back to article Blighty: If EU won't let us play at Galileo, we're going home and taking encryption tech with us

Britain has warned it would attempt to stop the EU using its encryption tech on the Galileo project while launching its own satellites. The UK is able to block the EU from ordering any more Galileo satellites while it remains a member of the club. Such a move would, however, only result in a short delay and may actually end up …

  1. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Fucking Brexit

    Sorry. It's just how I feel about it.

    1. Craig 2

      Re: Fucking Brexit

      Indeed, Europe already hates us (as proved by Eurovision every year) and the UK, or whatever remains of it in a decade, will be avoided like the plague. /sigh

      1. Andy 73

        Re: Fucking Brexit

        Doesn't matter if they hate us. If we control the encryption to their satnavs, they won't be able to find us.

        1. Avatar of They Silver badge
          Stop

          Re: Fucking Brexit

          They won't need to find us as they won't trade or care about us.

      2. Sandtitz Silver badge

        Re: Fucking Brexit

        "Indeed, Europe already hates us (as proved by Eurovision every year)"

        It's not you. The fact that UK has lost of great bands and artists but instead sends geriatrics like Engelbert Humperdinck to contest is just not the winning recipe.

        It was a song contest 20+ years ago, not it's all about who can pull the biggest shows with rather non-catchy unmemorable music.

        1. pɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
          Mushroom

          Re: Fucking Brexit

          "Indeed, Europe already hates us (as proved by Eurovision every year)"

          The thing with Eurovision "song" contest is that its just political bulshit.

          For the last 20 plus years, we have had little or no points because of our country's foreign policies.

          UK could put together a song written by the worlds best song writer, produced by the worlds best producer, sung by the worlds best singer and we would get nil poi. The same combo could write and produce a song for the next Disney musical and it would get an Oscar...

          you get all the eastern European countries voting for each other no matter how shit it was when our neighbours cant even give us an single point....

          we should just tell Eurovision to go fuck themselves.....

          1. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

            Re: Fucking Brexit

            Err... the "Euro" in Eurovision refers to the European Broadcasting Union, not the EU or anything geographically related to the landmass known as Europe.

            Which is why Australia can participate...

            Why does the UK consistently enter with less-than-wonderful entries? Partly because the UK gets a free pass: whatever dreck is offered goes to the final. The free pass is a consequence of capitalism in action: pay money, get a pass. So not free, I suppose, but you know what I mean.

            1. ToddRundgrensUtopia

              Re: Fucking Brexit

              That must be it Malcolm. British music is so piss poor compared to our European and Australian stuff we need special dispensation to enter it. Go name me some european and aussie music artists between 1964 and now and don't you dare mention Men At Work and sodding Vegemite

              1. DeeCee

                Re: Fucking Brexit

                Most of the good music comes from EU and USA \m/, you can keep your pop

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Fucking Brexit

            @pɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ

            What about Abba?

          3. ToddRundgrensUtopia

            Re: Fucking Brexit

            I'm scared how many are interested in and maybe even watch Eurovision. Shite after Abba!

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Fucking Brexit

        Indeed, Europe already hates us...

        Meh. The EU's always hated us so the status quo was not tenable long term anyway. At least this way we won't be forced to join the ludicrous Euro, worry about losing our rebate (which every other member state is against) and we'll be off the hook when more of the PIIGS economies inevitably collapse.

        Ever closer political union just does not sit well with the UK and that is the indisputable future direction of the EU project.

        1. John Watts

          Re: Fucking Brexit

          Thanks for speaking for all of us.

        2. Frenchie Lad

          Re: Fucking Brexit

          "Ever closer political union just does not sit well with the UK and that is the indisputable future direction of the EU project."

          And it does not sit well with an increasing number of other EU member states that resent the Franco/German diktat or as it will become German diktat.

      4. Teiwaz Silver badge

        Re: Fucking Brexit

        Eurovision hate

        What?

        UK wins when they field a song and troupe that catches the mood with the other voting countries, which isn't often. Sandie Shaw, Lulu, Bucks Fizz, Brotherhood of man (plus one after that I can't recall).

        Problem is, our music biz is aligned toward trying to break into the U.S,

        If you field donkeys, the audience will bray back.

      5. Sil

        Re: Fucking Brexit

        According to the Eurovision criteria, Europe hates France much, and Austria, Spain, Italy & Germany even more.

    2. alain williams Silver badge

      Re: Fucking Brexit

      It seems to me that Michel Barnier & pals want to make things as painful for the UK as they can, even if it means hurting the rest of the EU as well. International cooperation exists between many countries that are not part of the same trading/political block - they do this when they see the mutual benefits.

      The Ukraine, Morocco, Norway & Switzerland are involved with Galileo so why should the UK be excluded ?

      There is no real reason why the UK could continue to be part of Galileo (& pay its contribution) to the mutual benefit of the UK and EU.

      Some politicians on both sides are plonkers.

      1. P. Lee Silver badge

        Re: Fucking Brexit

        I'd like to see more citations to go with "Britain has warned..." phrases. With such vagueness, I assume journalistic bias. The withdrawal of encryption tech might have been a reply to a query about what we would do if excluded from Galileo when that isn't really on the cards. In which case, there is no sulking - you don't give your tech if there is no agreement to share. Oooooh Brexit leads to bad stuff. Or not. This looks a lot like a lot of opinion with very little basis other than, "what are the options for involvement with Galileo?" Which are

        (1) stay involved like other states or

        (2) don't be involved.

        (1) seems better and since it doesn't appear to involve sovereignty issues, would be expected to be supported by all sides. The only issues in principle would be if there are unprincipled (given existing non eu state participation) eu bureaucrats.

        So please, provide sources- and it shouldn't be buzzfeed or any other media outlet.

        1. WmK

          Re: Fucking Brexit

          "I'd like to see more citations"

          Alas, people don't write down everything they say. If you've really reached the point where you feel you can't trust new that appears in places like the FT and The Register without references then perhaps you should give up on news? (Apart from what you read on the sides of buses, clearly.)

      2. anothercynic Silver badge

        Re: Fucking Brexit

        Seems? It *IS*. That's the point. Why on earth would you want to make Brexit a pleasant withdrawal experience? It would allow others (Catalunya to name but one) to make the same move and not suffer much. Of course it's going to be painful! We're being made an example of!

        1. georgezilla

          Re: Fucking Brexit

          " ... Of course it's going to be painful! We're being made an example of! .... '

          Let's see if I got this straight ...

          You voted to leave the EU, because the EU wouldn't let you have your way. So you took your ball and went home.

          And now you are whining because they called your bluff?

          Ummmm .....

          Of course it's going to be painful! You took a very sharp stick and shoved it up you own ass.

          Go figure. But don't worry. The butt hurt will go away. Eventually.

          Or not.

          After all, it was you that did the sharpening and the shoving. Stop pretending that you are the victim.

          1. anothercynic Silver badge

            Re: Fucking Brexit

            @georgezilla, oh, I'm not pretending that we're the victim. I'm stating it the way it is.

            I'm a firm Remainer (in case that wasn't abundantly clear by now, I work in science and engineering, and we value our relationship, as imperfect as it is, with the rest of the European Union), and yes, I PERFECTLY understand how it goes. It's the Brexiteers who are getting their Victorian lace undies in a knot over how evil the European Union is, and how we're all hard done by (shouting "taking back control", but only if it suits them). We're being made an example of to deter *any* other nation from thinking they can happily flounce off into the sunset like the UK did and not face the consequences!

            1. TolerantViews

              Re: Fucking Brexit

              If the EU has to punish people who leave what are they doing to the people that stay? Seems incomprehensible that leavers need punishment because surely they are leaving the good place? Think about it. It's best we leave, the kick up the backside will propel us into new, exciting and prosperous beginnings. Our own space agency, using our own encryption monitored from islands that we manage. Looking forward to it. The Euro will eventually make the EU implode. Best leave early and deal with the downturn from outside.

          2. Jimmy2Cows

            Re: Fucking Brexit

            Of course it's going to be painful! You took a very sharp stick and shoved it up you own ass.

            Perhaps true, however...

            From a purely neutral perspective the EU is making an example of the UK. Quite openly and deliberately.

            EU was presented with a democratically reached decision by a member state. And yes, for the total number of elligible voters, the winning result was actually a minority. But hey, democratic decisions often mean a minority of elligible voters actually wins when a lot of people can't be arsed to vote.

            EU could have said "ok fair enough, we accept a member state reached a democratic decision about their own sovereign direction, let's try to achieve a separation deal that works for everyone."

            Instead what's obvious to everyone, on either side of the Brexit fence, is the result will be punishment with the worst possible deal for citizens - UK and EU.

            The EU doesn't want Brexit. Most of UK Government doesn't want Brexit. Neither side actually cares about their citizens as long as the politicos are protected from fallout, so let's make an example so no-one else dares to even think about quitting the club.

          3. NXM

            Re: Fucking Brexit

            I don't get why I have to be the victim when I didn't vote for it, and there was only a majority leave result because of repeated, egregious lies paid for with a tax avoider's money.

        2. Stoneshop Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Fucking Brexit

          It would allow others (Catalunya to name but one) to make the same move

          Catalunya would first have to gain independence from Spain, which is a whole other kettle of calimari, before it would be able to exit the EU. Which doesn't seem to be what they would like to happen, anyway.

        3. Nigel 12

          Re: Fucking Brexit

          I think you mean, we are making an example of ourselves...

      3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Fucking Brexit

        The Ukraine, Morocco, Norway & Switzerland are involved with Galileo so why should the UK be excluded ?

        The Eu isn't proposing that the UK isn't involved - just that it doesn't have access to the encrypted military channel if it isn't part of the Eu security apparatus.

        The countries listed are supplying money or components (like the UK) but also don't have access to the encrypted signal.

        Really it's all political willy-waving. The Galileo encrypted military channel doesn't offer any better accuracy than GPS in home territory where you can install ground based augmentation systems.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: EuroFuckingVision Brexit

      the Euroland peeples stopped Eurovision voting for the UK after Blair's Iraq war.

      UK occasionally won before that.

      I personally would like Surrey to remain in Galileo, when I mentioned that you were off, this surprised some serious colleagues involved, still tempus fugit and all that, relatively speaking.

  2. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

    I propose we put Jacob Rees-Mogg in orbit and just get him to bark coordinates at us.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "I propose we put Jacob Rees-Mogg in orbit and just get him to bark coordinates at us."

      Actually no.

      Not wishing to be pedantic, but correct implementation of PoliticianNav Protocol 1.0 would require deployment of one Jeremy Corbyn.

      "For the many, not the few". Well, that's GPS in a nutshell.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Jacob Rees-Mogg in orbit

      You must be joking? He's only just accepted the earth isn't flat.

      1. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Re: Jacob Rees-Mogg in orbit

        He'd be reporting distances in cubits and times in heartbeats of Achilles.

        1. Why Not?

          Re: Jacob Rees-Mogg in orbit

          Well I suppose its better than Napoleonic units

          1. phuzz Silver badge
            Headmaster

            Re: Jacob Rees-Mogg in orbit

            "Well I suppose its better than Napoleonic units"

            He's not going to use units from someone who probably chopped off the head of one of his ancestors now is he?

            (I assume that he's related to the French royal family on the basis that all of the European monarchy is inter-related and more inbred than an isolated village in the Forrest of Dean.)

            1. Rich 11 Silver badge

              Re: Jacob Rees-Mogg in orbit

              more inbred than an isolated village in the Forrest of Dean.

              And we'll be sure to welcome you very warmly next time you visit, little piggy.

              1. Roland6 Silver badge

                Re: Jacob Rees-Mogg in orbit

                I knew it was a bit outback but that far out?

                Squeal like a pig

                1. Rich 11 Silver badge

                  Re: Jacob Rees-Mogg in orbit

                  There are boar running free in the Forest and there is cider running free in the Forest drinking dens. No-one is safe on a Friday night!

      2. tfb Silver badge

        Re: Jacob Rees-Mogg in orbit

        He's accepted the Earth isn't flat?

    3. Nick Kew Silver badge

      "I'm over Europe. Get me out of here!"

      (from somewhere over East Asia. Or something).

    4. Stoneshop Silver badge
      Pirate

      I propose we put Jacob Rees-Mogg in orbit

      It would be even better if he was put in obit.

  3. Milton Silver badge

    Chokes with laughter

    Plucky Brit boffins will have to figure out a way of getting the system up and running before 2026 ...

    I wonder if even our truly, wretchedly stupid and ignorant politicians imagine that that is possible? Even a delusional thorough-going moron like Davis, or a blustering ignoramus like Johnson, cannot seriously think Britain could get a functioning GPS constellation into orbit in less than 15 years? This is Britain, for heaven's sake, that cannot even organise a reliable process for screening half its population for a common form of cancer.

    It seems that the jaw-dropping foolishness of Brexit isn't enough for these cretins: they're in the hole and they're gonna just keep digging. What a crew of hopeless clowns.

    1. Jack of Shadows Silver badge

      Re: Chokes with laughter

      I wonder if even our truly, wretchedly stupid and ignorant politicians imagine that that is possible?

      I'd call this a universal characteristic of all politicians everywhere. There might be a few out there that defy this but I can't seem to recall any of late. So, whatever they come up with will be late and over budget, if even does manage to complete the program.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Chokes with laughter

        politicians are generally stupid and ignorant, yes, but they have this exceptional skill of backstabbing and clinging to whomever and whatever in the position of power. That's why they are, where they are, and we are where we are.

    2. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Chokes with laughter

      The thick twats haven't figured out that the work done in the UK so far on Galileo has been done by Airbus Defense and Space companies.

    3. maffski

      Re: Chokes with laughter

      ...I wonder if even our truly, wretchedly stupid and ignorant politicians imagine that that is possible?

      Perhaps they think that, until it's ready, we'll just use GPS. The same way we have done for the last 30 years.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Chokes with laughter

      t seems that the jaw-dropping foolishness of Brexit isn't enough for these cretins:

      to be fair, the politicians don't really want it,,, otherwise there would not be this nonsense about staying in the customs union... that's just staying in the EU but without a vote.....The politicians want to stay in so they can ride that EU gravy train once the domestic political career is over.

      Its the general public that has taken note of the bulshit that comes with EU membership that decided they wanted out. Cameron played his card to get elected and it backfired on him.

      If your for or against Brexit makes no difference now, we are leaving so the best thing to do is get behind it and make sure the UK gets the best divorce settlement we can. Because of all of the crying about the result of the referendum, the EU has us bent over and all lubed up ready for a forceful screwing over.... Its time to stand up straight, turn around and give them a kick in the nuts. Then do what we can to get the UK moving forward.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Chokes with laughter

        Because of all of the crying about the result of the referendum, the EU has us bent over and all lubed up ready for a forceful screwing over.

        FTFY

        Brexit has put us in the inevitable position of negotiating from weakness. It's glaringly obvious in every news item and you still don't get it!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Chokes with laughter

          . It's glaringly obvious in every news item and you still don't get it!

          I get that the media is part of the problem.... and if you look is some of the news papers, not all supported the remain..

          its all the bickering in-house that's put us in the position of weakness. When it comes down to pounds shillings and pence, the EU needs us more than we need it. Yes, there are benefits to being part of the union, but while its full of self serving corrupt officials, just looking out for those who line the pockets of the fat cat eurocrats, its disgusting. Th EU held out on revealing its long term plans until after the referendum because of fear that it would push the vote further into the leave camp. Turning the EU into a united sates of Europe, Taking control of the armed forces into a European wide force. that Germany and France would control....

          I am old enough to remember the vote to join the common market in the early 70's The principles were good. open free trade across boarders without ridiculous amounts of paperwork.... but thats far from what we ended up with. The EU only works for LARGE multi national corps. the small business owners just get shat on with rules and regs that is just not affordable. A year or so back, I got a letter about a new European initiative aiming to reduce waste paper. They wanted to know how much paper went into the bins each year... I know its just going to end up in another EU tax....

          £150M a year is wasted each year alone by the EU, moving everything from Brussels to Strasbourg for two weeks then back again, just because France keeps using its veto on a permanent move to Brussels.. and that's just one instance of the shit that goes on in the EU.

          1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

            Re: Chokes with laughter

            When it comes down to pounds shillings and pence, the EU needs us more than we need it.

            Think of the grandchildren? Don't! Just destroy their future all in the name of various bigotries and rabble rousing press and repeatedly spout the same nonsense, irrefutably demonstrated to be wrong, that "the EU need us more than we need it". No, they don't.

            If you believe that the EU only works for LARGE (seriously, capitals?) multi-national corps, think again and look at the UK. It is considerably more large multi-national corporation friendly than most other European countries - 1) because we speak English as a first language and that's passably close to American and 2) because we have very handy "tax breaks" and "tax havens" that all happen to be part of the UK as well. It's no coincidence the number of corporations with registered offices in various UK islands.

            Pounds, Shillings and Pence? Seriously?

        2. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Chokes with laughter

          @ Doctor Syntax

          "Because of all of the crying about the result of the referendum, the EU has us bent over and all lubed up ready for a forceful screwing over."

          This seems to be an ongoing theme in these boards. How is the EU screwing us over? They scramble for any scrap to negotiate over and decide to take away their little project. And now they find that part of the technology they need to make it work is ours. This is the EU screwing the EU.

          "Brexit has put us in the inevitable position of negotiating from weakness. It's glaringly obvious in every news item and you still don't get it!"

          Again at no point has that been demonstrated beyond remainers trying to stop brexit. Our biggest weakness is the bunch of undemocratic morons with any power who seem to believe the kind of bollocks you have written. Even in an article where the EU has decided we are no longer part of the group project and now realise they are missing the very pieces we contribute. This is the same level of unthinking stupidity that stated UK businesses would be robbed of any EU domains (stealing private property without compensation), only to realise how dumb that is and U turn.

          Look past the headline and stupid subheading and read the article. The EU have again demonstrated they couldnt run a piss up in a brewery. If you think this is somehow a win for the EU you could probably believe the norks won every world cup.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Chokes with laughter

        "It's the general public that has taken note of the bulshit that comes with EU membership that decided they wanted out" now that is a joke.

        Of the people who voted to leave how many were actually voting to leave Europe rather than express their lost of national identity, political disenfranchisement, media promoted xenophobia.

        Thinking back to 40 years ago when the UK had major industry, civic welfare, impartial law, billions available from North Sea oil and consider where all that money and potential has disappeared to then it could not be said that the UK voting public are what you might call smart. For 40 years they kept voting it all away and Brexit is no different, yes they were lied to but they kept making the same stupid mistakes each election.

        Just think for a moment and consider why this government maintained a high GBP until the money ran out, funded I might say by "austerity for the masses" and consider what benefit a high GBP has for anyone except the minority wishing to remove their wealth from the UK. It is depressing just how stupid the majority in the UK really are, they don't even recognise when they have been taken and keep blathering on about how Euro are corrupt as a reason for leaving. Corruption can only exists with the cooperation of the general public and you guys kept voting for more, well done you.

        1. fandom Silver badge

          Re: Chokes with laughter

          "Thinking back to 40 years ago..."

          You mean, right after the IMF had to bail out the UK?

        2. Jimmy2Cows

          Re: Corruption

          Corruption can only exists with the cooperation of the general public and you guys kept voting for more, well done you.

          But who can you vote for when corruption is pretty much indemic? One lot is no better than the other, just different gang colours, thus voting a new lot in changes exactly fuck all.

          Politicians exist to serve themselves. Occassional benefit to the great unwashed is just a side effect.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Corruption

            @jimmy2cows "But who can you vote for when corruption is pretty much indemic?"

            You could always stand yourself, oh it is true that far too many politicians are professional liars and are only out for themselves but until someone else stands for the needs of the majority then ofc the corrupt get elected instead.

            Any group that gets power is going to be attractive to the corrupt/morally bankrupt/professional liars and keeping them out is a full time job however once you understand that people who only care about themselves can also only maintain the lie in a few places at once then you can spot them. Full time jobs seperate to their goal, like parenting for example, have to be done by someone else or not at all. So look for damaged partner/children along with similar signs of "goal comes first" as an indicator.

            Once you do then you will see that their type are spread everywhere there is power in society demanding attention and forgoing anything that is not essiential to obtaining prestige.

            Thus voting for someone who is not a front runner but who is unwilling to compromise their ideals is the best bet at the moment until they come up with a reliable test for the psychopaths and attention seekers normally voted in.

      3. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

        Re: Chokes with laughter

        If your for or against Brexit makes no difference now, we are leaving so the best thing to do is get behind it and make sure the UK gets the best divorce settlement we can.

        Erm, nope.

        Did all the eurosceptics "get behind" our membership of the EU? Did they work with the EU to make sure we got the best possible out of our membership? Nope, they blamed every little thing, real or imaginary, which went wrong on the EU (or on results of our membership, like immigration).

        Why do you expect the majority of those who support our EU membership will do any different? If we disagree with something, it's our democratic right to campaign to change it. A single snap poll of a yes/no nature indicates only the answer to that specific question on that specific date. Opinions and circumstances change. So the outcome of the referendum may not even be correct anymore, limited as it always was.

        I'm completely fed up with people telling me to get behind the result (normally worded as The Will Of The People). I'm not going to get behind something which I expect to be disastrous for the country, even if 99% of the vote had gone that way. I also wouldn't jump off a cliff if 99% of people voted for it.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Chokes with laughter

          >I'm completely fed up with people telling me to get behind the result (normally worded as The Will Of The People). I'm not going to get behind something which I expect to be disastrous for the country, even if 99% of the vote had gone that way. I also wouldn't jump off a cliff if 99% of people voted for it.

          I would go further than that. Even if, by some miracle (and I don't mean hyperinflation), in 5 years time every person in the UK is a millionaire and has their own pet unicorn, I still won't support Brexit as the freedoms I'm losing are worth much more to me than money.

          1. Mark 65 Silver badge

            Re: Chokes with laughter

            @AC:

            ...I still won't support Brexit as the freedoms I'm losing are worth much more to me than money.

            So move to fucking Europe and quit whining, nobody is stopping you.

        2. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Chokes with laughter

          @ Dr. Mouse

          "Did all the eurosceptics "get behind" our membership of the EU?"

          Yes. Within the framework of the EU we elected representatives to represent our views within the EU. Even when promised multiple referendums and denied by lying scum who dictated remain we continued to support our views using the framework under the EU. And as labour and tory betrayed the majority we increasingly turned to the only party offering leave until tory finally complied.

          "Why do you expect the majority of those who support our EU membership will do any different?"

          You mean the minority group? Who want their minority view from a democratic vote they lost to be inflicted on everyone in the UK? We didnt expect the minority to act differently and if you want to elect a remain party at the next election feel free, but to act this way. Shameful.

          "Opinions and circumstances change."

          That is why we have regular elections. What you want is a system where if you dont get what you want we vote again.

          "I'm not going to get behind something which I expect to be disastrous for the country"

          And so will you act like an adult as when tory or labour win an election and you wait for the next election to vote for change, or will you demand an instant rerun because whatever minor supported group didnt win?

          Also you might expect brexit to be disastrous for the country but that is my opinion of remaining.

          1. jabuzz

            Re: Chokes with laughter

            Apparently we did the keep voting till we got the right answer. First referendum result was to remain in Europe, so they then spent 40 years agitating for a second referendum to get the result they wanted. Now they claim any further discussion on the subject is undemocratic and the issue is settled.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Chokes with laughter

              @ jabuzz

              "First referendum result was to remain in Europe"

              We had a vote on the global positioning of the whole island! How did they plan to move it? Or do you mean a vote concerning membership of the ECC?

              "so they then spent 40 years agitating for a second referendum to get the result they wanted. ."

              So your saying we should revisit the topic in 40 yrs? The EU hasnt been around that long and I would personally prefer we voted for politicians who offer what we want.

              "Now they claim any further discussion on the subject is undemocratic and the issue is settled"

              I dont think anyone really has a problem with discussion. The repeated attempts to invalidate the democratic vote or to ignore democracy because it gave the 'wrong' answer is rubbing a bit.

              1. Roland6 Silver badge

                Re: Chokes with laughter

                >So your saying we should revisit the topic in 40 yrs?

                It is an interesting question as to whether big decisions should be revisited; obviously with Brexit we can expect the SNP to revisit Scottish independence in a much shorter timeframe and to keep revisiting it until the SNP gets the answer they want.

                To my mind the big mistake was to hold an In/Out referendum in 2016, rather than are you happy/unhappy about the direction of travel, which leaves the door open to many more options - but then as the referendum was really about internal Conservative party politics and UKIP, asking for clearheaded thinking was probably a step too far...

          2. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

            Re: Chokes with laughter

            "You mean the minority group?"

            Yes, I mean the minority group (by a tiny, barely significant margin).

            "And so will you act like an adult as when tory or labour win an election and you wait for the next election to vote for change"

            This isn't like an election, though, is it. We can't just change our minds in a few years. We would be unlikely to be readmitted on the same favourable terms as we have now. This is a decision which is likely to have very long reaching consequences for decades to come, whether those consequences are good or bad.

            So, I will continue to campaign for us not to leave, to try to save our country from what I believe to be a disastrous course. This is not childish, nor is it undemocratic or unpatriotic.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Chokes with laughter

              @ Dr. Mouse

              "Yes, I mean the minority group (by a tiny, barely significant margin)."

              Your denial of being the minority shows the difficulty of having an adult conversation with a die hard remainer. Leave won the vote, leave were the majority.

              "This isn't like an election, though, is it. We can't just change our minds in a few years"

              Actually yes we can. We voted in the election for parties offering leave particularly the stunning UKIP result. We finally had the referendum promised for a number of elections because people wanted it. And we knew what we were voting for, to leave the EU. And you can in the next election vote for a party to join the EU. It is your right.

              "We would be unlikely to be readmitted on the same favourable terms as we have now."

              Ahhh. Tough. We voted leave and not enough people cared about these terms to vote remain. If you want to change your mind you may have to accept joining the EU properly. And isnt that a good thing for you? Your favoured project you want to be tied to?

              "This is a decision which is likely to have very long reaching consequences for decades to come, whether those consequences are good or bad."

              This is very true and the point. The same could be said for many events in history from wars, political unions, even the formation of the US, USSR, EU and everything else. Remaining would still have that long reaching consequences problem which we can only judge on present information and on that my opinion is leave, yours is remain. The country had a vote and the majority voted leave.

              "So, I will continue to campaign for us not to leave, to try to save our country from what I believe to be a disastrous course."

              Campaign to rejoin? Or argue to ignore the electorate? If the first then kudo's to you, people should vote for what they believe is best for the country. If the second then you should be pleased for your remain desire to be ignored.

    5. I Am Spartacus
      Holmes

      Stupid Boy

      Before you say this is impossible, do some research.

      Britain already has a thriving space business. From University of Surrey, at Guildford, who handle a number of commercial satellites, both from command and control to data ground stations; to SPIRE, a company in Glasgow, who manufacture 1u, 2u and 3u microsats that are fast becoming the next generation of ship and aircraft tracking and meteorological data.

      Cheap LEO satellites are becoming a commodity these days. MEO are a tad harder and more expensive to launch, but in no way overly complex.

      So lets not dis our space technology boffins. If we want to build our own Galileo system, I think we can. And because it is not run a bunch of politically minded committees, ours might actually work. I vote we call it the Newton Constellation.

      1. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Re: Stupid Boy

        Yeah, let's have our own system. That can't possibly cost more to develop and implement than any existing international system we already have involvement with, and we can also paint all our satellites passport-blue.

        Take that, Martians!

        1. Why Not?

          Re: Stupid Boy

          Because no one has developed reusable spaceships or simple satellites.

          FFS most script kiddies could launch a working GPS system.

          1. Adam 1 Silver badge

            Re: Stupid Boy

            > FFS most script kiddies could launch a working GPS system.

            Totally true. Saw this on stackoverflow just this morning

            I have written a GPS system. Here's my code.

            #include <stdio.h>

            int main()

            {

            printf("Hello, World!");

            return 0;

            }

            I want to have sub metre accuracy in both longitude, latitude and elevation but I don't know where to start. I think I need generics.

            1. werdsmith Silver badge

              Re: Stupid Boy

              I find your lack of code commenting unprofessional.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Stupid Boy

            "FFS most script kiddies could launch a working GPS system."

            As long as designing, implementing, launching, and running a working GPS system takes no more time, effort, and money as running a script from your home computer.

            Anyone want to bet on that equivalence? If so, I have some blockchain enhanced bridges to sell.

        2. Cuddles Silver badge

          Re: Stupid Boy

          "we can also paint all our satellites passport-blue"

          And presumably outsource their production to France.

      2. Smooth Newt Silver badge
        Meh

        Re: Stupid Boy

        Cheap LEO satellites are becoming a commodity these days. MEO are a tad harder and more expensive to launch, but in no way overly complex.

        With exquisitely accurate atomic clocks that are capable of surviving launch accelerations and the harsh environment of space - atomic oxygen, vacuum, ultraviolet and continuous large thermal radiation changes - and then operate unattended in it for many years? That's a bit more than knocking up a cubesat containing an Arduino. Sure UK companies can build it, but it ain't going to be cheap.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Stupid Boy

          The attraction of doing a LEO GNSS constellation is that life for satellites and payloads at that altitude is relatively easy. It's below the Van Allen belts (low radiation), the orbit is only 90 minutes (easier thermal management), you still get a decent UV flux to make solar panels work well. Orbital decay is an issue, but that's not so bad really. GEO / MEO sats will never come down, but they do have to burn fuel to stay in place.

          And as Iridium and everyone else is showing, launching a global constellation into LEO is not that big a deal anymore. Iridium are spending a few billion doing so. Gordon Brown, all on his own, in a single afternoon, spent £150billion saving the banks back in 2008ish. So if the world's 5th biggest economy decides that it wants to launch its own LEO constellation it's unlikely to be money for the batch build and launches that is the blocker.

          Arguing about it, and fixing up all the systems that are currently GPS based to use Newton (a good name for it IMO. If the Europeans are calling their's Galileo, we may as well roll out our own historical scientific big hitter) is where the real money would be spent.

          False Assumptions on the Part of the EU

          It does seem rather mad of the EU to kick Blighty out of a program that we've already helped pay for, and for which we appear to hold the key technologies (pun intended). If the EU is behaving in a way which assumes that they're holding all the cards, and that turns out not to be the case, then they've not done their homework. Ooops. And, as I suppose a BREXITer would say, how typical. I'm no fan of BREXIT as such, but if push comes to shove and the EU does try to stuff us up right royally, I would be quite happy for us to get our own back by taking away their Galileo toy.

      3. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: Stupid Boy

        @i am spartacus:

        "Before you say this is impossible, do some research.

        Britain already has a thriving space business. From University of Surrey, at Guildford, who handle a number of commercial satellites, both from command and control to data ground stations; "

        -----

        How about you do some research?

        Surrey built the original Galileo Giove test bird yes. Their space satellite business spun out to SSTL, who are off-campus on the research park in Guildford down past Tesco near the student accommodation.

        This company is absolutely world class as what it does, but sold out to Astrium on 2008 so is now owned by Airbus Defense and Space.

      4. anothercynic Silver badge

        Re: Stupid Boy

        Dear Spartacus, we have a thriving business because we cooperate with our brethren elsewhere in the EU. Yes, we *can* build our own Galileo system, sure, but it certainly won't be cheaper than what Galileo would cost us if we stayed in the EU.

    6. Smooth Newt Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Chokes with laughter

      The Prime Minister will task engineering and aerospace experts in the UK to develop options for a British Global Navigation Satellite System that would guide missiles and power satnavs.

      If it is comparable with Galileo, a British satellite navigation network would cost ten billion quid in capital costs and then about a billion a year to run. Money that could be spent on the NHS instead. I don't remember seeing that written on the side of that bus.

    7. rg287

      Re: Chokes with laughter

      I wonder if even our truly, wretchedly stupid and ignorant politicians imagine that that is possible? Even a delusional thorough-going moron like Davis, or a blustering ignoramus like Johnson, cannot seriously think Britain could get a functioning GPS constellation into orbit in less than 15 years?

      SST certainly could (given their involvement with Galileo), provided the government just said "give us a quote and go build them" whilst keeping it's nose out (which I grant would be almost impossible for them to do).

      Eight years to build a bunch of cheap cookie-cutter LEO birds and book some F9 slots is eminently do-able. GNSS are not magic any more - everybody's got/getting one (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, NAVIC, BeiDou, etc) - it wouldn't be terribly difficult, nor prohibitively expensive for SST to adapt a standard comm-sat chassis and run off a constellation.

  4. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Idiots

    The NHS is on critical life support.

    Food banks and homeless shelters are swamped with demand.

    Hardly a road in the country is free of potholes.

    Yet this totally insane government thinks it can afford to start up it's own satnav system.

    1. Warm Braw Silver badge

      Re: Idiots

      The rationale for Galileo is that the EU can't trust the US. The rationale for a UK system is presumably that we can't trust the US or the EU (and vice versa). In the latter case, I'm not quite sure that being able to dispatch HMS Elizabeth the Empty to a precise location where the sailors will proceed to run around the deck with their arms outstretched pretending to be aeroplanes is the military solution we will be needing.

      1. Headley_Grange Silver badge

        Re: Idiots

        If we can't trust the US then we'll have problems with Tomahawk, F-35, a few missiles, a couple of radars and probably quite a lot of other military kit.

        I'm still OK with "deviation west, compass best", so I'm not losing sleep over the GPS thing.

        1. werdsmith Silver badge

          Re: Idiots

          Ah yes, UNOS.

          Undershoot North Overshoot South.

        2. ShelLuser

          @Headley

          "If we can't trust the US then we'll have problems with Tomahawk, F-35"

          Don't worry: those F-35 problems ship free of charge with the airplane. Like pilots suddenly suffering from hypoxia (lack of oxygen). You don't need the US for that :P

        3. john.jones.name

          Idiots - its about the NHS not missiles

          Having a navigation system is not about launching missiles...

          The NHS relies heavily on accurate navigation systems to function

          everything from cold supply chains to the padded trucks that will come and take you away...

          Radio/Television broadcasting and your GSM networks require accurate timing...

          The solution is to augment an existing system and to focus on accuracy of time and reach

          (ability to obtain a signal in the middle of city or in the wilds where interference from buildings/mountains).

          For example the UK could simply use the same architecture as QZZ using only 3 satellites and augment with land based eLoran type system for ships to provide a GPS compatible and highly accurate system that would add value to existing receivers (already in your car and ambulance) while providing a fail over if the EU/USA ever had to introduce timing inaccuracy because of an emergency elsewhere in the world.

          John Jones

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Idiots

          Don’t think for a second that there aren’t SC cleared teams of UK nationals going over all aspects of the kit you mentioned checking for backdoors and integrity, installing home built firmware and so on - in case, if it was ever required, they could deploy against whomsoever they wanted. Even the OEM nation.

          Because if the Australians do it (and they do) you can guarantee UK.gov does it in spades.

      2. Chris G Silver badge

        Re: Idiots

        " the sailors will proceed to run around the deck with their arms outstretched pretending to be aeroplanes "

        Well it worked to some degree in WWII, according to Spike Milligan's memoirs his artillery training consisted of pretending to load a big gun on the cliffs of Dover and then when the pretend shell was in place, putting their fingers in their ears and shouting 'BANG!'.

        It'll be like method acting, you have to believe.

        1. Nick Kew Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: Idiots

          Spike Milligan: How I won the War!

          Have an upvote for a wonderful mental image!

        2. Headley_Grange Silver badge

          Re: Idiots

          "Ach - mein bollocks!!"

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Idiots

        The rationale for Galileo is that the EU can't trust the US. The rationale for a UK system is presumably that we can't trust the US or the EU (and vice versa). In the latter case, I'm not quite sure that being able to dispatch HMS Elizabeth the Empty to a precise location where the sailors will proceed to run around the deck with their arms outstretched pretending to be aeroplanes is the military solution we will be needing.

        The rationale for the UK being in Galileo was that it was better to be in it than out of it. Sir Humphry, etc, and their divide and conquer strategy.

        The real rationale for the EU to have Galileo was because the European Commissioners got a hard on about having their own space system. There are no applications for a GNSS that particularly require you to trust the USA, except for expeditionary military operations outside of Europe involving precision bombs, missiles, etc. And I can't see the Europeans (maybe the French) launching anything like that any time soon.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Idiots

        Please consider that IF Galileo is run by the EU or the EU has a decisive say about it (I don't know, hence the IF), and UK is bailing out of this gentle-men club, then Galileo becomes one (of many) levers and pressure points EU can apply against UK to achieve EU goals. These goals are never fully "aligned", with UK goals and vice-versa, and out of the club, the differences become much less disguised, i.e. gloves off.

        So, UK politicians must decide if Galileo system is sufficiently important to UK's national interests in the future to be a potential lever / threat and if so, whether to replace it with own network, even at, excuse the pun, astronomical cost. If, for a moment, I disregard my natural instinct to assume all politicians are idiots who're into it only for money and ego-massage, and assuming that, as for the last couple of thousands of years, the basis of human civilization continues to be based on TRADE, and as flow of traffic is becoming increasingly dependent on precise navigation, then I can see why UK might want not to rely on our (ex) EU partners to control the sat system.

        And one more thing - until now most of the world's been happy to benefit from US good will / self-interest in providing certain guarantees to the world, including free trade (and satnav), in exchange for letting them run the business (and profit from it). This cuddly world order is now over with China seriously challenging the US supremacy. And when the old and new bully square up to see whose dick is largest, it's time to jostle for position on the sidelines too. Whoever bully wins he picks up his "generals" from among the strongest of the crowd on the sidelines. Both UK and EU would like winner's favour, but they're now clear competitors. Remember the "America First but... second" video? Comical, but careful overtures are made to both bullies all over the world, each little country bracing for potential showdown between the two. Because when your protector gets weak you'd better be on the lookout and able to fend off on your own, until one of the bullies becomes a clear winner, and you're there - still standing and preening for his attention.

        1. DeeCee

          Re: Idiots

          if idiots governing and living in EU wouldnt be so stupid and busy with their little squabbles they would realize that EU could rival US and China

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Idiots

      "The NHS is on critical life support."

      Largely because of high levels of immigration.

      "Food banks and homeless shelters are swamped with demand."

      Demand for freebies always rises to meet supply.

      "Hardly a road in the country is free of potholes"

      Just like every time we have a cold winter. Councils are busy filling them.

    3. rg287

      Re: Idiots

      Yet this totally insane government thinks it can afford to start up it's own satnav system.

      If - as another commentard posited - "Newton" cost £10bn in capital costs and £1bn/yr to run, then that would place the capital costs at less than 8% of the annual budget for NHS England & Wales (~£124bn/yr), and the running costs at <1%.

      If you offered it to the NHS they certainly wouldn't say no, but £10bn over 10 years would not revolutionise the service either. Certainly they could buy a lot of neonatal incubators with that money (the preferred unit when discussing healthcare funding), but to get some context of scale the BMA are calling for an additional £10bn per year.

      So no, £10bn of capital expenditure over 10 years for Newton is neither here nor there.

  5. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "using an Arianespace booster would likely cause a sizeable chunk of Parliament to spontaneously combust"

    Please! It would solve so many problems, the more so as it would be self-selecting.

  6. Chris G Silver badge

    Don't worry just yet

    The UK still has some significant elastic manufactures, a couple of million should be enough to build an

    Exceptionally

    Large

    Frigging

    CATapult

    ELFCAT for the acronymically challenged. It could be mounted on one of the new 'Not used much with aeroplanes' carriers to launch cubesats around the world.

    As a bonus it could also be used to bombard enemies around the world, catapulted ordnance would have a low heat signature so would be stealthy too.

    That'll make the damned Euros jealous.

    I know some will think this a stupid idea but in my defence; Hammond started it!

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Don't worry just yet

      "I know some will think this a stupid idea but in my defence; Hammond started it!"

      The worrying thing is that up to now he's been one with his head screwed on right.

    2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Re: Don't worry just yet

      Not stupid at all. It's a multi-purpose system that would have both civil and military uses. Therefore an excellent use of tax payer's money!

      We have 2 carriers, Queen Elizabeth and POW. Attach the cat to Queen Elizabeth, and have Prince of Wales steam away. When Liz start's moving backwards, it's at full power, so ELFCAT releases, and POW reloads. Perfect for launching F-35's, cubesats, cubes of crushed scrap, old pianos and cubesats!

      1. Chris G Silver badge

        Re: Don't worry just yet

        @ Jellied Eel.

        Anvils! the Joint Chiefs must put out tenders now for anvils.

        Nobody likes being hit by an anvil, it's true I've seen it on the telly!

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: Don't worry just yet

          Also safes! Won't be needing those any more now we've got crypto currencies, so can pack'em full of radioactive waste (aka depleted uranium) and launch it in a more environmentally friendly fashion. Could even use some psyops to leak info into terrorist comms channels (aka Facebook) that some safes still contain dollars. Once a crowd gathers to open them, launch the pianos! Cast iron frames, metal under tension begging just to crack and go.. and they'd be right in to the danger zone!*

          A baby grand would also make a good anti-air weapon. Chunks of cast iron and piano wire would prolly make a right mess of most jet intakes.

          (sorry.. Anyone for volleyball?)

  7. Andy 73

    Hypocrites

    The EU engages in brinkmanship over the Galileo project:

    "We deserve it, Brexit is a bad idea, this proves it!"

    The UK engages in brinkmanship over the Galileo project:

    "Our MPs are idiots, how dare they, Brexit is a bad idea, this proves it!"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hypocrites

      Sadly, there are many who would prefer to see the UK fail rather than accept the outcome of the largest democratic vote in British history. Why such people even remain in the country whinging and whining is beyond me. Please use that wonderful freedom of movement that you hold so dear and head for continental nirvana! Anyone that refuses to respect the basic fundamental principals of democracy will certainly not be missed.

      1. Chris G Silver badge

        Re: Hypocrites

        @AC. A democratic vote?

        Yeah 17.4 million voting leave out of a potential 46.5 million voters is of course a democratic majority.

        Some things that are broken do need fixing, which incidentally is why I do live in the EU, it's not perfect but at least you're only here for a fortnight at a time.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hypocrites

          @AC. A democratic vote?

          Yeah 17.4 million voting leave out of a potential 46.5 million voters is of course a democratic majority.

          If 100% participation is your benchmark then I doubt there's ever been a national democratic vote in history.

          Isn't it strange how you remoaners never seem to hold the EU to such high democratic standards!

          1. Chris G Silver badge

            Re: Hypocrites

            "Isn't it strange how you remoaners never seem to hold the EU to such high democratic standards!"

            Why wouldn't I hold anywhere to such high democratic standards?

            For any country to assume that a failing voting system is 'good enough' is cheating their population.

            As far as being a remoaner I had no vote but I would have voted to remain.

            In the original referendum in the '70s I voted No to joining but, the UK having been a member for decades and so much of UK infrastructure and business being tied into the EU, it was not about leaving or staying but for the UK to start playing the game on it's own terms instead of just going along with Brussels after a weak protest.

            You may be happy about leaving right now but when the economic realities of leaving begin to bit in a few years time all the leavers will be crying ' Why doesn't the government do something about this?' and you will be partly responsible for it and will then need to stop whining and take the medicine you asked for.

            Of course the old Commonwealth countries might come flocking back to build a new empire in spite of how quickly the UK shafted them on joining the EU, so then everything will be fine and you won't have to find new markets to replace the 1/2 billion consumers on Britain's doorstep.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Hypocrites

              You may be happy about leaving right now but when the economic realities of leaving begin to bit in a few years time all the leavers will be crying ' Why doesn't the government do something about this?' and you will be partly responsible for it and will then need to stop whining and take the medicine you asked for.

              Oh look, another bitter remainer able to see years if not decades into the future!

              Please email me with next Saturday's lottery numbers.

              1. Chris G Silver badge

                Re: Hypocrites

                "Oh look, another bitter remainer able to see years if not decades into the future!"

                Why should I be bitter? I left the UK and it's abysmal politics when Bliar was busy telling his lies and screwing anyone and everyone.

                I own a house in the country with a workshop where I can practice shederism and have enough land to be entitled to EU grants for planting olive and almond trees. Far from being bitter I am very happy for myself.

                However I am sad for Britain that it's on it's way down the drain because of the political equivalent of a one hit wonder and the short sighted jingoists that were taken in by his particular brand of tabloid politics. What was it like following a latterday comedy version of Oswald Mosely?

                Also wondering why you are an A/C, are you ashamed of who you really are?

                1. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

                  Re: Hypocrites

                  Chris G "and have enough land to be entitled to EU grants for planting olive and almond trees. Far from being bitter I am very happy for myself."

                  And us Brexitiers are happy that our taxes will not continue to be contributing to your subsidies. Which you call grants.

                  (So you had enough money to buy a plot of land in southern Europe due to depressed land prices, due to the economic malaise and the unbelievable unemployment there, and you happily put your hand out for taxpayer funding to maintain your land. What "sustainability"! Have a beer for the chutzpah.)

                2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

                  Re: Hypocrites

                  "Oh look, another bitter remainer able to see years if not decades into the future!"

                  Why should I be bitter? I left the UK and it's abysmal politics when Bliar was busy telling his lies and screwing anyone and everyone.

                  Similar story here. I bought it about the same time as a holiday house. Probably not big enough for Eu subsidies though.

                  It's a matter of choice. I still drive a 11 years old piece of agricultural equipment and my wife still drives a 15 year old slightly battered cheap Japanese rusty banger. We could have spaffed it up the wall on a Beamer or a Tesla instead. I do not see anything wrong in investing into something more tangible like real estate in an area with subdued prices instead of that. Doubly so if it can serve me as a retirement property.

                  As far as moving there - I keep this option open while observing the negotiations clusterf*ck. Nothing personal, just business. I have seen the movie called "removal of a country from a large trading system" in Eastern Europe in the 1990-es. I did not like it. It is not seeing decades into the future, it is in fact, seeing 2 decades into the past. If that would be the movie in the theaters, the piece of agricultural equipment will make a couple of runs with a large trailer taking our stuff down there and we will all end up there too.

                  Because, I do not want to watch this sh*t again.

              2. TVU Silver badge

                Re: Hypocrites

                "Oh look, another bitter remainer able to see years if not decades into the future!

                Please email me with next Saturday's lottery numbers"

                It speaks volumes that all the diehard Leave supporters are hiding behind the Anonymous Coward masks because that's exactly what they are.

                By the way, the International Monetary Fund can see into the future. By the end of 2019, the UK will have fallen two GDP world ranking places as a direct result of Brexit to end up behind both France and India.

            2. Kingstonian

              Re: Hypocrites

              The 70's referendum was about remaining in the EEC not about joining. We were already in. If we had been given a referendum vote on the Maastricht treaty then we might not be in such a mess.

              We also had a referendum on the voting system in 2011.......

            3. Nick Kew Silver badge

              @Chris G

              I had no vote but I would have voted to remain.

              Aha! Are you one of those Brits abroad who Cameron promised to enfranchise in the 2015 election manifesto, but then gerrymandered out of the referendum vote?

          2. TVU Silver badge

            Re: Hypocrites

            "@AC. A democratic vote?

            Yeah 17.4 million voting leave out of a potential 46.5 million voters is of course a democratic majority.

            If 100% participation is your benchmark then I doubt there's ever been a national democratic vote in history.

            Isn't it strange how you remoaners never seem to hold the EU to such high democratic standards!"

            Now that's really rich! The morally degenerate side that you support could only obtain a marginal win and it was only able to to that by telling the most outrageous political lies like the lie that all EU monies would be going to the NHS and overtly racist lie that 70 million Turks would be coming to the UK unless there was a Leave vote.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hypocrites

          Chris G,

          Until the laws are changed by 'Democratic Process' the process is Democratic as the UK has defined it.

          As usual, the same mantra ..... Democracy means 'I get what I want !!!. If I don't get it the UK is NOT Democratic !!! (with the subtext that the 'Illiterati' should not be ALLOWED to vote as they are too stupid to understand what they are doing !!!)

          Also the focus on 'how many people voted' without, of course, noticing how many chose NOT to vote and therefore lost the right to complain about the result they so clearly did not CARE about !!!

          So many 'young voters' (potentially) DID NOT VOTE !!!

          Therefore there is NO right to complain about the result if 'they as a whole' could not be bothered.

          All these 'false' concerns are pointless because the way the vote was going to be run and the consequence was very clearly advised by Cameron, including the fact that the end result of the vote was not 'Advisory' and would be actioned as the Final Absolute Result.

          Nowhere did it say, 'Best out of Three' or 'Subject to Voter Remorse' or 'Only valid IF the Result is REMAIN' etc etc.

          We have accepted for a 'long time' that the Elections we have are FPTP, lots of whining about the process when certain parties don't win BUT as of yet the laws have not been changed.

          Democracy means that UNTIL the laws are changed we accept the process and the RESULTS.

          At no time has anyone ever considered that we would whine & whinge about our Election results and simply refuse to accept the result .... WHY is BREXIT different ?

          I have not agreed with many of our Election results BUT as a citizen of the UK I accept the result because that is the system we have.

          Why is it so hard to see that the result will not change UNLESS the end of the process is 'Fudged' (as is looking more and more likely BUT that is a separate question with a different colour/flavour of 'Whining' so does NOT bear any right to be questioned, of course. !!!)

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Hypocrites

        "Sadly, there are many who would prefer to see the UK fail rather than accept the outcome of the largest democratic vote in British history."

        Actually we would rather see Britain succeed. That's why we think that Brexit is a huge mistake.

        We don't want to be proved right but fear we will be and we can also imagine the terms under which we'd have to be let back in. The Euro will be one. Probably the ever closer union crap will be another. It's just a huge strategic mistake which will end up with us back in the EU in 10 years time under conditions that nobody likes and with absolutely nobody willing to admit that they voted for it.

        And I suspect this "Remainers want Britain to fail" is a line born of increasing desperation of Brexiteers realising that the EU isn't folding to their every demand, maybe realising that we're negotiating from a position of weakness and seeking somebody - any body - to blame for this other than themselves and their madness that put us there.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hypocrites

          Actually we would rather see Britain succeed. That's why we think that Brexit is a huge mistake.

          But that's your opinion, and you do not possess a crystal ball. Also, we happened to ask the opinion of everyone in the country and the majority disagreed with you. Sorry, it's called democracy!

          There are plenty of totalitarian regimes still left in the world. Perhaps you would be more comfortable in one of those?

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: Hypocrites

            "Also, we happened to ask the opinion of everyone in the country and the majority disagreed with you."

            No they didn't, that's the trouble. It was a very close split. It's customary when a referendum is binding to require a substantial majority, something like 2/3, to overturn the status quo.

            And it's not customary to hold an advisory referendum and then treat it afterwards as binding.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Hypocrites

              No they didn't, that's the trouble. It was a very close split. It's customary when a referendum is binding to require a substantial majority, something like 2/3, to overturn the status quo.

              And it's not customary to hold an advisory referendum and then treat it afterwards as binding.

              Sorry, the rules were clear to everyone before the referendum. The government even sent out Project Fear leaflets to all households that clearly stated they would implement the will of the people.* The majority still voted to leave and no amount of sophistry on your part will change this fact.

              * This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

              See page 14.

              https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf

              1. Gazman

                Re: Hypocrites

                Just for the record (and not that it really matters now), the statement you supplied was a statement of the Government's *political intent*. Original poster was right that the referendum was *not legally binding* - I refer you to the following sources among others:

                House of Commons Library Briefing Paper, No 07212, 3 June 2015 (ed Uberoi, E), p25

                Hansard, House of Lords, Second Reading (Continued), Lord Norton of Louth, 13 Oct 2015 : Column 147 (see also reply of Lord Higgins following).

                So, while it would have been political suicide not to proceed with Brexit, there was no binding legal requirement to do it.

                1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

                  Re: Hypocrites

                  So, while it would have been political suicide not to proceed with Brexit, there was no binding legal requirement to do it.

                  Which is slightly problematic because it's both economic suicide and politicial suicide to proceed with Brexit.

                  Unless, of course, you're an out of touch muppet like Ree-Smogg who time travelled in from the seventeenth century who would very much like to see a return to the feudal values of landed nobles and gentry (conservative MPs) and serfs (everybody else). That and removing women's rights, votes, and they should stay at home and be quiet.

                  1. Gazman

                    Re: Hypocrites

                    @Nick Ryan. Political suicide *for the Conservative Government of the time*. I would have hoped that would have been clear from the context of the rest of the post - apparently not.

              2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

                Re: Hypocrites

                * This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

                See page 14.

                Absolutely correct. Exact. Spot on.

                The parliament voted for an advisory referendum with NO LEGALLY BINDING STATUS. Read the referendum act - it is fairly clear, there is no legally binding outcome.

                The government without having ANY legal authority to do so has repeatedly declared the referendum as a BINDING one.

                1. fandom Silver badge

                  Re: Hypocrites

                  "The parliament voted for an advisory referendum with NO LEGALLY BINDING STATUS"

                  But then 'advisory' means 'advisory' not "yes, we are letting you vote on it, but then we are doing whatever we want anyway"

                  And after the vote, hasn't parliament voted for leaving?

            2. Nick Ryan Silver badge

              Re: Hypocrites

              And it's not customary to hold an advisory referendum and then treat it afterwards as binding.

              It is now that the vile racists behind certain national newspapers have said so. After all, who can argue with papers that copy, almost exactly, every Nazi propaganda technique? "Will of the people", "Enemies of the people", rat cartoons, consistent and continual unfounded derogatory attacks on people and cultures.

              It is also extermely important to blame absolutely everything that the friends of the Daily Mail's owners have done to the country on some scapegoat. It was the French, Irish, Gypsies, Romanians, Russians, Immigrants, Muslims, EU, Remainers - the lot. All suddenly to blame for issues that in general had nothing to do with them.

              It is also extremely important to dehumanise these targetted hate groups, through repeatedly publishing articles questioning individual member's integrity, personal habits, intelligence, sexual preferences, religion and everything else - reality not withstanding. Because it certainly wouldn't help anything if normal people in the UK, looked at the normal people elsewhere and realised that we share considerably more in common than not and that one lot of us is not more human than another.

              In the meantime, the readers of the Daily Mail (some of the ACs here are obviously from that camp), will keep repeating the same brainwashed nonsense from the Daily Mail without realising how it makes no sense whatsoever.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Hypocrites

            "But that's your opinion, and you do not possess a crystal ball. Also, we happened to ask the opinion of everyone in the country and the majority disagreed with you. Sorry, it's called democracy!"

            So, in the interests of democracy, now that the lies told by the 'leave' side have been exposed, I presume you would like to have another vote, taking into account some of the facts not available without a crystal ball.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Hypocrites

              So, in the interests of democracy, now that the lies told by the 'leave' side have been exposed, I presume you would like to have another vote, taking into account some of the facts not available without a crystal ball.

              Stop being disingenuous. Lies were spouted by both sides during the run up to the referendum. For example, George Osborne stated that an emergency budget and instantaneous recession would follow immediately after a leave result.

              Who knows how many people bought into Project Fear and were scared into voting remain? After all, it was the establishment's preferred option, together with the vast majority of the mainstream media. Therefore the number of misled on the remain side most probably outweighed those on the leave side.

            2. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

              Re: Hypocrites

              AC "now that the lies told by the 'leave' side have been exposed"

              So funny that you guys and gals keep saying that, as if there were no lies from the Remainians. Like the killer budget and the immediate economic collapse. Lolz

              1. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

                Re: Hypocrites

                You seem confused about predictions (and, by the way, the change in value of Sterling happened immediately after the vote, which indeed had a nasty economic effect) and *facts*.

                "Leave" based their campaign on actual lies. For example, there was no £350m going to Brussels, and there was never any possibility of it going to the NHS. And of course there was the totally illegal spending issues, too.

                Both sides predicted various things. And both sides predictions have proved wrong... but interestingly the wrongness is that Leave pretended that Nirvana was probable while Remain warned that Armageddon was possible.

                By now we *know* that Nirvana is not possible, and Armageddon hasn't happened... but the economy is not doing as well as it was.

                1. Mark 65 Silver badge

                  Re: Hypocrites

                  You seem confused about predictions (and, by the way, the change in value of Sterling happened immediately after the vote, which indeed had a nasty economic effect) and *facts*.

                  What nasty effect was that, more competitive exports? You do realise that the exchange rate forms a balancing act between how much we export versus import don't you? If a weakened rate caused hardship due to pricier imports it kind of shows that we're importing a little too much, you know that whole unsustainable consumption part of the economy?

          3. hammarbtyp Silver badge

            Re: Hypocrites

            But that's your opinion, and you do not possess a crystal ball. Also, we happened to ask the opinion of everyone in the country and the majority disagreed with you. Sorry, it's called democracy!

            No, but you can make an informed decision based on the evidence provided and refine that opinion as more information becomes available.

            I voted largely the way i did because the leave side provided no viable alternative. Almost 2 years in we still have no viable alternative apart from vague platitudes and infantile threats to take their ball home.

            If however despite that, the country gets its free unicorns and all you can eat cake, I will be relieved and big enough to admit that I was mistaken. If on the other hand the economic forecasts by the majority of the non-partisan economists come to pass, will you do the same? Will you admit you made a mistake and campaign to reverse it?

            Or will you come up with some lame excuses about conspiracy of remainers or blame Europe for having the temerity of looking after their best interests?

            If the latter, you have given up rationality and are in fact just part of a cult desperately batting away reality to try to desperately preserve your world view to preserve your pride and damn the consequences

          4. GIRZiM

            Re: Hypocrites

            "Sorry, it's called democracy!"

            Because 17.4 million lemmings just can't be wrong!

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hypocrites

          We don't want to be proved right but fear we will be and we can also imagine the terms under which we'd have to be let back in. The Euro will be one. Probably the ever closer union crap will be another.

          Your argument for remaining in the EU makes no sense. You need to understand that ever closer political union is the agenda. It's part of the fundamental vision of the EU's founders. Whether the UK stays in or out, will not change this. If you think that closer union is "crap", in your own words, then I'm afraid the EU is not for you!

          Likewise for the Euro. All new members are forced to adopt it and all the important countries, except the UK, already have, which gives you a clear indication of the direction of travel.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Hypocrites

            a few points:

            1. I'd agree that EU shifted its mandate, from economic to political integration. If I were one of those voting in in 1970s, I'd be really pissed (and cheated). But then... this was not what the out vote was about, ironically.

            2. I'd agree that, while I disagree on a human level, EU political integration makes sense, given that larger entities stand better chance against US and against China, than little countries.

            3. I'd agree that further political integration within the EU would benefit mostly Germany, and UK would lose, irrevocably, something vital perhaps (identity?), as part of the European superstate, becoming just a fringe province

            4. While I voted in, I'm not at all sure that UK's position, in or out of the EU, is beneficial to the country (short-term, out seems detrimental). But mid- and long term, I feel Europe is in decline, regardless, both as source (of ideas) and, consequently, as an attractive market to sell goods to.

            1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

              Re: Hypocrites

              3. I'd agree that further political integration within the EU would benefit mostly Germany, and UK would lose, irrevocably, something vital perhaps (identity?), as part of the European superstate, becoming just a fringe province

              Correct as far national identities of everyone are concerned. Though the idea that in the endgame Eu will have German identity is barking up the wrong tree. Let's be real, the Slavic nations outweigh as population and votes everyone else. It is only a matter of time until they level up economically for their numbers to count across the board. Germany's reign will be temporary if it will even happen in the first place.

              In fact, the process has started. Do you think the Vera Yurova "Food and Goods Apartheid" crusade would have had any chance a decade ago. I doubt it. Today - different story. Tomorrow - a company in the Eu would not even contemplate to do what they were doing in the "fringe provinces" (and doing right now pre-Brexit in the UK).

              1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

                Re: Hypocrites

                Correct as far national identities of everyone are concerned.

                Not really, the Scottish national identity has survived 400 years of much closer union, the Welsh one even longer. The German imperative behind ever closer union continues to be as the best way to avoid future wars.

                I'm happy being a Mancunian and a European and a bit of a Rhinelander…

          2. MJI Silver badge

            Re: Hypocrites

            But we also had a permanent opt out on Euro as Pound is still a major currency. Also had opt out on closer integration.

            But we were still popular for our skilled high tech industries and major financial trading.

            And how many leave voters realised that the EU trading capital would be moving from CoL?

            1. Mark 65 Silver badge

              Re: Hypocrites

              But we were still popular for our skilled high tech industries and major financial trading.

              I can assure you that our major financial trading was not popular in the corridors of power in the EU. There were certainly moves afoot to neuter the City and remove whatever power could be taken. Brexit will speed up certain areas but there was always the intent to weaken the hold the City had over European finances as it doesn't suit the EU mandarins to not have absolute control over this aspect, especially when such markets smash your bond prices raising the cost of borrowing for your project.

          3. Mark 65 Silver badge

            Re: Hypocrites

            The bit that always got me about the Brexit vote was the remain campaign thought that voting against it was a vote to stay in the EU under the current circumstances, as is, ad infinitum (not sure what all of the leave camp though, wide and varied no doubt). Unfortunately this deal was never really on the table. Given the current direction of the EU - closer union, EU army, new members must adopt the Euro etc - it is quite clear that the status quo was never on the table as far as the EU was concerned and eventually there would have to be a reckoning. The UK's position would have gotten ever weaker with the majority no longer willing to be stalled by vetos from a single "not really in" member. To ignore that and think you could keep your current sweet deal is just wilful ignorance.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hypocrites

        > the largest democratic vote in British history

        The largest bait and switch con in British history.

        We need another referendum to reveal what the will of the people is now leavers have discovered what they thought they were voting for was never on the table.

        Not just that ridiculous bus slogan but adopting the Norway or Switzerland model.

        The hypocrites are the brexiteers denying democracy and opposing such a referendum. Because they fear the 2% swing which would see this nonsense ended.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hypocrites

          We need another referendum to reveal what the will of the people is now leavers have discovered what they thought they were voting for was never on the table.

          Here! Here! All those stupid leave voters that didn't have the clarity of thought, vision and intellect that you possess! Time to make them reconsider their foolish decision! Why were those idiots even allowed to vote in the first place?????

          The arrogance and hubris of certain remain voters is simply breathtaking.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. TVU Silver badge

            Re: Hypocrites

            "Here! Here! All those stupid leave voters that didn't have the clarity of thought, vision and intellect that you possess! Time to make them reconsider their foolish decision! Why were those idiots even allowed to vote in the first place?????

            The arrogance and hubris of certain remain voters is simply breathtaking"

            The only reason Leave supporters are so opposed, and scared of, any second referendum is because they know that the voting public cannot be conned twice by the same outrageous lies such as promise that all EU monies would go to the NHS.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Hypocrites

              @ TVU

              "The only reason Leave supporters are so opposed, and scared of, any second referendum is because they know that the voting public cannot be conned twice by the same outrageous lies such as promise that all EU monies would go to the NHS."

              What does that say about remain voters who cannot accept the outcome of a democratic vote and demand a rematch because they didnt win? Even after the remain lies of such extremes even the MP's couldnt support (the punishment budget). Direct threats against the population by the government if we dont give them the 'right' answer shows the lack of moral high ground.

              1. GIRZiM

                Re: Hypocrites

                "What does that say about remain voters who cannot accept the outcome of a democratic vote and demand a rematch because they didnt win?"

                What?

                Are you some kind of Stalinist/Maoist, who believes that once the government has been elected the matter has been settled and people should not even hope there be an option to change it, let alone demand one?

                Because, if you are, then the UK's membership of the EU was settled in the 1970s and the result of the last referendum can be ignored by the government and you should have no complaint about that because that's the way you like things to be done.

                If you're not then you have to accept others' democratic right to demand that matters be put to a vote any time they're unhappy with some state of affairs and keep doing so until they are happy - they don't have to get their way but you can't deny them the right to try and change things by due democratic process.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: Hypocrites

                  @ GIRZiM

                  "Are you some kind of Stalinist/Maoist, who believes that once the government has been elected the matter has been settled and people should not even hope there be an option to change it, let alone demand one?"

                  Absolutely not which is why brexit should go ahead. The fact that we were dictated into the EU for our own good, kept there without democratic choice (although promised one for a few elections) and when we finally got one the dictators as you say are trying to ignore the democratic vote. In our democracy there will be another election in a few years and if you want to rejoin you can vote for it. But trying to dictate another vote or ignoring the one just had because 'waaa waaa waa' this vote got it wrong 'waa waa waa' and supporting the dictatorial approach of ignoring voters is supporting the dictator.

                  "Because, if you are, then the UK's membership of the EU was settled in the 1970s and the result of the last referendum can be ignored by the government and you should have no complaint about that because that's the way you like things to be done."

                  So we are both against dictators (I hope I read you right) and we are both happy for regular elections and the voters electing as they believe. So the voters have elected a party for the referendum and the brexit party gained incredibly high support, and then we had the referendum and voted brexit. So we both agree that brexit is the way we should go. Or are you a arguing you want a dictator?

                  "If you're not then you have to accept others' democratic right to demand that matters be put to a vote any time they're unhappy"

                  No no no no and no. For example we have an election and some people will be happy with the outcome and more will not be. That does not mean the little babies who cant handle a democratic vote get to waa waa waa I want another vote or I spit my dummy out etc and demand another vote. Otherwise we would get nothing done. The result is in and we implement it. Next election feel free to vote a party who will keep you in. In the last election that was a complete 100% option by voting lib dem. How did the lib dems do? Crap.

                  "they don't have to get their way but you can't deny them the right to try and change things by due democratic process."

                  That is the part of your comment which is very true and so badly misunderstood by moaning remainers. They are arguing against democracy. Democracy gives them the right to vote to rejoin through their vote in the next election.

                  1. GIRZiM

                    Re: Hypocrites

                    @CODEJUNKY

                    Absolutely not which is why brexit should go ahead. The fact that we were dictated into the EU for our own good kept there without democratic choice (although promised one for a few elections) and when we finally got one the dictators as you say are trying to ignore the democratic vote.

                    When exactly was it dictated to us that we should join?

                    I also seem to recall there being a referendum on whether we should remain in it.

                    In our democracy there will be another election in a few years and if you want to rejoin you can vote for it.

                    Oh, come now, you know that's simplistic: we don't live in a democracy, but in a pseudodemocracy - we don't get to tell our alleged representatives what we want them to put on the table, they get to decide on our behalf and if they don't deem it desirable then we will never again get to vote on the issue.

                    We won't be able to vote for anything, let alone to rejoin, we'll only be able to vote for whatever table-scraps the politicos offer us.

                    In all but name, we live in Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat: any one of us can stand for election and get voted in, so power is not restircted to the nobles/aristos any more, we proles can dictate to the rest as well. But it's a dictatorship in all but name nevertheless. And even then it's a matter of whom you know - whether you go to Eton and Oxbridge or a Tower Hamlets comprehensive and a red brick university, if you're not in with the in-crowd, you'll never wield any influence any more than 'the People' did after the Bolsheviks liberated the Russians from the yoke of bourgeois oppression.

                    We don't get to set the agenda, just to vote in favour of having our left testicle electrocuted, our right or (if we vote LibDem) having our perineum wired up to the car battery for a change.

                    But trying to dictate another vote or ignoring the one just had because 'waaa waaa waa' this vote got it wrong 'waa waa waa' and supporting the dictatorial approach of ignoring voters is supporting the dictator.

                    Then I ask again what the point is of having elections every five years: the government was elected by public plebiscite so anyone suggesting that we should have another election in five years' time is merely engaging in 'waaa waaa waa' this vote got it wrong 'waa waa waa' - the timescale makes no difference: we know what kind of girl/boy she/he is and are merely haggling over the price.

                    So we are both against dictators (I hope I read you right) and we are both happy for regular elections and the voters electing as they believe [...] So we both agree that brexit is the way we should go. Or are you a arguing you want a dictator?

                    Whilst I'm prepared for future events to reveal that the decision was, entirely coincidentally, fortuitously the right one in the long run (anything could happen and I can't rule out undmerited serendipity), I don't agree that Brexit is the way we should go, no: I think it a huge mistake to deny ourselves a seat at the table of what is the largest trading bloc in the history of the World - especially one at which we had such a uniquely privileged one.

                    I accept though that, rightly or wrongly, the vote went the way it did and even should it, in future, transpire that, thanks to a perfect storm of external influences (from Russia to the U.S.), (financial and/or other) irregularities and the general mendacity of the brexiteers at the time (with tactics ranging from propaganda to outright lies) the result was not truly legitimate, to backtrack on it now would set a very dangerous precedent indeed: at the very least there'd be something of a constitutional crisis shortly down the line and, worse still, it would further entrench the idea in the minds of our public servants that they are our masters; it's bad enough as it is without encouraging them to consider public opinion entirely inconsequential - revolutions seldom end well for anybody but the sociopathic and megalomaniacal whatever the outcome, even when they're 'bloodless', so I think it best avoided.

                    No no no no and no. For example we have an election and some people will be happy with the outcome and more will not be. That does not mean the little babies who cant handle a democratic vote get to waa waa waa I want another vote or I spit my dummy out etc and demand another vote.

                    As I've already pointed out, that's a straw man; the timescale is irrelevant and a democracy (even a pseudodemocracy such as ours) is precisely what you describe: an opportunity for those who didn't like the previous outcome to do exactly that and overturn it because "waa waa waa I want another vote". The (democratic) alternative is a one-party state in which we vote for individual policies (or at least policy direction).

                    How did the lib dems do? Crap.

                    Yes, well, they lost their support for being ignorant of history: had they understood the meaning of their position in 2010 they'd never have joined a coalition government but, instead, wielded their power in opposition - they were ideally positioned to get their way regardless of which of the slightly larger minorities had got into government and, moreover, without getting covered in any of the fallout that comes from being 'in charge' and, therefore, responsible but, instead, able to point to positive outcomes (in either direction) that resulted from their independent vote in favour of (or against) given policies. So many people voting LibDem was unprecedented and they blew their chances by grabbing onto the coattails of another party rather than stand up for their own principles - given the chance of being a third way, they leapt for the chance to be no different by association. Had they paid attention to British History, they'd've known that the model they should've followed was the Ulster Unionists in the early part of the 20th century and got their way by virtue of holding the balance of power and being the makers or breakers of government policy - historical ignorance is high price to pay and they paid it.

                    That is the part of your comment which is very true and so badly misunderstood by moaning remainers. They are arguing against democracy. Democracy gives them the right to vote to rejoin through their vote in the next election.

                    I don't think it's that simple.

                    Many people feel that the irregularities, propaganda and outright lies of the brexiteers mean that the result was invalid because it wasn't based upon truthful representation of the facts and the fact that the remainers may not have been very much less disingenuous is neither here nor there: the kettle is black and it isn't magically clean simply because the pot is equally so itself.

                    Many also feel that the binary choice of 'in/out' was disingenuous, because it really doesn't matter if everyone who voted was a bona fide genius, never mind 'ignorant', 'stupid', 'xenophobic', 'racist' 'little Englanders', the choice of 'leave' did not give people the chance to say on what terms and thus distorted the outcome in favour of allowing a hardcore of extremists to dictate the meaning of the vote subsequently; and, again, it doesn't matter which minority (soft or hard) wielded the influence afterwards, their vision is not that of everyone who voted 'leave' - which is why, if we're going to leave, I believe we should be given a second vote, to determine the terms upon which we do so (after we have been informed of the realities of each option and not simply subjected to another 'dumbed down' propaganda fest).

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: Hypocrites

                      @ GIRZiM

                      "When exactly was it dictated to us that we should join?"

                      We joined without giving the population a choice but the dictation of this being the continued promise of a referendum (labour and tory) then dropping that promise because we would vote out and the gov didnt want that.

                      "I also seem to recall there being a referendum on whether we should remain in it."

                      How well is this going? With every backhanded attempt to stop it from happening and desperation to stay in even if by another name.

                      "we don't get to tell our alleged representatives what we want them to put on the table"

                      We did it. Plenty of us voted UKIP because they were the only major party who truly offered choice. And so the tories in desperation offered the choice the population wanted. If you want to rejoin you will likely have that option in the libs. If not pick a party who offers it (one will if anyone cares).

                      "But it's a dictatorship in all but name nevertheless"

                      You are countering your starting argument of us not being dictated to.

                      "The (democratic) alternative is a one-party state in which we vote for individual policies (or at least policy direction)."

                      You seem to be arguing for a new implementation of government as some kind of new democracy (I have no problem with that discussion) but I responded to you asking if I was 'dictatorist' because I accept the outcome of the vote, expect it to be implemented and dont think it should be overturned by minority upstarts who have no legitimacy.

                      "result was invalid because it wasn't based upon truthful representation of the facts"

                      One problem with both sides lying is the requirement of adults to be adults. Looking at information and weighing the situation instead of blind belief. Invalidating the vote because the winner was lied to results in no way to win the vote as both sides were questionable. However the side of a bus with a cleverly worded non-commitment to more NHS money is being held onto while the ability to predict 2 of the past 0 recessions is a score the remainers dont want to be held to.

                      "the choice of 'leave' did not give people the chance to say on what terms"

                      This is another brain dead argument. The EU is a set of rules to be a member, not a negotiation pre referendum. Camerons attempt at that got him a worthless piece of paper. How can you offer choices you dont have? The 2 deliverable truths were remain or leave. Both can be absolutely delivered. No option to reform the EU nor type of reformation. No option to be half in or Norway model. None of those are possible options when we dont have those options available (and we didnt).

                      "'ignorant', 'stupid', 'xenophobic', 'racist' 'little Englanders'"

                      Unfortunately that list applies in the reverse with 'little EUers' which upsets remainers. There seems to be 2 camps- inward looking (protectionist, nationalist, xenophobic, etc) and outward looking (globalists, traders, cooperative). Dropping the referendum opinion there are those who want to hide in the EU afraid of the world, the big countries are scary, we are little England. And there are those who want to trade in the world, to be part of the world. An early reg comment I made after the referendum addressed this and how we outward looking need to band together to support the country that way.

                      "their vision is not that of everyone who voted 'leave"

                      How does this explain to remainers that their socialist/capitalist paradise, global/protectionist, federalising/trade block, utopia/world is scary visions are incompatible? Or do we ignore that fact? The vision to leave at least allows people to vote for their vision after we leave vs remain which is to remain in the EU as the EU drags us along.

                      "after we have been informed of the realities of each option and not simply subjected to another 'dumbed down' propaganda fest"

                      We could but then the remainers might cry foul. For example Carney and Osborne lied about the economy in such extreme ways it cannot be passed at fact. That hard brexit would be better for the economy than being tied to the EU will also upset them. Facts about tariffs, regulation and even the state of the EU in multiple self inflicted crises will cause all kinds of squealing of lies. And then what? Another referendum and another and another? All to stall and try to overturn a democratic result?

                      1. GIRZiM

                        Re: Hypocrites

                        @ CODEJUNKY

                        How well is this going? With every backhanded attempt to stop it from happening and desperation to stay in even if by another name.

                        I'm referring to 1975 actually.

                        We did it. Plenty of us voted UKIP because they were the only major party who truly offered choice. And so the tories in desperation offered the choice the population wanted.

                        And, if UKIP hadn't existed and the Tories hadn't put it on the table, there'd have been no choice at all - your point here does not refute mine in any way.

                        If you want to rejoin you will likely have that option in the libs. If not pick a party who offers it (one will if anyone cares).

                        Again, no, only if some party decides to put it on the table - if none do then we won't have that option however much we might like the idea.

                        You are countering your starting argument of us not being dictated to.

                        No, I've moved on to a different matter: the fact that we are dictated to does not mean that our rulers never give us a limited choice whenever they feel it suits them - the specific does not imply the general.

                        You seem to be arguing for a new implementation of government as some kind of new democracy (I have no problem with that discussion)

                        No, I think we can see how various Communist parties over the years showed that approach to be no better than what we have now, just different - moreover, it has the potential to lead to even more stubbornly entrenched elites within government, which would not be a good idea, I don't think.

                        It's a tough one because, fundamentally, whichever way you look a it, there is no perfect system because there are no perfect people and any/all systems of government will inevitably be subverted by the unscrupulously self-serving - as Pratchett said: the problem isn't that we have the wrong sort of government but the wrong sort of people full stop.

                        but I responded to you asking if I was 'dictatorist' because I accept the outcome of the vote, expect it to be implemented and dont think it should be overturned by minority upstarts who have no legitimacy.

                        I don't think you can call 48% of the population 'minority upstarts' nor say that elected MPs have no legitimacy.

                        One problem with both sides lying is the requirement of adults to be adults. Looking at information and weighing the situation instead of blind belief. Invalidating the vote because the winner was lied to results in no way to win the vote as both sides were questionable. However the side of a bus with a cleverly worded non-commitment to more NHS money is being held onto while the ability to predict 2 of the past 0 recessions is a score the remainers dont want to be held to.

                        The first 95% of that is fine but the leap to predicting 2 of the last 0 recessions is a bit confusing as well as a non sequitur.

                        Do you mean 0 of the last 2 recessions? Even if you do though, it doesn't change the fact that not being able to predict them does not mean that their choice of solution was inappropriate.

                        Moreover, whichever way one voted, it was a matter of belief: either that remaining was the better option or that leaving was - no-one knows what the actual outcome will be, so, even after weighing all the facts and figures, it's still a mater of belief.

                        Finally, the recessions were not the result of membership of the E.U. but of the whole neoliberal agenda across the Western world (and maybe beyond) and your point there more than a bit of a straw man, I'm afraid.

                        This is another brain dead argument.

                        Now, now, there's no need to be insulting.

                        The EU is a set of rules to be a member, not a negotiation pre referendum. Camerons attempt at that got him a worthless piece of paper. How can you offer choices you dont have? The 2 deliverable truths were remain or leave. Both can be absolutely delivered. No option to reform the EU nor type of reformation. No option to be half in or Norway model. None of those are possible options when we dont have those options available (and we didnt).

                        The two things are unrelated. The U.K. already had an exceptional status and Cameron's inability to wring further concessions not accorded other member states has nothing to do with the formulation of the referendum questions. There was nothing stopping the options being more nuanced and the ballot could just as well have been:

                        1. Remain

                        2. Leave entirely

                        3. Leave but remain in the Customs Union

                        4. Leave but remain in the Single Market

                        The U.K. is currently a member of the E.U., the Customs Union and the Single Market; the options were there, the referendum question was just formulated in such a way that the choice was limited to the first two and the problem with that is that the second is not meaningful without the third and fourth if you want to truly capture the will of the nation because not everyone who wants/wanted to leave the E.U. necessarily meant that they wanted to leave the other two - the formulation of the ballot was as dishonest as were the preceding campaigns.

                        Unfortunately that list applies in the reverse with 'little EUers' which upsets remainers.

                        Yes, name-calling does upset people.

                        There seems to be 2 camps- inward looking (protectionist, nationalist, xenophobic, etc) and outward looking (globalists, traders, cooperative). Dropping the referendum opinion there are those who want to hide in the EU afraid of the world, the big countries are scary, we are little England. And there are those who want to trade in the world, to be part of the world. An early reg comment I made after the referendum addressed this and how we outward looking need to band together to support the country that way.

                        I think your assertion there is fallacious: one can be outward looking and still want to be a member of a trade bloc on the grounds that one feels that, on balance, it offers the best opportunities in a wider world. Equally, one can be protectionist, nationalist and xenophobic and still want to engage in global trade.

                        How does this explain to remainers that their socialist/capitalist paradise, global/protectionist, federalising/trade block, utopia/world is scary visions are incompatible? Or do we ignore that fact? The vision to leave at least allows people to vote for their vision after we leave vs remain which is to remain in the EU as the EU drags us along.

                        Therein lies the rub, however: w have a minority of hard Brexiters holding the government to ransom and a government that has no actual idea of what those who voted to leave actually wanted. Many have stated that their motivation for voting to leave was that they had voted to join the E.E.C. not the E.U. and would happily remain in it but felt that it had been transformed into something else that they did not wish to part of. The government has no figures on the precise will of the nation though because the simplistic question presented could not capture them. In any situation, the question is at least half the answer, so it's important to ask the right one(s) - and it wasn't, was it?

                        We could but then the remainers might cry foul. For example Carney and Osborne lied about the economy in such extreme ways it cannot be passed at fact. That hard brexit would be better for the economy than being tied to the EU will also upset them. Facts about tariffs, regulation and even the state of the EU in multiple self inflicted crises will cause all kinds of squealing of lies. And then what? Another referendum and another and another? All to stall and try to overturn a democratic result?

                        I don't see how allowing us to choose from options 2, 3 and 4 could possibly provide anyone with the legitimate complaint that the attempt were being made to overturn it - all three entail leaving the E.U., so no-one can cry 'foul' there. It would just give the nation the chance to say precisely how far it wishes to divorce itself from the trading bloc - entirely or just politically.

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: Hypocrites

                          @ GIRZiM

                          "I'm referring to 1975 actually."

                          The EU never existed then. Not even close. Couldnt even join the EU then. And of course the idea that we are able to change our minds has only now been proven right. With our very first vote for our membership of the EU.

                          "And, if UKIP hadn't existed and the Tories hadn't put it on the table, there'd have been no choice at all - your point here does not refute mine in any way."

                          Actually it is the existence of UKIP which does refute your point. They exist because people want this choice.

                          "I don't think you can call 48% of the population 'minority upstarts' nor say that elected MPs have no legitimacy."

                          Unfortunately for them they are the minority upstarts. 48% by direct comparison against the alternate vote of 52%. 52% is a majority. People claiming to be for the 48% trying to overthrow the democratic vote therefore the upstarts.

                          "Do you mean 0 of the last 2 recessions? Even if you do though, it doesn't change the fact that not being able to predict them does not mean that their choice of solution was inappropriate."

                          I am fairly sure I said it the right way. We were told a recession on the day of the result (if brexit) and when that didnt happen we were told it would be when we start with article 50. 2 predictions, both wildly wrong. Economically things improved instead.

                          "Now, now, there's no need to be insulting."

                          Sorry for the insult but the argument is so void of thought as to be without consideration. As the rest of my paragraph pointed out the options you list are not viable options. Those are things only the EU can decide/dictate/agree to allow us to do. The only choices we could decide upon at the time is remain or leave. The only 2 options we have any authority over.

                          "I think your assertion there is fallacious: one can be outward looking and still want to be a member of a trade bloc on the grounds that one feels that, on balance, it offers the best opportunities in a wider world."

                          Yes and that is my point. If those people were to accept a full brexit but insist for an outward looking view then the tribal remain/leave vanishes pretty quick, the decision to leave the EU does not mean not trading with the EU. They may believe we are better in the EU but the UK has voted to leave that.

                          "w have a minority of hard Brexiters holding the government to ransom and a government that has no actual idea of what those who voted to leave actually wanted"

                          That is the mistake. We voted leave, that is what we wanted which is why your idea of selling what only the EU had to offer didnt work. Actual leave full stop is what we voted for. Not remain, not one leg in one leg out. Not under the control of the EU.

                          "The government has no figures on the precise will of the nation though because the simplistic question presented could not capture them"

                          You are pointing this at leave still but you have again forgotten remain. Remain did not have a united view, did not agree on what the EU is or what it should be. What are the various terms that we remain under? If those conditions are not met then surely we leave?

                          "I don't see how allowing us to choose from options 2, 3 and 4 could possibly provide anyone with the legitimate complaint that the attempt were being made to overturn it"

                          They you are either unfamiliar with negotiation or you want to scupper it. The positions are laid out. It is now up to the negotiators to make the details of leave as we voted. To put a proviso that the negotiators get you a unicorn or we remain (oddly what you want) is a direct threat to the result of the vote. If we overturn it what should the default outcome be? To leave with no deal as in keeping with the vote result? Or remain because it makes you feel better?

                          As to your follow up comment that does sound a very interesting subject. Maybe if the reg gives a valid excuse sometime we can discuss it.

                          1. GIRZiM

                            Re: Hypocrites

                            The EU never existed then. Not even close. Couldnt even join the EU then. And of course the idea that we are able to change our minds has only now been proven right. With our very first vote for our membership of the EU.

                            Maybe I didn't make it clear enough previously, but I did observe that many people voted leave precisely because what they voted for in 1975 was E.E.C. membership, not the E.U, so I feel my comment withstands your rebuttal there.

                            Moreover, it was already laid out then that the intent was for there to be ever closer political union as time went by. Maybe it wasn't presented as clearly as it should have been, but t was in the detail and people should really have looked at that before they voted, just as those who regret their leave vote now should have done.

                            Actually it is the existence of UKIP which does refute your point. They exist because people want this choice.

                            No, I said if they hadn't existed and the Tories hadn't put it on the table. It's whatabouttery, perhaps, I grant you, but my point was to do with the fact that we do not live in a true democracy but a pseudodemocracy. So, again, my point stands.

                            Unfortunately for them they are the minority upstarts. 48% by direct comparison against the alternate vote of 52%. 52% is a majority. People claiming to be for the 48% trying to overthrow the democratic vote therefore the upstarts.

                            A 4% difference is statistically insignificant. What's done is done and, for better or for worse, we are leaving, but whilst it may have been enough in a FPTP plebescite but it's still not a significant difference and it is not appropriate to call a minority that is not significantly smaller than a majority that is insignificantly larger 'upstarts' is inappropriate. Furthermore, doing so doesn't help with bridge-building any more than calling the leavers names either and I'd suggest it might be an idea to at least pay lip service to the concept of showing respect for your fellow citizens with whom you will still have to live afterwards.

                            I am fairly sure I said it the right way. We were told a recession on the day of the result (if brexit) and when that didnt happen we were told it would be when we start with article 50. 2 predictions, both wildly wrong. Economically things improved instead.

                            Ah, right, yes, I see. Fair enough. I'm not necessarily surprised though; I have a lot less regard for economists than many I suspect - it's barely any better than oracular prognostication really, not a science at all.

                            Sorry for the insult but the argument is so void of thought as to be without consideration.

                            That's just as insulting - I may not necessarily be right, but I don't say the things I do without having thought about them first.

                            As the rest of my paragraph pointed out the options you list are not viable options. Those are things only the EU can decide/dictate/agree to allow us to do. The only choices we could decide upon at the time is remain or leave. The only 2 options we have any authority over.

                            That's true but I don't believe the E.U. is out to punish us the way the tabloids would have us believe and, having lived in a number of E.U. countries over the years, I'm pretty sure that a decision to leave the E.U. but remain in the Customs Union and/or Single Market might have been met with less incredulity than has our vote to leave the E.U. even if only because it would have made it clear to the 27 what kind of relationship we wish to pursue with them. As it stands, they can't even begin to negotiate with us because they don't know the answer to that question, as we haven't made it clear since either; as it stands, the only option that appears to be up for negotiation is a hard Brexit, which even they cannot negotiate with us because that's not their decision but ours - they can't stop us deciding on a hard Brexit if that's what we want.

                            So, yes, strictly, you are correct but interpreting the options that rigidly is bit silly really - unless we want a hard Brexit and nothing else will do then it would have made the negotiations much easier and it would have been a sensible to give ourselves the chance to speed negotiations up by having a clear direction of travel.

                            Yes and that is my point. If those people were to accept a full brexit but insist for an outward looking view then the tribal remain/leave vanishes pretty quick, the decision to leave the EU does not mean not trading with the EU. They may believe we are better in the EU but the UK has voted to leave that.

                            Again, I think you're oversimplifying things here: those who are outward looking and still want to be a member of a trade bloc are still outward looking, they just have a different point of view to those who wish to leave - it's a perfectly valid one, just not the one the leavers favour. Different isn't wrong, it's just different and you can't dismiss people just because they don't see it your way (unless you're me, of course - I have special dispensation because I'm always right ; ).

                            That is the mistake. We voted leave, that is what we wanted which is why your idea of selling what only the EU had to offer didnt work. Actual leave full stop is what we voted for. Not remain, not one leg in one leg out. Not under the control of the EU.

                            I'm not selling anything but, factually, you are incorrect: the Customs Union and Single Market are separate; which is precisely why it is possible to join E.F.T.A. or the E.E.A. without being in the E.U. I'm not convinced that would be a spectacularly good idea myself; I think it makes more sense to be a full member of the E.U. rather than half-in, half-out, but that's a different matter. But the fact remains that, albeit interwoven to no small extent, the three things are still separate and not dictated by the E.U. - just ask Norway whether the E.U. can actively prevent it from being in the E.E.A.

                            I do see what I suspect is your point insofar as the E.U. will still dictate it's terms to the E.E.A. nations but, hey, that's what any and all trading entities (from single nations to blocs) do: these are our terms, take them or leave them. So, that's not really as strong an argument as you might like me to think.

                            And my issue was with the nature of the process rather than with the outcome per se; whatever decision had been reached, I'd find it a lot less distressing if I knew that it was actually mandated by the nation rather than hardcore zealots with axes to grind, holding the rest of us to ransom by proxy - as it is, what we have is an extreme decision made by a ragtag collection of people with as many reasons for making that decision as there are people who made it.

                            You are pointing this at leave still but you have again forgotten remain. Remain did not have a united view, did not agree on what the EU is or what it should be. What are the various terms that we remain under? If those conditions are not met then surely we leave?

                            That's a straw man. Remain means exactly that: remain. It doesn't imply the desire to remain on certain terms but for the status quo. Yes, the question could have been phrased such that "1. Remain On These Conditions", but that's meaning less because it's not in our government's gift to promise that the other 27 will do what we want, so it's just "Do You want To Leave If These Conditions Aren't Met?" by another name - it's still "Do You Want To Leave?" at the end of the day.

                            They you are either unfamiliar with negotiation or you want to scupper it. The positions are laid out. It is now up to the negotiators to make the details of leave as we voted. To put a proviso that the negotiators get you a unicorn or we remain (oddly what you want) is a direct threat to the result of the vote. If we overturn it what should the default outcome be? To leave with no deal as in keeping with the vote result? Or remain because it makes you feel better?

                            That's not an argument but a tautology - all you're saying there is that the nation didn't need to be asked a more nuanced question because it didn't need to be asked a more nuanced question. There is nothing about options 3 or 4 that imply a promise of a unicorn. Asking people what their preferred option would be is not tantamount to promising them they can have it, it's simply asking their opinion. If I say to you "I'm going to the supermarket, do you want me to get you anything whilst I'm there?" I'm not promising you that I will be able to find what you want, simply enquiring what you might like under ideal circumstances.

                            As to your follow up comment that does sound a very interesting subject. Maybe if the reg gives a valid excuse sometime we can discuss it.

                            Yeah.

                            On the other hand though, I'm not really keen to fill the forums here with political discussion - one of my frequent complaints about people bringing up politics here is that it's a U.K. tech site, not the Faux News entertainment channel and people should leave their political views at home. I've made an exception in this particular case because Brexit transcends simple party politics and, furthermore, because you haven't been rabidly foaming at the mouth about it (which is a pleasant change), but it's not really something I'm keen to do on El Reg as a rule.

                            It's not that I don't thin there should be nothing but hardcore tech here; I like the Reg just as it is. But that's the point: I like it just as it is - if I want to engage in political to and fro, there's always the Graun (funnily enough, I'm not a Graun commentard)

                            Somewhere else, perhaps (like the Graun? ; )

                            1. codejunky Silver badge

                              Re: Hypocrites

                              @ GIRZiM

                              "No, I said if they hadn't existed and the Tories hadn't put it on the table. It's whatabouttery, perhaps"

                              But it is there existence of a party that was so small and inconsequential to become a large challenge to the standing establishment. Since labour being enough to cause manifesto promises of a referendum and by the tories to actually deliver such an option. Just as the greens managed to influence politics. I dont think it is whatabouttery I just think you discount the proof of the possibility of change. Happy to agree on the pseudodemocracy. It took a long time to get a democratic vote on such an important issue.

                              "not a significant difference and it is not appropriate to call a minority that is not significantly smaller than a majority that is insignificantly larger 'upstarts'"

                              What is significant? Majority is not a grey area it is a clear definition as the greater. 4% is still a difference. At what point do we call significant or significant enough to please the upstarts? By upstarts I again look to the definition of people thinking they are important and arrogantly. A minority drying to overrule a democracy fits the bill.

                              "doing so doesn't help with bridge-building"

                              Neither do the attempts to undermine democracy. Claiming the majority decision is the result of xenophobia, racism or even lacking mental capacity burns bridges quickly. I have been called those things but also I was called a eurosceptic. That was back when people were so certain that little england was stuffed if we didnt take the euro. Except when that amazingly terrible affliction placed on so many countries and causing so much damage the word vanished. I have been here before. I have been proven right. And the bridge is built quickly when the decision is made, the road is taken and the insane claims of doom fail to appear but the consequences of participation become clear. The EU is in multiple self inflicted crises.

                              "I'm not necessarily surprised though; I have a lot less regard for economists than many I suspect"

                              I find economists to be good at what they are good at but terrible at the alternative. They are very good at finding what works looking at how things happen. They are not very good at prediction. The EU have done economists a great service. They have taken the economic rulebook and done a lot of the opposite. And suffer for doing so.

                              "That's just as insulting - I may not necessarily be right, but I don't say the things I do without having thought about them first."

                              Perhaps you can suggest a way of presenting the same meaning in words you are happy with? The fact that you are suggesting options that were not possible options because the EU is the only one able to present those options not the UK makes the argument invalid.

                              "That's true but I don't believe the E.U. is out to punish us the way the tabloids would have us believe"

                              Tell one of their presidents- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/uk-must-pay-price-for-brexit-says-francois-hollande

                              "As it stands, they can't even begin to negotiate with us because they don't know the answer to that question"

                              And that is the issue. We voted leave. That is pretty simple. We leave the EU, we are not in the EU, we are outside of the EU, not under the EU's rule by whatever name but out. Yet the gov seems to want us to remain with various attempts to stop a hard brexit being possible when it very well needs to be the default position.

                              "unless we want a hard Brexit and nothing else will do then it would have made the negotiations much easier and it would have been a sensible to give ourselves the chance to speed negotiations up by having a clear direction of travel."

                              That I can agree with.

                              "still want to be a member of a trade bloc are still outward looking, they just have a different point of view to those who wish to leave"

                              I agree. I promise that is also the point I was making. But the vote is to leave, so leave it is. Those who wish to remain in the trade block have been outvoted and we are leaving the political union trade block. Just because they have a different point of view doesnt mean they can dismiss the result to leave.

                              *"(unless you're me, of course - I have special dispensation because I'm always right ; )."

                              I am happy for the added humour. Was gonna write something for fear you may take my comments too seriously/harshly.

                              "which is precisely why it is possible to join E.F.T.A. or the E.E.A. without being in the E.U"

                              What are the hoops to join those (I notice an article 6 days ago finally claiming Norway wont block our joining while before it was almost certainty)? As the first member to leave the EU and the EU showing great displeasure that one of their contributors would do this during their times of crises how would this go? And your point of half in half out again flies in the face of we voted out.

                              "I'd find it a lot less distressing if I knew that it was actually mandated by the nation rather than hardcore zealots with axes to grind, holding the rest of us to ransom by proxy"

                              That explains very well the irritation I have had for us being stuck in the EU. With no mandate of the nation, in fact very little support for the project. But hardcore zealots selling us out and inflicting the EU upon us finally brought us a democratic vote. After all these years in the EU utopia of love and dream we voted out.

                              "That's a straw man. Remain means exactly that: remain. It doesn't imply the desire to remain on certain terms"

                              Yet you demand this of leave. The remain arguments as time went on in the referendum amusingly fell to its crap but we can reform it. It doesnt work but we need to make it work. And other rubbish I can only hope lost peoples support for the daft project. The arguments to remain from the campaign (happy to disregard as a lying bag of crap) centred on fear of leaving and a direct threat against the population by Osborne which even the MPs rejected (punishment budget). If remain is simply to remain in whatever the EU becomes and your happy with that, then leave is leave with whatever outcome of leaving is.

                              "but that's meaning less because it's not in our government's gift to promise that the other 27 will do what we want"

                              Which is why your idea of leaving the EU but joining x/y/z also falls because the gov doesnt have the gift to do that. So remain or leave. We voted leave. Not half measure. Not remain with a leave badge but leave.

                              "Asking people what their preferred option would be is not tantamount to promising them they can have it, it's simply asking their opinion."

                              So its a return to the remain problem. That we cant seem to leave because *insert piss poor excuse*. Labour and tory did it with referendums and the result shows why. Because we want to leave and expect delivery of the the opinion. Not some insult to the population. Not some pseudodemocracy but to ask our opinion of deliverable options and to deliver.

                              "Somewhere else, perhaps (like the Graun? ; )"

                              I have to say I only occasionally visit the Graun for light amusement. This could be an option if you like- http://andanotherthing.freeforums.net

                      2. GIRZiM

                        A New Kind of Govrnment

                        @ CODEJUNKY

                        You seem to be arguing for a new implementation of government as some kind of new democracy (I have no problem with that discussion)

                        Actually, that's something that has been on my mind for quite some time now: I've long been of the opinion that the problem is the tribalism of it all and that Democracy is not best served by political parties; that they should be outlawed and a return made to the true origins of our system - constituency MPs who independently represent their own administrative districts and work with other representatives on the basis of policy, not membership of a club.

                        But that's a whole 'nother' discussion and way off the original topic of Galileo/E.U. matters.

      4. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

        Re: Hypocrites

        One of the snags with this sort of bollocks is that it entirely misses some key points: the "largest democratic vote" was overturning two previous large democratic votes, so presumably there's nothing magic about large democratic voteness.

        And indeed *what* outcome? Scotland voted 62% to remain. London 60%. NI 58%.

        And the fundamentally evil element of this bollocks is that the referendum was a simplistic yes/no, and provided no input on what the non-EU alternative actually was. Which makes twits who harp on about the result undeniable putrescent scumbags.

        Because in addition to the illegal shenanigans by the "leave" campaign, and the lies they told (£350m a minute to the NHS and a free British kitten for everyone!!), no-one who voted had any idea of what sort of deal this government (or any government) could achieve. For example, if the general election had actually given May a mandate, the Irish border could have been addressed by making NI an EU trade area (as it were), which would likely have been an easy sell given the 58% who voted to be in the EU! But May couldn't do that because she needs the DUP votes.

        Bottom line is this: there are two questions: (1) shall we leave the EU? and (2) if the answer to (1) is yes, what terms?

        [There's a (3) which doesn't need to be asked, as it's "can the government get there from here", and the answer is "no" for pretty much any values of "here" and "there"]

        [ The California recall election for Gray Davis worked just like that: recall the governor (Y/N)? and if (Y) who should be the next governor (Schwarzenegger or some loser)? ]

        1. Mark 65 Silver badge

          Re: Hypocrites

          Bottom line is this: there are two questions: (1) shall we leave the EU? and (2) if the answer to (1) is yes, what terms?

          Bottom line is this: there are two questions: (1) shall we remain in the EU? and (2) if the answer to (1) is yes, what terms?

          See how that can work either way? The terms under which you'd stay were/are by no means certain. If you're thinking "the ones we currently have" then I have a bridge to sell you.

      5. tfb Silver badge

        Re: Hypocrites

        The sad thing is that I'd happily leave the whole mess behind -- yes we voted for brexit, yes that means we should have brexit however regressive and stupid it is, but can I just go somewhere else please? But I'm in my mid 50s: I have about ten years of paying into the system and perhaps twenty of taking from it left: without an agreement to transfer my accumulated credit from the UK system to wherever I might go, I am a liability to anywhere that would take me. Because brexit will dismantle the arrangements that made just that sort of thing possible I can't now leave. Thanks, brexiteers.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hypocrites

          "brexiteers"

          Why do I keep thinking that they should all be given a set of Disneyesque mouse ears?

      6. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Hypocrites

        the largest democratic vote in British history

        The size isn't up for debate. But the terms of the referendum are: leaving the EU but staying in the customs union would be a perfectly valid interpretation, as would parliament saying "thanks for the advice which we've considered as decided to stay". Then there are the shenanigans over sovereignty with people vascillating between whether parliament has the final say or not depending on how it suits their arguments.

      7. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hypocrites

        Democratic vote? You mean that completely non-binding referendum that was so vaguely worded that even some Brexiters have been saying they're against the actions taken as result? The one that disenfranchised many people who wished to vote but were faced with obstacles allowing them to vote (such as many British citizen living abroad who were excluded from the vote)? The one driven by a massive campaign of misinformation that promised things that the people promoting them immediately admitted would not happen? The one where the margin of "victory" was not really large enough to be taken as a mandate, but was used as an excuse to ignore the wishes of nearly as many voters as those who voted for it?

        Yeah, I'm glad I did move out of the country to get away from people who think that's something acceptable. If only I wasn't watching you destroy the lives of so many people in the process.

      8. jabuzz

        Re: Hypocrites

        More people voted out of a larger population. Was it the highest turnout for a referendum? Was it the highest percentage vote for the result in a referendum? A higher percentage of the population voted in 1974 to stay in Europe, apparently you don't like respecting the result of referendums unless the vote is the one you want.

      9. GIRZiM

        Re: Hypocrites

        "Please use that wonderful freedom of movement that you hold so dear and head for continental nirvana!"

        They won't be able to any more though, will they? That's kinda the point, isn't it?

      10. TVU Silver badge

        Re: Hypocrites

        "Sadly, there are many who would prefer to see the UK fail rather than accept the outcome of the largest democratic vote in British history. Why such people even remain in the country whinging and whining is beyond me. Please use that wonderful freedom of movement that you hold so dear and head for continental nirvana! Anyone that refuses to respect the basic fundamental principals of democracy will certainly not be missed"

        ^ That is the worst kind of nationalist ego rubbish and, more to the point. it's untrue. It is you and all the Leave voters who did this country down by ignoring the measured pleas of British manufacturers to stay within the EU.

        In that respect, Leave voters have been highly successful in shafting the British economy and degrading the pound's value. As a direct result of the Brexit vote, and all those who voted for Brexit, economic growth has pretty much slowed to zero, there is no consumer or business confidence and the UK will now be slipping down GDP world ranking places behind both France and India by the end of 2019 at the latest.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Hypocrites

          @ TVU

          "It is you and all the Leave voters who did this country down by ignoring the measured pleas of British manufacturers to stay within the EU."

          Who should we listen to when deciding something like this? Or should we listen to a range of views and make up our own mind? And the assumption you make is that we did this country down. I see it as the remainers are doing that.

          "Leave voters have been highly successful in shafting the British economy and degrading the pound's value"

          Your welcome although you seem to think it is shafting the economy. As a leave voter I dont take credit for devaluing the pound, only the timing. Since this has been a policy of the BoE and gov since 2008 in order to return the country to a more normal state after the recession. For comparison the US is unwinding the QE, the UK was looking at base rate rises (until it looked like we may remain) and the EU is still desperately pumping more QE to try and repair the self inflicted damage they caused.

          "economic growth has pretty much slowed to zero"

          Please do tell. We did have a bad quarter, and I wonder why (anyone remember the weather?). The dip being similar to the EU's dip although the EU has a higher growth than the UK due to still repairing its terrible self inflicted economic damage.

          "there is no consumer or business confidence and the UK will now be slipping down GDP world ranking places behind both France and India by the end of 2019 at the latest"

          Confidence is uncertain as the certain path (brexit) is being stalled by remainers? Their determination to trap the country against the democratic result leads to more uncertainty. I guess we will see what situation we end up with in the end. I expect the remainers will somehow trap us in some stupid deal with the EU and blame the damage on leave voters, but if we are lucky we will get out and so be fine.

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Hypocrites

      You are missing the pinnacle of hypocrisy here.

      Negotiating a free trade agreement while starting an embargo. That will go down very well at the negotiation table ya know.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hypocrites

        to clarify, they did not "start" an embargo, they threaten it. And yes, if serious, this threat will have consequences for the Galileo project. If the EU decides it's a viable threat, it will serve its purpose, i.e. to balance off some other threat EU holds over UK in brexit negotiations. UK has so few assets against the EU, that anything can help. While I'm sitting on the fence as an EU and UK national, well, get real, people, it is a DIVORCE, not a happy wedding ceremony, it's about going separate ways, with the maximum number of toys left in YOUR hand, and f... your ex.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    TwatNav

    Why do we need a sat nav system?

    None of us will be able to afford to go anywhere after the clusterfuck that is brexit and if we can we will get by because Johnny Foreigner will tell use where to go in very short words and gestures, all we have to do is speak loudly, slowly and clearly in received pronunciation and they'll understand.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: TwatNav

      I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not but there are countries outside of the EU and your British passport gives you a lot better access to said countries than many EU passports would (i.e. Most EU passports will give you 90 days in Japan, a UK passport will give you double).

      Some of those countries speak English of some form as a first language, a lot of them have English as the default second language and aren't massive assholes about is like the Spanish or French.

      Maybe going somewhere outside of the EU is a bit more expensive but maybe not being inside the EU echo chamber will do you a bit of good?

      1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: TwatNav

        Some of those countries speak English of some form as a first language, a lot of them have English as the default second language and aren't massive assholes about is like the Spanish or French.

        Did we get a hired anonymous troll or something. That is an honour for the El Reg. We are truly honoured. You are welcome sir, make sure you get your troll pay at the end of the day.

        Maybe going somewhere outside of the EU is a bit more expensive

        A bit. Like the difference between 50-200 pounds return ticket (nearly anywhere in Europe even in high season) and 700 return ticket for out of season going to 2000. Or the difference between being able to drive there and having to fly.

        I wish I was being paid sufficient amount of money to be able to make such flippant comments and afford the afore mentioned travel for me and my family. Unfortunately, having a proper job does not pay as well compared working for a Troll farm.

        P.S. If you have any objections to what I say stop trolling anonymously. Be honest when you troll and at the very least troll under a proper handle.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: TwatNav

          >P.S. If you have any objections to what I say stop trolling anonymously.

          >Be honest when you troll and at the very least troll under a proper handle.

          What difference would that actually make? An anonymous posting vs one with a name you don't know and can't dox isn't going to be much different is it.

          Anyhow, nice load of whining. I'm pretty sure there will be a visa exemption deal with the EU if/when brexit proper kicks in so I'm not sure why you think you won't be able to travel there just like you can to almost anywhere else with a UK passport.

          1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

            Re: TwatNav

            Anyhow, nice load of whining. I'm pretty sure there will be a visa exemption deal with the EU if/when brexit proper kicks

            You are forgetting something:

            1. In order to fly over Eu any airline must accept ECJ jurisdiction as a court of final instance arbitrating the open skies treaty. That is a red line for the Brexit crowd. Sure, this will not kill all travel from UK to Europe or back. It will however make it significantly more expensive if not outright uneconomical for destinations other than the capitals and major cities.

            2. The final arbiter for any insurance dispute in Europe (even for non-Eu countries like Serbia) is ECJ too. As UK insurers will not be ALLOWED to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ no UK car will have Eu insurance

            Ad so on. And so fourth. And so on. And so fourth. The list is long. Very very very long - taxation, health service and insurance, document validity, right to own property (yep, half of Eu will not allow you to own some assets if you are not a Eu cittizen), etc.

            The difference between me and you is that I actually have done my homework - I have enough assets on the continent sufficient for me to have to do it. Something the clowns in the Brexit department of HMG have yet to do by the way.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: TwatNav

              >taxation,

              Why does this apply for short term travel? Most countries with visa exemptions don't let you stay long enough for you to be considered resident for tax.

              >health service and insurance,

              Travel insurance works for places outside of the EU right now. Why wouldn't it work for the EU after brexit?

              >document validity,

              Passports are an internationally recognised document right?

              >right to own property (yep, half of Eu will not allow you to own

              >some assets if you are not a Eu cittizen), etc.

              Again, not sure what this has to do with travel. It sounds like you're talking about freedom of movement and right to settle. Oh dear mate you might have to actually qualify for a visa now.

              >The difference between me and you is that I actually have done my homework

              >I have enough assets on the continent sufficient for me to have to do it.

              Own a house and have permanent residence in Japan. A non-EU country. It was difficult but not impossible. The main thing was to actually prove that I wouldn't be a liability on the country and it's resources. Half the problem with the EU system is that there are no checks that someone moving around the EU can actually afford to do so. So they end up being the problem of a state that they have never contributed to.

              >Something the clowns in the Brexit department of HMG have yet to do by the way.

              So we've gone from "oh dear I can't afford to travel no more, oh dear, whatever shall I dooo. I can't afford anywhere outside of the EU" to "Well, you see, I'm a big deal right, I have property all over the joint, and I demand to be able to come and go as I like because. I know I'm sort of a big deal right?".

              1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

                Re: TwatNav

                Passports are an internationally recognised document right?

                No, they are mutually recognised. Eg. try getting into Serbia with a Kosovo passport.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: TwatNav

                  >Eg. try getting into Serbia with a Kosovo passport.

                  Means nothing here. We're talking about UK passports post brexit.

              2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

                Re: TwatNav

                >health service and insurance,

                They work due to a set of mutual recognition including recognition of the arbiter for disputes. The only arbiter Eu accepts is ECJ. It is the ECJ way or the highway and even non-Eu countries agree to that in order for insurance to be valid in Eu. That (as I already told you) is a BrExit red line.

                >document validity,

                You never had to run into a document fubar while travelling abroad. I envy your travelling virginity. Passport is the least of your worries. Try travelling with your kids without your wife and without a written permit for them to travel with you in some countries. Even relatively benign ones like Netherlands (if the border guy has woken up off the wrong leg).

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: TwatNav

                  >The only arbiter Eu accepts is ECJ. It is the ECJ way or the highway

                  Travel insurance companies don't care about the ECJ. If you break a leg in the EU you'll pay for it and claim in from the insurance company later or supply the insurance companies details and the hospital will talk to them directly. This already works for non-EU people. My Japanese health insurance will pay me back for anything I have done in the EU as long as I provide the receipts.

                  >document validity,

                  >I envy your travelling virginity.

                  Lived in 2 EU countries that weren't the UK and I've live in 3 non-EU nations. Pull your neck in before you get your dick caught on something.

                  >Try travelling with your kids without your wife and without

                  >a written permit for them to travel with you in some countries.

                  So what you're saying is the EU's current travel policy is great for abducting children?

                  >Even relatively benign ones like Netherlands (if the border guy has woken up off the wrong leg).

                  Oh, so it's not so easy even in the EU. So what the hell are you going on about?

              3. Nick Kew Silver badge

                Re: TwatNav

                Half the problem with the EU system is that there are no checks that someone moving around the EU can actually afford to do so.

                That's the core lie. EU rules say no such thing. Freedom of movement offers three basic rights (all subject to some conditionality for exceptional circumstances like terrorist or serious criminal activity).

                (1) The right to visit another EU country pretty-much unconditionally for up to three months.

                (2) The right to work. So long as you have a job with sufficient income to live on, you can stay indefinitely and on non-discriminatory terms.

                (3) The right to retire. You have to demonstrate sufficient income to live, and also medical insurance, in order to stay more than three months.

                Oh, and after five years legally resident under (2) or (3), you can claim permanent residence and other rights of a native-born citizen.

                Any rights and privileges beyond those are completely in the gift of member states. The fact that the UK system confers some very perverse rights is just one consequence of a system that's broken-as-designed: it suited Labour to create dependency and encourage immigration, and it suited the Tories (and their paymasters) to demonise Europe.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: TwatNav

                  >That's the core lie. EU rules say no such thing.

                  Sure the rules might say that but how to you actually enforce those rules. It would require a EU migrants to hold the same sort of paperwork that non-EU migrants do and have the home office case them around and fight multiple appeals for anyone they tried to eject.

                  And FYI you missed the part about unemployed migrants being able to move to a state and claim whatever unemployment benefits are available. My original point is that you could move to a member state and become a burden on said state and the rules back that up.

                  1. Nick Kew Silver badge

                    Re: TwatNav

                    And FYI you missed the part about unemployed migrants being able to move to a state and claim whatever unemployment benefits are available.

                    Wrong. That right only applies with permanent residence - after a qualifying five years contributing to your new country.

                    My original point is that you could move to a member state and become a burden on said state and the rules back that up.

                    The rules are very explicit: you absolutely can't become a burden on a state other than your own before five years legally resident in that state.

            2. Mark 65 Silver badge

              Re: TwatNav

              The difference between me and you is that I actually have done my homework - I have enough assets on the continent sufficient for me to have to do it. Something the clowns in the Brexit department of HMG have yet to do by the way.

              So go live there and stop your damn whining.

          2. Charlie Clark Silver badge
            Stop

            Re: TwatNav

            I'm pretty sure there will be a visa exemption deal with the EU if/when brexit proper kicks in .

            Here we have the cake promise in all its glory: surely, we'll still have access to all the things we like about the EU once we've left it?

            You can swap visa for single market, research programme, technology transfer, European Arrest Warant, cheap wine, etc.

          3. GIRZiM

            Re: TwatNav

            "What difference would that actually make? An anonymous posting vs one with a name you don't know and can't dox isn't going to be much different is it."

            You are aware that you've just shot your very own argument down in flames with the very sentence with which you intended to make it, yes?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: TwatNav

        Typical bloody brexiter, ignores what's actually said and makes up their own stories to further their own narrative, please point out where I mentioned if the travel was in the EU or outside it?

        вернуться на свою пропагандистскую ферму

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: TwatNav

          >Typical bloody brexiter,

          Oh ho ho this is going to be good! You're going to accuse me of being a racist in no time!

          >ignores what's actually said

          You and others were blubbing about not being able to travel after brexit.

          >and makes up their own stories to further their own narrative,

          And I pointed out travel has worked to countries outside of the EU just find so once we are outside of the EU what's going to be so different between us and say the US or Australia?

          >please point out where I mentioned if the travel was in the EU or outside it?

          I gathered that from context. Why would brexit have anything to do with travel between the UK and non-EU nations.

          >вернуться на свою пропагандистскую ферму

          Oh wow you can use google translate. That's amazing. I guess you're trying to say "I can write in funny letters brexiter and you can't, that's because all brexiters are stooopid". And to that I say お前の母ちゃんのマンコがまじでくさいぜ〜〜♪♪

  9. Colin Miller

    Launcher?

    How are they going to launch the birds? On a modified Blue Streak? It shouldn't be too hard… Wait, ah, err…

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Launcher?

      Well Blue Streak was the first stage of the ELDO launcher, that was developed in Ariane.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Do they know something we don't? Is there a war with the United States or the EU pencilled in by the mid 2020's?

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      We had our turn at that, were first in line. There must be some countries left that the USA has bombed. Give me a couple of minutes to think of one.....

      Maybe a bit longer...

  11. arctic_haze Silver badge

    What is this quarrel for?

    It is so sad for the British space-related industry, research etc. I've worked with British guys on ESA projects and even then they were deeply worried about the effects of Brexit on their future. UK will remain an ESA member as far as we know but many ESA project are funded with EU money. Even before this debacle, it was not certain whether EU will allow British personnel to work on such projects. I think now the answer is obvious. Sadly.

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: What is this quarrel for?

      It will depend on how much money the UK is prepared to put into ESA independently, unfortunately this is likely to be all over the place as the ruling party changes over the years and we get more idiots with no clue about the value of space.

      This is another problem with not having a consistent body to fund these things.

      1. Jon 37

        Re: What is this quarrel for?

        If we take our crypto and go home, we will be out of the ESA and no British person or company will ever work on a critical part of an EU or ESA project for the next 20 years. That's just common sense on the EU's behalf.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What is this quarrel for?

          While I am sure it is a very nice cryptosystem, whatever it is, there are a *lot* of cryptosystems, and a lot of people capable of putting one together... lurking in governments, universities, and IT security companies all around the world.

          Taking back your cryptosystem is a bit like a car dealer refusing to sell cars... at most an inconvenience to customers, more likely a self inflicted injury.

        2. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: What is this quarrel for?

          "our crypto" ?

          Please explain, as I think you will find that the crypto doesn't belong to HMG or to the UK, instead it is the property of the (multinational) businesses who employed the individuals would developed it. Hence we can expect, that like other IP developed in the UK, it has already gone abroad...

          So if we "go home", then expect those positions currently occupied by UK nationals to be backfilled by experts from other nations; and they might even be the same person: leave work on Friday as a UK national,, return on Monday as a national of an EU27 member...

  12. YARR
    Megaphone

    This is political posturing to try to keep us in Galileo, and offer a future to UK based companies.

    Launching another commercial Satnav system would be a waste of money, but a defence only guidance system may be necessary if the UK is denied access to Galileo's high precision data.

    The alternative might be the US giving the UK access to high precision GPS, but what if they demand our laws must be made in Washington?

    1. georgezilla

      " ... but what if they demand our laws must be made in Washington? ... "

      You haven't been paying attention have you.

      So as an American, let me help you out.

      Washington is broken. Period.

      Example:

      For aprox. 7 years the Republican controlled House pissed into the wind and voted 60 times to repeal the ACA (aka Obamacare). Then our version of Britexers elected a "Republican" President. Then inspite of controlling all three branches of our government, proceeded to once again piss into the wind again and not be able to repeal it.

      So no ....

      " ... but what if they demand our laws must be made in Washington? ... "

      1. Stoneshop Silver badge

        Washington is broken. Period.

        That wouldn't stop British law being made in Washington, just that whatever is cooked up doesn't have to pass through the House and Senate, who, despite both being controlled by Repuglicans[0], appear to not be able to pass much of substance.

        [0] being held hostage by the loony House Freedom Caucus and their Senate confreres doesn't really help there.

  13. monty75 Silver badge

    Can’t believe no one said it yet

    “UK stomps off in a sulk, mumbling something about its own satellite constellation”

    With hookers and blackjack. In fact, forget about the satellite constellation.

  14. fuggum

    We have to build this just so we can call it:

    British

    Isles

    Guidance

    Navigation

    And

    Direction

    System

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Nah mate....

      Clustered

      Universal

      Navigation

      Transmission

      System

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      I assume it has a nice way of recognising the border in Ireland and can leash Rees-Mogg missiles of doom (ship's biscuits) on naughty foreigners crossing over.

      Hm, we shouldn't be giving these clowns any more ideas… the next thing you know is that they become policy!

      1. YARR
        Boffin

        I assume it has a nice way of recognising the border in Ireland and can leash Rees-Mogg missiles of doom (ship's biscuits) on naughty foreigners crossing over.

        What happens is every vehicle crossing the border drives over a weigh scale, so the vehicle weight is recorded with the licence plate. The integrated surveillance network of satellites / UAVs / cellphone trackers / traffic cameras monitor every vehicle journey. The start and end is recorded for every journey that crosses the border. The information is stored in a big database which identifies mass transfer over time, highlighting sites with a high net mass loss / gain. These are then cross referenced with declared goods importers / exporters to identify persons potentially trafficking goods illegally.

        PS. No good for weapons / drugs but the data could be useful to identify suspicious journeys.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          >What happens is every vehicle crossing the border drives over a weigh scale, so the vehicle weight is recorded with the licence plate. The integrated surveillance network of satellites / UAVs / cellphone trackers / traffic cameras monitor every vehicle journey. The start and end is recorded for every journey that crosses the border. The information is stored in a big database which identifies mass transfer over time, highlighting sites with a high net mass loss / gain. These are then cross referenced with declared goods importers / exporters to identify persons potentially trafficking goods illegally.

          Fill a car with rubbish, carry it over the border and dump it at the side of the road. Fill up to the same weight with goods/persons you wish to cross the border. Systems and databases record zero weight gain for trips over border, with the added "benefit" of fly-tipping along country lanes on either side of the border.

        2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          No good for weapons / drugs but the data could be useful to identify suspicious journeys.

          Why bother with all that when you can just create a culture of suspicion and mistrust and have people report anything suspicious: "What is in that parcel? Is that really his child?"

          Oh, how we laughed after the strip and full-body cavity search!

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      British

      International

      General

      Guidance

      Low

      Earth orbit

      Satellite

  15. Dan 55 Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Is he talking about /all/ encryption tech?

    More significant are reports of Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond's proposed attempt to block the export of encryption technology to the EU.

    So that's the excuse? It wouldn't be that the plan is that the UK will have it's own special encryption which nobody will want to touch with a bargepole anyway?

    1. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

      Re: Is he talking about /all/ encryption tech?

      Just dawned on me that as far as I know an awful lot of Good British Cryptography is based on the AES algorithm that the US NIST standardized (and which is good for securing US Top Secret information, so isn't half bad).

      The NIST got it from a couple of Belgians.

      So isn't Mr. Hammond setting out to prohibit export of Belgian technology to... who, exactly?

  16. steelpillow Silver badge
    Holmes

    NAVIC

    The UK could cut a deal with India to join their NAVIC system and extend its coverage. Would be cheaper than developing our own. Would be a nice plug for Commonwealth solidarity, too. Far too sensible to ever happen :(

    1. Nick Kew Silver badge

      Re: NAVIC

      Yeah, but every time our journos ask Indian people what they want in a post brexit deal, it's always free movement of people.

      If Eastern European immigration was too much for the Brits, India has an order of magnitude more people who are an order of magnitude poorer.

      1. JetSetJim Silver badge

        Re: NAVIC

        And the Indians are brown, Daily Mail readers will be up in arms

        1. Nick Kew Silver badge

          Re: NAVIC

          Brownness as such may have a very different effect to what you'd think.

          It was the rise of white mass-immigration that enabled an anti-immigration party to avoid the "racism" stigma that had always stuck to their predecessors (the National Front and BNP) when immigration was predominantly non-white. A new era of commonwealth immigration would reverse that: either we move to open racism, or an anti-immigration agenda again becomes taboo. 'Cos anti-immigration vs anti-immigrant agendas are too subtle a distinction for the Chattering Classes.

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: NAVIC

        NAVIC is geostationary - it only works if your country is near the equator.

        Once Britain leaves Europe we could move it to another continent, but if it is too near the equator the British people might become sun tanned and that would annoy the Daily Mail.

        1. Nick Kew Silver badge

          Re: NAVIC

          Once Britain leaves Europe we could move it to another continent,

          El Reg is ahead of the game. They already reported on that.

        2. Stoneshop Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: NAVIC

          but if it is too near the equator the British people might become sun tanned

          and there'd be a near-certain risk of sunstroke. Mad dogs and Englishmen.

  17. Velv Silver badge
    Joke

    Don’t worry, there’s a cunning plan afoot.

    Britain will trade the encryption for something we want from Europe, but we’ll leave a special back door in the encryption that only the government can use and Britain will still have access to the system.

  18. AmishFuturist

    Post-Brexit satnav with Farage and Bojo voices.

    I'd buy this just for shitz and giggles. It would be even better than Waze with Arnies voice.

    The only problem is it wouldn't probably work outside of the UK as "there is no such destination, try again, like Bognor or Carlisle", Kayne forbid from trying to navigate to Brussels.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Post-Brexit satnav with Farage and Bojo voices.

      Well, it's not as if the churls will acutally need GPS to get to the mill and back…

  19. Lee D Silver badge

    This is what happens when you take your ball home because you don't want anyone else to play with it.

    You end up with a crap game that you're playing on your own, while everyone else is out in the park enjoying themselves without a ball at all.

  20. Chronos Silver badge

    obBender

    We'll just build our own satellite navigation system. With backhanders. And hookers. In fact, forget the satnav...

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Terminator

    Stop fucking Brexit, you're on your own now !

    It's called wankery and otherwise known as masturbation.

    There was as much complaint about junction with Eu as being without.

    But,

    If Blighty are going to launch their own rockets they could use parliament as fuel.

    "(using an Arianespace booster would likely cause a sizeable chunk of Parliament to spontaneously combust)," might save a few pounds.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It would appear that Europe's reaction so far to Brexit is one of the best arguments in favour of Brexit you could hope to find

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What good is a British GNSS when no one but the British military will be able to use it?

    It will have to operate on a different frequency than existing GNSSs so consider...

    You are a satnav chip set maker. Your chipset already uses GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and probably BeiDou. This provides good coverage anywhere in the world that there are people. There may be some limitations near the poles, but with that many satellites probably not many.

    Are you really going to try to jam in another system, on different frequencies, increasing complexity, manufacturing cost, and power draw?

    If you do, you may well consider NAVIC or QZSS as more important to the market. I'd guess that no normal civilian needs more than four to six satnav systems... probably four is quite enough.

    The billions of phones and navigation units built will likely not have another system added in. With only the military using it, the chip sets and receivers for a completely unwanted (from the civilian viewpoint) system will be very expensive, in comparison with the mass market products.

    The system would only be useful if all the other satnavs were down... and it that happened circumstances would probably present much more pressing worries than finding out where you are stuck in the evacuation traffic jam.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      If it was confined to the British Isles there is no need for it to be a satellite navigation system.

      Your phone can already navigate from the location of nearby Wifi transmitters.

      I propose a national network of Wifi hotspots, constructed in metal boxes about the size of a server rack, but made of cast iron and painted red. These could be fitted with some sort of non-mobile phone handset so you could make calls.

      1. Ben1892

        or paint them blue and put a light on top so you can find them easily, it would need a catchy name like Position Over Land Internet Communication Edifice

    2. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

      Rumour has it that GPS actually works quite well over the north pole, for some reason.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Rumour has it that GPS actually works quite well over the north pole, for some reason.

        But only for one night in the year when they launch an extra sleigh.

        One of the justifications for Galileo was improved coverage in the North, but since it is only 1degree further north than GPS (56 instead of 55) it is still pretty useless. EGNOS (the Eu version of WAAS) is still geostationary so not good above about 70deg.

        The real reason Galileo is any use at all, and the reason Norway are involved, is that they are installing a set of ground based augmentation in the arctic - but these could be made to work equaly well with GPS

  24. Potemkine! Silver badge

    Ok, bye.

    One should never give in to blackmail.

  25. DeeCee

    Your could always join EU

    Your could always join EU - Doubt we said no and it would be on same terms as other countries without special treatment like now

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Your could always join EU

      A large part of the history of Britain has been us having to save Europe from tyrants it was incapable of saving itself from:

      Philip II, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Alexander II, Wilhelm II, Hitler and today it's a Pole and a Luxemberger, backed by the usual villains.

      The only difference is that today we have a 5th column of democracy hating Remoaners.

      1. Dr_N Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Your could always join EU

        You've posted in the wrong place.

        Gammon-faced hatemongery is over at the Daily Express.

        Don't forget your coat.

      2. DeeCee

        Re: Your could always join EU

        its nice that Britain has been so nice and free of tyrants over the history

      3. Nano nano

        Re: Your could always join EU

        51:49 should not mean the 51 wins, when we are talking about the future of the country.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yet another Remoaner article.

    And the usual remoaner flies buzzing around an El Reg remoaner cow turd of an article.

    Get a grip.

  27. Nano nano

    Sauce for goose

    And the Brexiters say the EU is "vindictive" ...

  28. Stoneshop Silver badge
    Facepalm

    If EU won't let us play at Galileo, we're going home

    Eh, without satnav?

  29. DropBear Silver badge

    DEAR EL REG,

    Seeing the overwhelming amount of anonymous heroism on display in this thread (and similar ones), here's a suggestion to consider: as soon as "Brexit" gets mentioned in a comment thread, subsequent anonymous posting should become disabled on that thread. It's not like people tend to post using their full name and street address here anyway; the quality of discourse is hardly raised by commentards unwilling to own their opinions even on a relatively repercussion-free topic like this one. Just a thought...

    1. GIRZiM

      Re: DEAR EL REG,

      Seconded!

      That and any mention of Trump/Clinton/Obama/Bush (either) ... anything to do with U.S. politics, basically - like Brexit, it attracts mouth-breathing, drooling retards like moths to a flame.

  30. Daniel 18

    Inherent limitations of LEO GNSS systems

    "The attraction of doing a LEO GNSS constellation is that life for satellites and payloads at that altitude is relatively easy. It's below the Van Allen belts (low radiation), the orbit is only 90 minutes (easier thermal management), you still get a decent UV flux to make solar panels work well. Orbital decay is an issue, but that's not so bad really."

    ***

    I have a suspicion that the accuracy issue might be a bit of a problem, particularly since you will need a lot more satellites due to horizon issues, if they are in a low orbit.

    Suppose that you have 500 satellites in LEO rather than 25 in MEO.

    Position is determined relative to the known location of each satellite according to the downloaded ephemeris.

    Now the fun interactions begin.

    Each satellite needs a highly accurate clock, which is not cheap, and probably bigger than a cubesat, all by itself.

    Changes in orbit due to drag are not easily predicted - remember the problem deciding where the defunct Chinese space lab would come down, even just a day or two ahead? Drag varies with a number of factors, not all predictable. This causes errors in satellite locations, which causes errors in inferred position, and thus location, altitude, and speed. As a result the ephemeris must be recalculated and redistributed much more often, to avoid inaccuracy, and random inferred position changes as the set of satellites above the local horizon changes. In any case, satellite position accuracy will degrade much more rapidly than with MEO satellites, and the degradation is probably more rapid for smaller satellites (consider the square/cube law).

    Any attempts at drag mitigation will add complexity, size, weight, and/or cost... and may introduce other sources of variation, particularly if mitigation success is variable.

    The fun continues. Because there are 20, or 30, or 40 times as many satellites, the ephemeris is that many times larger, and takes longer to download. Cold start times for a GNSS receiver go up by a roughly similar factor. Warm start times go up, and warm start accuracy and validity - time in which a warm start is an option - decay faster.

    All the satellites need to have the same ephemeris, because cold start times, and probably refresh times will exceed the time the same satellites are visible, or there has to be added complexity to handle an ephemeris where the data differs in recency and accuracy. This will also impact accuracy, and require more resources in both satellites and receivers, not to mention tracking and satellite updating.

    This is more complicated, not only because of the size of data, but also because the satellites won't be visible to any one ground station for an extended period, so either upload speeds need to be faster, you need a lot of ground stations (or some unlucky LEO satellites will have stale data, because of a dearth of visible ground stations from their particular orbit for a random interval), or the update has to be relayed by satellites farther out that can see many LEO satellites for an extended period. Without the relay satellites you will probably need to implement rolling ephemeris updates, to get the data up in catch as catch can fragments.

    How to manage that and the activation / use of the new data is an interesting exercise that will take more time to analyze than I have available now (and probably more knowledge and a system design to set the parameters).

    I am not sure that an LEO constellation can deliver the consistent accuracy of a MEO constellation, and if it can, will probably require a lot more effort, complexity and cost in both hardware and software as well as operation. If some of this complexity lives in the receiver, the cost of that component may well go up.

    The higher drag of LEO, particularly the effect on small satellites with a higher cross-section to mass ratio, may necessitate continuous replacement launches as the small packages re-enter. Increasing drag during orbital decay may also compromise positional accuracy for satellites that have not yet re-entered the atmosphere. Avoiding decay through active (thrusters or the like) or semi-active (drag minimizing attitude control, etc.) will add to size, weight, complexity, and cost while forcing another set of technical trade-offs onto the project while probably introducing resource dependent lifespan limits.

    Any increases in receiver cost, or power draw, or greater accuracy limitations will make such a constellation a much less likely candidate for inclusion in any navigation system / receiver chipset when there are already several other GNSS systems that can deliver good quality service.

  31. TrumpSlurp the Troll Silver badge
    Trollface

    NATO

    Not been mentioned yet, but presumably the UK will have to have some Johnny Foreigner on board with an EU satnav to make sure each vehicle (land, sea or air) is going in the same direction towards the same location as the EU forces?

  32. d3vy Silver badge

    "Britain has warned it would attempt to stop the EU using its encryption tech on the Galileo project while launching its own satellites."

    Oh well as long as we're not being childish...

    1. Mark 65 Silver badge
      Trollface

      They started it

  33. snooty

    snooty

    EU finance ministers will lose a huge yearly donation from the UK so to delay or hinder withdrawal is part of their strategy.,..Democracy is deep rooted in the psyche of this country and a failure to deliver will not be accepted ...The vote was to leave and that is what will happen

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019