not that the EU need to try hard to screw over the UK when our lead negotiator is David Davis, who should wear a DD (double dunce) hat at all times, but is too stupid to put it on his head.
"As (for a mix of racist, clueless & protest vote reasons) [...]"
As someone else has pointed out - government minister Priti Patel campaigned for Leave on the basis that it would allow EU immigrants to be replaced by more from the Indian subcontinent.
My relatives probably voted Leave because of all the immigrant "ghettos" in their area - which are predominantly people from the Indian subcontinent. They regard people from Europe in general as similar to the Poles, Ukrainians, etc who stayed after WW2 and whose kids became fully integrated apart from unusual family names.
"someone else has pointed out - government minister Priti Patel campaigned for Leave on the basis that it would allow EU immigrants to be replaced by more from the Indian subcontinent."
wasn't just her. in some parts of London, people were telling voters that if out of EU, the barriers to immigration from certain Commonwealth countries would be dramatically lowered, and spreading the line that it's the EU preventing that now.
If just a little over 0.95% of the people who voted to leave, voted to stay instead, things would be much better.
Nice one guys, no really, pat yourselves on the back for fucking so much up with a mere cross in the wrong box because you didn't have the intelligence to realise just how much politicians lie & twist the truth to get their own way.
There was a major demographic trend towards the older generation voting "leave" for the reason that, basically, they just don't like foreigners.
Fifty percent of the people I know who voted to leave are now dead. Those of us that voted to stay will soon outnumber those who voted to leave, and will have to put up with what they wanted but couldn't stick around to get,
"There was a major demographic trend towards the older generation voting "leave" for the reason that, basically, they just don't like foreigners."
Many people born in the 1940/50s had no problems with school pals whose European fathers stayed on in the UK after the war - or their mothers were war brides. They were indistinguishable from their native UK peers - apart from strange spellings of names that were soon informally Anglicised. Our peers included children of Poles, Ukrainians, French, Germans, and Belgians.
Sidestepping the topic for a moment the responses to this topic really do prove the situation horribly. Since the result leave voters have typically been for getting on and going forward while a vocal number of remain want the country to crash and burn for daring to leave their holy sanctuary. This of course being rejected by said remainers who claim it is leave that has doomed us all etc.
So this topic is about the ESA a European (not EU that is different) agency being potentially subverted by the EU to 'punish' the UK. This point is made multiple times by leave commenters and the petty politics involved to do this is of course disliked by them. However the vocal remain here seem to be rubbing their hands with glee and trying to somehow justify this as our fault for not dropping trow and bending over.
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, or at least how their glee could be taken that way. Any leavers think its worth holding their breath? I dont.
So this topic is about the ESA a European (not EU that is different) agency being potentially subverted by the EU to 'punish' the UK.
Galileo is the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) that is being created by the European Union (EU) through the European Space Agency (ESA)
So actually, it's about the ESA running an EU project, where the EU has said that major contributors should be from the EU. No subversion required, the project is the EUs and they can set whatever rules they like around who is involved. 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.
@ Dr. Mouse
From the very address linked to from this article- "Galileo is Europe’s own global navigation satellite system, providing a highly accurate, guaranteed global positioning service under civilian control."
So although we are leaving the EU we are still in Europe and still in the ESA and so far a contributor to the project. So yes the EU is using the ESA to make this platform, and their petty political rubbish is cited as the poor excuse to exclude the UK. Our money and skills were good enough until we made them cry and now they dont want to play anymore. If I am right isnt Israel still working on the project?
I am not particularly advocating being part of the project (or not), but the point stands that there is ridiculous glee (from the remain crowd) in this comment section at the UK being out of the project because the EU are upset. The leave comments seem to be pointing out that the ESA is not the EU and the EU is relying on the ESA to make this thing work. As I said in the previous article about this, I would prefer the best country for the jobs got the jobs and I dont care where in the world that is.
I dont begrudge the EU members getting the ESA jobs, but the joy I am reading on here from remainers and their self-flagellation (assuming they are from the UK) is disgusting. As observed before they seem happiest in their belief that outside the EU the country will burn/be doomed.
ESA funding 2018 5.60 BE
No, I can't find Israel in that link, and regarding Canada and Switzerland they haven't apparently shown any interest in changing their status.
With Brexit the UK will resign from ESA's governing Council and I would guess the UK will need a new "the best possible" agreement in the future.
"The national bodies responsible for space in these countries sit on ESA's governing Council: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.".
"ESA has 22 Member States. The national bodies responsible for space in these countries sit on ESA’s governing Council: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Canada also sits on the Council and takes part in some projects under a Cooperation Agreement. Slovenia is an Associate Member. Seven other EU states have Cooperation Agreements with ESA: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Slovakia.
The Czech Republic formally became ESA's 18th Member State on 12 November 2008. Romania became ESA's 19th Member State on 22 December 2011, and Poland exchanged Accession Agreements with ESA in September 2012. The latest to join are Estonia, which signed the Accession to the ESA Convention on 4 February 2015, to become the 21st Member State, and Hungary, which signed on 24 February 2015, to become the 22nd Member State.
As can be seen from this list, not all member countries of the European Union are members of ESA and not all ESA Member States are members of the EU. ESA is an entirely independent organisation although it maintains close ties with the EU through an ESA/EC Framework Agreement. The two organisations share a joint European Strategy for Space and have together developed the European Space Policy.".
"No, I can't find Israel in that link, and regarding Canada and Switzerland they haven't apparently shown any interest in changing their status."
Sorry if I am wrong about Israel I might have been looking at out of date articles maybe for example-https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-becomes-major-partner-in-eu-satellite-program/ but when did Canada join the EU? They recently changed their status as having a trade deal with the EU.
"With Brexit the UK will resign from ESA's governing Council"
I havnt seen anything about this. Not claiming your wrong, but since the ESA is not the EU the EU is in the ESA that would seem funky.
"As can be seen from this list, not all member countries of the European Union are members of ESA and not all ESA Member States are members of the EU"
Thank you. So EU petty politics is to play in this. And yet reading through this comment board the point I am still making is the joy that seems to be coming from the remain crowd for a perceived problem to the UK. I dont understand the perverse pleasure of wanting the EU to knock down the UK.
"As can be seen from this list, not all member countries of the European Union are members of ESA and not all ESA Member States are members of the EU"
But, again, Galileo is an EU project, not an ESA project.
"So EU petty politics is to play in this."
Or several other options, like the EU sensibly using it's strong bargaining position. Or the EU wanting to ensure that a military/security project is carried out mostly within it's own borders. Or so many other interpretations and reasons other than "Wah, the EU is being petty, it should just give us everything we want instead of looking after it's own interests... even though we are leaving to look after our own interests*".
* Not that I believe it is in our own interests to leave, but that is by the by.
@ Dr. Mouse
I have so far entertained the portion of the discussion you wish to have but you dont seem to be replying to the point of my comment which again is the glee of remainers at any perceived knock down of the UK by the EU. The desire of EU or burn. The nearest to a response being the AC who seem to have that frame of mind in the hopes that we then change our mind and do what they want.
I am somewhat willing to discuss the EU project they have put to the ESA to make and whatever collaborations but I feel the point I was making is the important aspect as it encompasses the problem with such remainers on these message boards.
you dont seem to be replying to the point of my comment which again is the glee of remainers at any perceived knock down of the UK by the EU. The desire of EU or burn
OK, I'll address that.
I know of noone who wishes the UK to "burn", from either side of the debate. It is not a desire, from Remainers, for the UK to "burn", but a belief that we are likely to "burn" if we keep heading down this path. It is also highly amusing to see so many "The EU are being mean to us!" comments from Leavers, when it was fairly obvious that things like this would happen.
At the end of the day, personally, I hope I am wrong and that the country does well from this, either by making a success of leaving or by abandoning it as a bad job. I just don't see any way, in the current circumstances, that we can leave and be anything other than significantly worse off. I had a small hope, immediately after the referendum, that a few other countries would join us in leaving and form a strong, separate trading block. At least that would have given us some strength in negotiations. But that's not a possibility anymore within the time remaining, so I see no hope.
So, yes, I will laugh when this sort of thing happens: It's either that or cry at the country making what I believe to be a disastrous mistake. If you choose to take that as that I want the country to burn if it leaves the EU, that's your prerogative but it's a mistaken interpretation.
@ Dr. Mouse
"It is not a desire, from Remainers, for the UK to "burn", but a belief that we are likely to "burn" if we keep heading down this path"
Ok that is your opinion yet to be realised or shown in evidence but your not the only one who thinks things are going bad regardless of good news and brush off stupidity as 'fairly obvious that things like this would happen'. Why is it obvious that the EU would be stupid? It makes the leave case stronger but they do seem to be going out of their way to make daft suggestions like this or even the EU domains thing. Their desperation to find anything to negotiate over no matter how much self harm it causes is nothing short of stupid. So if its not desire what is it that causes remainers to back the EU's stupidity and see it as a negative for the UK? Even for some to suggest we change our minds?
"At the end of the day, personally, I hope I am wrong and that the country does well from this"
We already are. Although Osborne and Carney tried to claim things would go bad, their prediction was what the gov and BoE have been aiming for since 2008 and it is happening. The predicted recessions and doom/gloom/brimstone have never appeared. And yes goal posts of when our doom will come keep being moved (probably to the next recession whenever it occurs) but that is the economic stupidity claiming problems.
"or by abandoning it as a bad job"
Why? Why would we undo progress and good news to rejoin the EU which is in multiple crises and act like children? After seeing how petty and self defeating it is do you still want to be part of that sinking ship?
"So, yes, I will laugh when this sort of thing happens"
Me too but I guess for different reasons. The more desperate the EU is at doing anything to try and negotiate with to the point of self harm is amazingly daft but funny. It amuses me even more to read comments desperate for things to be bad for the EU, I dont know how you feel such gloom. You may or may not want the UK to burn if we leave the UK, you do seem to think its bad somehow so want us to change our mind, but why? Why excuse EU desperation and stupidity?
If we were in the EU and another was leaving, and the EU wanted to harm us by blocking off the leaving country I would consider them just at stupid. It is nothing short of self harm.
"Ok that is your opinion yet to be realised or shown in evidence but your not the only one who thinks things are going bad regardless of good news"
Yes, there has been some good news around Brexit. There has been much more bad news. The government doesn't have a plan, and every "negotiation" and "agreement" so far has seen them backpeddle furiously from their "red lines" and give in to whatever the EU wants. We do not have a strong bargaining position, strong negotiators or strong leadership. I cannot see this changing when we proceed to trade negotiations.
"Why is it obvious that the EU would be stupid?"
IMHO the EU aren't being stupid. They are in a negotiation, and using their position of strength to gain the best possible deal for themselves. Why do you think this is stupid?
"We already are [doing well from this]"
Not from anything I've seen, but even so we haven't yet left the huge trading block with which we do a large proportion of our business. The only good thing I can see is that the predicted immediate consequences didn't happen, but that's not good news, it's a lack of bad news.
"Why would we undo progress and good news to rejoin the EU which is in multiple crises and act like children? After seeing how petty and self defeating it is do you still want to be part of that sinking ship?"
Or, why should we leave a strong trading block which is using it's strength to apply pressure on us and is getting it's own way in pretty much every little bit of the negotiations so far? It doesn't sound stupid, petty or childish to me, it sounds like good negotiating tactics.
"The more desperate the EU is at doing anything to try and negotiate with to the point of self harm is amazingly daft but funny. It amuses me even more to read comments desperate for things to be bad for the EU, I dont know how you feel such gloom. You may or may not want the UK to burn if we leave the UK, you do seem to think its bad somehow so want us to change our mind, but why? Why excuse EU desperation and stupidity?"
I don't, because I don't see it as desperate or stupid. Who has the upper hand in negotiations so far? Again, the UK govt has pretty much bent over on every point and accepted the EU's position so far. This sounds far from stupid or desperate to me.
@ Dr. Mouse
"The government doesn't have a plan, and every "negotiation" and "agreement" so far has seen them backpeddle furiously from their "red lines" and give in to whatever the EU wants."
I am glad you see that as a problem too. Brexit should be a full brexit, out of the EU and its dictats.
"We do not have a strong bargaining position, strong negotiators or strong leadership"
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. They can cry, they can scream, they can jump up and down and they can take their toys away. So what? The dictated terms before negotiation are worthless, we have no reason to comply. So how do we not have a strong position? Leadership is a remainer PM pandering to people crying out for soft brexit or no brexit. Our negotiators seem to be doing fine, they say no to stupidity and then May goes to visit the EU. The EU negotiators being banned from negotiating.
"IMHO the EU aren't being stupid. They are in a negotiation, and using their position of strength to gain the best possible deal for themselves. Why do you think this is stupid?"
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. Best part is its not our child, we have no responsibility to them. If the EU wants to stop the UK from sending the EU money that is certainly stupidity and not ours. If you mistake that for a position of strength then yes you will think they are doing well.
"Not from anything I've seen, but even so we haven't yet left the huge trading block with which we do a large proportion of our business."
First the goal post. When is this apocalypse coming because it is not a prediction for people to keep claiming it is coming it is coming. A recession happens on a business cycle, approx every decade. 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! Make up your mind. However I will point out the currency falling, leading to core inflation, leading to the BoE looking to increase base rates, leading to a cooling of the housing market (all the BoE and treasury aim since 2008). We wont get much good news until we leave as the EU is in charge until we leave!
"The only good thing I can see is that the predicted immediate consequences didn't happen, but that's not good news, it's a lack of bad news."
Actually they did. not the stupid apocalypse rubbish, only an idiot could believe that. But see above as Osborne and Carney predicted it but tried to put negative spin on what they have been trying to do since 2008.
"Or, why should we leave a strong trading block which is using it's strength to apply pressure on us and is getting it's own way in pretty much every little bit of the negotiations so far?"
If this is their strength in negotiation we are better off out. They have so far been a damp squib at best and a world wide embarrassment at worst. Their childish statements and desperation to find anything we want from them to negotiate with shows their weak hand. And instead of being grown up where they could probably get more from us they have to talk to May to get anything because their negotiations are a colossal failure. This is with a member who is leaving and so already complies with their standards so it should be moronically easy for them.
"I don't, because I don't see it as desperate or stupid."
That is where you are viewing it as an optimist for the EU. Nothing is agreed until everything is and while you claim we keep backing down I am yet to see it. We offer some money to cover what we had been charged as part of the EU, on the condition they make an agreement. The EU is desperate for a border in Ireland, the best we offer is a soft border that the EU cries about. The EU want extra rights while not offering much for UK citizens in the EU, so far not getting too far. The hope being that unless May sabotages negotiations (if she does that will be a remainer victory however much they will still cry about it) the EU will need to step up.
@Codejunky. Getting and winning a referendum were the easy parts. Negotiating the exit is still relatively easy, except it seems for our negotiating team. The hard part is making post-Brexit UK a bigger success *for everyone in the UK* than the EU for eternity. Face facts, membership of the EU will be an election issue in every general election for the rest of our lives until we rejoin.
If it is not an obvious and immediate success then demographics will lead to us rejoining sometime in the next decade - or at least once we've sorted out all the things we need to sort out, like a written constitution, and it will include joining the EU and Schengen.
There is a chance that it will be a success, but with those people in charge, I suspect there is a significantly bigger chance that the only people to benefit from Brexit are those in charge and their paymasters.
"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.
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."
and more recently and localised-
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.
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.
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.
"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.
>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?
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…
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019