back to article UK space comes to an 'understanding' with Australia as Brexit looms

The UK and Australia have announced plans to become the best of buddies in the space field, including the UK’s current hot potato: satellite navigation. The memorandum of understanding, which was signed this week by Chief Executive of the UK Space Agency, Graham Turnock, and head of the fledgling Australian Space Agency (ASA …

  1. Mooseman Bronze badge

    It's not so much the shambles of the negotiations that is forcing us out of Galileo, it's our own insistence, when part of it, that non-EU countries should not be able to benefit from either the navigation system or the raw data from it. I'm sure the ASA would like to develop something, but with that level of funding it's hard to see them doing more than setting up a nice shiny office.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: RE: Mooseman

        "And May is a poor negotiator letting them get away with it."

        Did you not understand what Mooseman wrote? That it was the UK - us - who insisted that non-EU countries should not have access to the encrypted data. Or do you not understand that Brexit means that the UK becomes a nonEU country?

        Please enlighten us as to how you would negotiate us out of that one?

        1. Spazturtle Silver badge

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          Galileo uses British technologies with a licence attached to our participation, if they kick us out then those licences are invalid. They can either shut down all existing satellites or renegotiate a new licence for those technologies. Should they refuse to do either then the UK would be well within it's right to shoot down those illegal satellites.

          1. werdsmith Silver badge

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            @Spazturtle

            Galileo uses British technologies with a licence attached to our participation, if they kick us out then those licences are invalid. They can either shut down all existing satellites or renegotiate a new licence for those technologies. Should they refuse to do either then the UK would be well within it's right to shoot down those illegal satellites.

            LOL.

            Just make up some old bullshit to add to the discussion. Love it.

          2. Mooseman Bronze badge

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            "Galileo uses British technologies with a licence attached to our participation, if they kick us out then those licences are invalid. They can either shut down all existing satellites or renegotiate a new licence for those technologies. Should they refuse to do either then the UK would be well within it's right to shoot down those illegal satellites."

            Boy, are you stupid. Galileo uses EU technology, with an EU licence. When we were part of the project we had access rights, now we are leaving we are not part of the EU and thus have NO RIGHTS to it. This was a clause inserted into the licence at the insistence of the UK.

            Shoot down satellites? Are you living in a James Bond world?

        2. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          Like this:

          Give us the E1bn you have publicly admitted that we have put into this project back or we'll see you in court and stop eyeing up British Overseas Territories for your ground stations ( of which you have no viable alternative. No France doesn't. ).

          Alternatively if you actually want a GNS you can waive the rules for us.

          1. graeme leggett

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            There are quite a few French overseas departments. Is not one suitable?

            1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              No they aren't.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              There are quite a few French overseas departments. Is not one suitable?

              Britain has more overseas territories than France, and some are nicely equatorial.

              1. Lars Silver badge
                Joke

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                Britain is world leading in overseas territories.

          2. strum Silver badge

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            >we'll see you in court

            HMG wouldn't stand a chance - largely because we wrote the rules we now want to break.

          3. Mooseman Bronze badge

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            "Give us the E1bn you have publicly admitted that we have put into this project back or we'll see you in court and stop eyeing up British Overseas Territories for your ground stations "

            You still don't get it do you? Lets say you are investing in a swimming pool. You and your friends in the swimming club all put money into it. You insist that its not fair if anyone outside your club uses the pool you are building, so everyone agrees to that rule. You then leave the club, and demand that you should be able to either use the pool as you paid towards it, or should get your money back.

            Do you understand it yet?

            Ground stations? Well there are a couple in the Falklands and Ascension Islands. I think you'll find the rest are in sovereign territories that we have bugger all say over.

      2. Potemkine! Silver badge

        Re: RE: Mooseman

        Either let us stay in or give us our money back and buy us out

        When you move out of a flat, does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?

        1. DavCrav Silver badge

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          "When you move out of a flat, does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?"

          Ah, more analogies. The EU is a collection of nations, it does not exist outside of its constituent countries. So if one of those nations leaves, the assets should be split according to the financial contribution. Indeed, it's more like a divorce than a landlord-tenant relationship. But, of course, both of these analogies are wrong. It is whatever the treaties and contracts say it is.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            > But, of course, both of these analogies are wrong. It is whatever the treaties and contracts say it is.

            Trouble is, the interpretation of said treaties and contracts will be entirely with the CJEU as the last instance.

        2. Tigra 07 Silver badge
          Meh

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          "When you move out of a flat, does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?"

          Not a good comparison. You do get to keep your furniture when you leave, and you only pay rent up until the point you lived in the property, not for years after. A better comparison would be starting a business with friends and eventually cashing out - you get your share back at current value, unless you negotiate badly, but you are entitled to your fair share.

          1. Demondude

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            Better comparison but remember the 27 friends will determine your shares value not you. They will pay what they think its worth and in some cases that's zero. Of course if said business is in massive debt they may ask you to pay in before you leave especially if its a partnership rather than a limited liability company....

        3. Jess

          Re: does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?

          Within the limits of that analogy, wouldn't it be more like not being refunded for the new bathroom you fitted?

          1. Nick Kew Silver badge

            Re: does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?

            Within the limits of that analogy, wouldn't it be more like not being refunded for the new bathroom you fitted?

            In the UK, a tenant doesn't get any recognition for improvements to a house or flat. Though a tenant might get charged for any alterations. And improving a place means means it's worth more, so expect the rent to rise. Even if you have a landlord who would naturally play fair, they'll have to have the strength to stand up to the agent who recommends the higher rent for the improvements.

          2. Simon Harris Silver badge

            Re: does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent? @Jess

            I'd say more like 'the new bathroom you started to have fitted'.

            You'd expect to enjoy your new bathroom if you stay in the house after it's completed, but lose any rights to it if you move out.

            If you have a good relationship with your landlord you might get some sort of recompense for the work you've put in. Good luck if you've spent the last 40 years complaining about the house and how mean he is.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent? @Jess

              Good luck if you've spent the last 40 years complaining about the house and how mean he is

              Yep, and sometimes you have to cut your losses & leave, even if it means sleeping on a friend's sofa for a bit while you get yourself together.

            2. Spazturtle Silver badge

              Re: does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent? @Jess

              "I'd say more like 'the new bathroom you started to have fitted'.

              You'd expect to enjoy your new bathroom if you stay in the house after it's completed, but lose any rights to it if you move out.

              If you have a good relationship with your landlord you might get some sort of recompense for the work you've put in. Good luck if you've spent the last 40 years complaining about the house and how mean he is."

              What a shit analogy, were were not the EU's tenant, we were part of the EU. The EU doesn't actually exist, it is made up of member states. If every single member left then the EU would cease to exist.

              It is more like that we owned 3.5% of a house, now we want to sell our part of the house to the other 27 joint owners, and we want to include the money we spend on renovating the bathroom in the price.

              1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
                Thumb Up

                Re: does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent? @Jess

                "It is more like that we owned 3.5% of a house, now we want to sell our part of the house to the other 27 joint owners, and we want to include the money we spend on renovating the bathroom in the price"

                This is probably the longest of these discussions i've seen where no one has bought up the "leaving a golf club" analogy. I have to say that i prefer this bathroom version. It adds variety.

          3. Tigra 07 Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?

            "Within the limits of that analogy, wouldn't it be more like not being refunded for the new bathroom you fitted"

            Yes, but the landlord also wants you to pay for upkeep and cleaning of the bathroom for a few years after you moved out, and you're not allowed access to the bathroom.

          4. ThomH Silver badge

            @Jess Re: does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?

            Per the "purpose of annexation, degree of annexation" Holland v Hodgson test, I don't think the law would give you the right to repayment for a bathroom you fitted as it's very hard to believe that a bathroom is a chattel and not part of the property.

            Of course, in the case of Brexit the UK is taking part of the property with them, so possibly that's another analogy that's fallen apart upon closer inspection.

        4. Teiwaz Silver badge

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          Either let us stay in or give us our money back and buy us out

          When you move out of a flat, does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?

          It's like some in the UK expect a credit note on the amount you contributed to paying off the mortgage the landlord used to buy the place in the first place.

          1. Tigra 07 Silver badge

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            "Either let us stay in or give us our money back and buy us out

            When you move out of a flat, does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?"

            As was already pointed out, including by me, that's a bad analogy. We're not asking for the flat back, just our furniture.

            1. Hans 1 Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              just our furniture.

              Well, then, do you have it somewhere, your furniture ? You financed projects, yes, bailing out now, tough! No, you will not get your money back, now f off! (Apologies to Monty Python)

        5. MrXavia

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          "When you move out of a flat, does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?"

          Bad analogy, its more like getting a divorce and your wife/husband keeping everything, even though you both paid into the mortgage.

        6. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          "When you move out of a flat, does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?"

          It isn't 'rent' that we're paying as an EU member, its the utility bills. When you move out of a flat, you don't get your council tax or gas/power/water bills refunded.

          However you do take any furniture with you that you bought while living in the flat ... and that is also the case with Brexit. When we leave the EU we don't have to pay back any of the vast amounts of money that the EU spent in the UK on projects and subsidies. The money we DO have to pay when we leave (referred to as the divorce bill) is budget contributions which we've already committed to, on which EU-wide spending has been planned around, including here in the UK.

      3. NerryTutkins

        Re: RE: Mooseman

        May probably is a poor negotiator. But she's got a shit hand to play. That hand won't get any better if it's Boris holding the cards and threatening to flounce out unless he gets to have his cake and eat it. He'll get nothing except 27 boot prints on his fat arse and an economic blockade.

        The Boris shitshow would last about a month before the UK starves, there will be mass protests, the pound will collapse and the UK would be begging the EU to let it back in.

        Banging your fist on the table and talking tough is only going to work if the other side thinks you have the tools to actually carry through on your threats. Unfortunately nobody except the most deluded of brexit jingoists thinks the UK can last more than a few weeks of hard brexit before it's at the table begging for a single market / customs union deal. Would be far better to do it now, before the chaos, and before more Japanese and UK companies move operations permanently to mainland Europe.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          @ NerryTutkins

          "May probably is a poor negotiator. But she's got a shit hand to play"

          I always wince when I hear we have a poor hand to play. Of the two sides we can get what we want unilaterally by just not participating in the project (aka leave). The EU is in a less envious position as they really dont want a net contributor to leave the fragile project. May is a poor negotiator but as she has been determined that she doesnt want to leave the EU it isnt a shock.

          "The Boris shitshow would last about a month before the UK starves"

          I would be amazed if we lasted that long under Boris.

          "Banging your fist on the table and talking tough is only going to work if the other side thinks you have the tools to actually carry through on your threats"

          This is a fair comment against May except its not the tools but the will that is lacking. But this also explains why leave is not swooning to change their minds, the EU threats followed by desperate begging to remain just look pathetic.

          "Unfortunately nobody except the most deluded of brexit jingoists thinks the UK can last more than a few weeks of hard brexit before it's at the table begging for a single market / customs union deal."

          I am not sure how you bring jingoists to this, there were plenty in remain as well as some in leave. But why would we be begging in a few weeks, even the dire predictions of Carney and Osborne have to predict 30 years ahead to pretend there is a downside. Reports on hard brexit assuming we must apply either the highest tariffs or what we do while in the EU are deluded but as that would be self sabotage (think Osborne's punishment budget level of stupidity) why would we do that?

          "Would be far better to do it now, before the chaos"

          Too late. The EU is in multiple self inflicted crises, the chaos is already there. Everything is going to be the end of the EU and Eurozone according to its presidents and leaders of member countries. They are finally talking of reforming the EU after all this time because it has finally penetrated their little bubble that the project is in a dire state. Cant blame the UK for wanting some distance from that wreck.

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            "I always wince when I hear we have a poor hand to play."

            So do I for the simple reason we have no hand. On the most minuscule of majorities on an advisory referendum HMG has decided unconditionally that we leave. No feasibility study. No planning (you may remember that a citizen had to go to court* to even get them to realise that they needed Parliamentary consent). That, as far as I can see, amounts not no hand.

            *Sadly mistimed. If she'd held her hand until now it could have thrown a real spanner in the works to discover that the invocation of Article 50 didn't meet the constitutional requirement.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              @ Doctor Syntax

              "So do I for the simple reason we have no hand."

              Wow. So my reasoned comment explaining how we have a great hand and pointing out the difference in position has been responded to with the none answer of 'we have no hand'. Sorry but reason and explanation is worth more than repeating rubbish.

              "On the most minuscule of majorities on an advisory referendum HMG has decided unconditionally that we leave"

              2 general elections and 1 referendum to have the vote, get the result and confirm the result. Which for some reason but a minority somehow things that should be undemocratically overthrown because they dont like it. Erm, no.

              "No feasibility study. No planning"

              Both are actions of the government. Now why would the government not do that? Say for example Cameron considering leave as a possibility when he offered the choice? Or May who handed over art50 in her own time? How are your Scotsmen doing?

              "That, as far as I can see, amounts not no hand."

              So your argument that we have no hand is because we have remainers in government trying desperately to remain in the EU which we the people have with certainty voted out of. Funny I think you might just be describing why leave voters are not so impressed!

              "Project Fear."

              From within the EU by the very supporters of the EU about the EU! You should warn me of the mental gymnastics required to reach your conclusions. I have to limber up.

              1. strum Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                >So my reasoned comment explaining how we have a great hand

                That would be your delusional assertion that black was white?

              2. John Savard Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                My understanding, based on the reports I have seen in the Press, was that, going into the Brexit referendum, the British public were assured that leaving the European Union would not have significant economic consequences for the British people, because an agreement would be easily reached so that Britain, like Denmark, would remain in a customs union with Europe. As this has not happened - and, indeed, British Prime Minister Theresa May is now on record as stating she would find a continued customs union unacceptable, as beyond her "red line" - Brexit at this point would not be what many of the voters authorised, and so another referendum, to determine if the majority of British citizens in fact want to leave the European Union under the actual circumstances that exit would entail is entirely reasonable.

            2. MrRimmerSIR!

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              "On the most minuscule of majorities on an advisory referendum HMG has decided unconditionally that we leave"

              A simple majority where 1.2m more people voted to leave than to stay, hardly "miniscule". It's called the democratic will of the people. You might not like it. I might not like it. But ignoring it would not have been an option for whichever government was in place at the time.

              1. Teiwaz Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                "On the most minuscule of majorities on an advisory referendum HMG has decided unconditionally that we leave"

                A simple majority where 1.2m more people voted to leave than to stay, hardly "miniscule". It's called the democratic will of the people. You might not like it. I might not like it. But ignoring it would not have been an option for whichever government was in place at the time.

                The Referendum was never billed as an Ultimate decision, merely an advisory. I have my suspicions a fair few votes were so called protest votes, and not on the actual question, which was vague.

                There was never any mention of leaving the ECHR, and might even have been mention that leave did not include this, yet it got included after the fact.

                1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                  The Referendum was never billed as an Ultimate decision, merely an advisory.

                  What is the point in having a referendum if you're then going to ignore the result? That would be both undemocratic and a waste of taxpayers' money If all you want is advice, you run an opinion poll, not a referendum.

                  1. NerryTutkins

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    "What is the point in having a referendum if you're then going to ignore the result?"

                    The debate isn't about leaving the EU now. It's about whether the government will do a sensible deal and stay in the single market and customs union, or not.

                    What I think most remain leaning people object to is that during the campaign, the 'leave' camp insisted there was no prospect of losing access to the single market, or having customs controls and the economic damage it would do, as well as all the other promises about immigration and 'taking back control'.

                    And yet now that it's perfectly obvious the UK govt cannot deliver everything the leave side promised (even with Boris angrily thumping the table and acting all manly), the septuagenarian Tory voters are throwing the economic benefits of the single market under the bus, in order to ensure we don't have to agree common rules on hair dryers and banana bendiness with the French and Germans, or have to hear Polish spoken on the bus.

                    I think most remainers, even despite the obvious Putin interference via Aaron Banks, would accept leaving the EU, if the result was the Swiss or Norway style option promised, and not the Albania option that the 'leave' side said at the time was remainer scaremongering.

                  2. strum Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    >What is the point in having a referendum if you're then going to ignore the result?

                    What is the point of a referendum if some chancers are going to fabricate a pretend mandate to chop our own feet off?

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: RE: Mooseman

                      What is the point of a referendum if some chancers are going to fabricate a pretend mandate to chop our own feet off?

                      Are you referring to the chancers who accept election votes, none of which have been more decisive than the Brexit referendum for the past 100 years or so?

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                  "There was never any mention of leaving the ECHR, and might even have been mention that leave did not include this, yet it got included after the fact."

                  I do hope we never leave the ECHR, we helped set it up, to leave would be proof of the erosion of human rights in the UK.

                  1. Teiwaz Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    I do hope we never leave the ECHR, we helped set it up, to leave would be proof of the erosion of human rights in the UK.

                    Pray for a miracle. Sometimes I think leaving the ECHR is the whole reason for Brexit, apart from whatever get rich quick scheme ERG have planned to line their own pockets. Sponsored by the Police State wannabe Facists at the Home Office.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: RE: Mooseman

                      Sometimes I think leaving the ECHR is the whole reason for Brexit,

                      The only people who have ever suggested that might be on the table are the remainers, as part of Project Fear. I've seen leavers suggest leaving the ECJ, not the same thing at all.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: RE: Mooseman

                        >The only people who have ever suggested that might be on the table are the remainers, as part of Project Fear. I've seen leavers suggest leaving the ECJ, not the same thing at all.

                        Mrs May was for it (http://www.theweek.co.uk/72028/european-convention-of-human-rights-the-pros-and-cons-of-leaving), and it is something they keep trying to put in the manifesto - although you could argue that would make our position safe as they haven't done anything in the last manifesto.

                        Chris Grayling was definitely in favour and wrote a paper about it before the 2015 election, as was Lord Foulkes (two former justice ministers and at least one home secretary) and the majority of the ERG, including famous Remainer Rees-Mogg.

                      2. Teiwaz Silver badge

                        Re: RE: Mooseman

                        Sometimes I think leaving the ECHR is the whole reason for Brexit,

                        The only people who have ever suggested that might be on the table are the remainers, as part of Project Fear. I've seen leavers suggest leaving the ECJ, not the same thing at all.

                        Nope, May mentioned her inclinations while still in the Remain camp during the referendum (guess she was as sure as everyone else that the vote would fall in remain). It was reported she was heard stating a preference to leaving the ECHR and staying in the Union (proly as the ECHR was a thorn in her side as Home Sec).

                        https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

                        Theresa May has bowed to EU pressure to keep the UK in the European Convention on Human Rights, in another move that will inflame the Tory right.

                        The Brexit white paper pledges that the government is “committed” to staying in the treaty – after Brussels said pulling out would jeopardise a future security deal.

                        But previous to that, before she realised doing so would make any security data sharing with EU impossible, her line was very different....

                        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-white-paper-eu-european-convention-on-human-rights-tory-mps-a8444386.html

                        The only Fear should be what these clowns in Westminster intend to do next while they sleepwalk the country into 1984.

                      3. strum Silver badge

                        Re: RE: Mooseman

                        >The only people who have ever suggested that...

                        ...were called Theresa May.

                3. Tigra 07 Silver badge
                  Facepalm

                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                  "I have my suspicions a fair few votes were so called protest votes, and not on the actual question, which was vague"

                  I have suspicions that a fair few people who voted remain have no idea what the EU even is or does. See the reporting during the protests after the vote where many youngsters didn't know what the EU was, does, or even what they were voting to remain in. One dopey cow even got on camera to claim we had to stay in the EU or the UK Gov wouldn't keep paying for us to go abroad to the EU *headslap*.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    >I have suspicions that a fair few people who voted remain have no idea what the EU even is or does. See the reporting during the protests after the vote where many youngsters didn't know what the EU was, does, or even what they were voting to remain in. One dopey cow even got on camera to claim we had to stay in the EU or the UK Gov wouldn't keep paying for us to go abroad to the EU *headslap*.

                    Is that any different to the Leave voters interviewed on TV News the day after who voted out to get rid of immigrants from Pakistan, or who didn't know what the EU did for them while stood in front of signs proclaiming that the EU had invested in the regeneration of their region.

                  2. Teiwaz Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    One dopey cow even got on camera to claim we had to stay in the EU or the UK Gov wouldn't keep paying for us to go abroad to the EU

                    'One dopey cow' as you so evenly put it is hardly a clear representation - unless they caught her coming out of the polling station, and even then you couldn't be sure..

                    I'd assume the masses that couldn't be bothered to vote were the ones who didn't know nor care what the outcome was - and I know quite a few very intelligent (many more so than me IMO) who couldn't be bothered. Some had preference one way or the other, but still couldn't be bothered.

              2. Alien8n Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                I'm actually getting quite tired of explaining to "Hard Brexiters" that the referendum was not a vote on "Stay in the EU or Crash Out". Just because Boris wants to screw the country and leave with No Deal does not mean the majority of the country want that. Nowhere on the ballot paper did it say "I vote for No Deal", and this is exactly what a second referendum should be about. You just have to look at what people were actually voting for to see that Hard Brexit should quite rightly be ignored, we need a deal and the likes of Farage and Boris with their rabid ramblings and self interest should be tried for treason for undermining the political process.

                Why did people vote for Brexit?

                1. £350M a week for the NHS. Except there never was £350M a week.

                2. The Brexit Dividend. Except that you have to increase GDP to offset the cost of trade to the EU. So in effect there is no Brexit Dividend.

                3. Uncontrolled immigration. Except we were always allowed to send EU migrants back to their home countries if they couldn't find work within 3 months. For some reason a lot of people confused EU immigration with non-EU immigration which we always had control over. And why were they coming here in the first place? To do jobs we didn't have the skills for or that British citizens won't do.

                4. The unelected EU Parliament. You know the one, that we vote EU MPs for, like Farage, who then gets to vote on EU laws. Like the UK Parliament, with elected representatives. And we wonder why Scotland hates Westminster so much...

                5. We can negotiate a new trade deal, like Norway has. This was made so much of during the referendum, it probably swung more votes than anything else, the idea that people could vote to Leave and have a Soft Brexit. It's also likely why the people who didn't vote didn't vote, stay or we get a Soft Brexit. If you don't care either way what's the point in voting?

                The referendum should always have been more than just In or Out. There are so many shades of Out that rabidly stating "but I voted Leave and that means Leave" is meaningless. All it shows is that you're ignorant of everything the referendum was about and trying to hold onto your Little Britain mindset. "We were fine outside the EU". Really? I grew up in the 70's, I remember rolling blackouts, winter of discontent, cap in hand to the IMF, inflation, high interest rates. That's the whole reason we joined the EU in the first place.

                1. EvilDrSmith

                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                  "I grew up in the 70's, I remember rolling blackouts, winter of discontent, cap in hand to the IMF, inflation, high interest rates. That's the whole reason we joined the EU in the first place."

                  I remember them too - they occurred during the mid- to late 1970's.

                  After we joined the EEC.

                  So not 'why we joined the EU in the first place'. (Plus of course, we joined the EU when it formed in 1992, by which time the economic problems of the 1970's UK were long passed).

                  If there is a link between those economic problems and the EU (which I don't actual think there is) it would prove that joining EEC (/EC/EU) was detrimental to the UK economy. Which in some respects it was, and in other respects it was beneficial.

                  I have no objection to remain supporters pointing out the lies told by the Brexiteer, but if they do, they should make a modicum of effort to tell the truth themselves, less they be labelled hypocrites.

                  1. Alien8n Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    @EvilDrSmith the fact is Hard Brexiters see the UK pre-EU as being some golden age. When in fact the UK was seen as the sick man of Europe. To see the UK as some Great Britain of old, when we were an economic powerhouse capable of dictating to the world we'd first have to regain control over half the world's resources and reinstate the British Empire. The days of the Commonwealth are over, they'll never be reinstated and no amount of bluster from Boris will ever change that fact.

                    Today our economy is inextricably linked to the EU. Hard Brexit and trade on WTO terms means an end to free trade with the EU. That means everything we sell to the EU can have a tariff on it. That makes everything we sell to the EU more expensive to buy in the EU. That means businesses will lose trade or have to move. That is the reality of Hard Brexit. Lost jobs.

                    Mass emigration also has another unintended consequence. A country's economy is measured by GDP. A driver for GDP is population. If you suddenly remove people from the country, it has a negative effect on GDP. Or to put it in terms that the non-economist can understand, recession. These are effects that won't be felt in 30 years as some claim, but within the lifetime of this and the next Parliament. Whoever picks up this mess after the next election picks up a poisoned chalice. The only good news for me is that so long as I remain employed, the company I work for sells quite a lot to the EU, I should be able to buy a house quite cheaply as one key driver for housing costs has been the pressure from immigration.

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: RE: Mooseman

                      @ Alien8n

                      "fact is Hard Brexiters see the UK pre-EU as being some golden age"

                      No I dont. And I am not convinced all the others hold such an opinion. I notice you use the loose definition of the EU as before the political entity but still, no. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that we would be better off outside the EU in future without it being backward. Unless of course it is backward to believe we should be in the EU modelled on the cold war era.

                      "Today our economy is inextricably linked to the EU"

                      Which can legitimately be seen as a huge threat as the EU is in multiple self inflicted crises and the leaders and supporters of it keep commenting on its impending breakup.

                      "That is the reality of Hard Brexit. Lost jobs."

                      The opportunity cost of being in the EU also applies as lost jobs.

                      "A driver for GDP is population."

                      The driver of GDP is productivity. Increased labour can increase productivity but it is only one factor and of course comes with the responsibilities and costs of immigration.

                      "If you suddenly remove people from the country"

                      Who is doing that? I hear remainers repeating pulling up the drawbridge and such but brexiters seem to be more outward looking to the world.

                      "as one key driver for housing costs has been the pressure from immigration."

                      Which has been pushed as a problem by a number of governments. In fact your claim that it is immigration causing upward pressure on housing costs has been one of the leave arguments. An alternative would be to build more but that would be cutting regulation which is a hard sell even if its the right thing to do.

                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: RE: Mooseman

                      Hard Brexiters see the UK pre-EU as being some golden age.

                      No, we don't. That is "fake news" put out by remainers to justify their opposition to it.

                  2. strum Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    >After we joined the EEC.

                    Bollocks. We joined in 1972, but we had been trying to join for a decade - because our economy was on a long slow slide - along with our dreams of Commonwealth.

                2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                  I'm actually getting quite tired of explaining to "Hard Brexiters" that the referendum was not a vote on "Stay in the EU or Crash Out".

                  I can see why that would be hard, given that the text of the question was just that:

                  "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

                  Nowhere on the ballot paper did it say "I vote for No Deal", and this is exactly what a second referendum should be about.

                  And what if that second referendum decides to reject "No Deal" by 51%? What then, a third referendum on "Canada or Norway"? Or on "Change our mind again or not?" And what if the vote were 51% to "not leave after all", do you think everyone would say "Oh goody, that's the right result, we can all stop worrying"? Of course not, there would just be calls for another referendum next year in case we changed our minds again.

                  We've had the referendum, we've had an election, both indicated a desire to leave, so we leave. It's the only democratic choice. Maybe in 20 years time the next generation might decide to rejoin, presuming there's an EU to join, which I personally doubt given the way Italy & other countries are going.

                  I grew up in the 70's, I remember rolling blackouts, winter of discontent, cap in hand to the IMF, inflation, high interest rates. That's the whole reason we joined the EU in the first place.

                  FFS NO, that's the reason we joined the Common Market, which was an economic partnership that mostly worked, and where things should have stayed. Turning it into the political entity of the EU happened with the Maastricht treaty, which John Major signed us up to without a referendum, because he know from the opinion polls would have been rejected by around 60% of people in the UK. The Danes rejected it, even the europhile French barely accepted it (51%, a smaller majority than voted Leave in Brexit, yet remainers don't deny the validity of that result).

                  The centralized political and monetary control of the EU is unnecessary, unwanted, and making Europe dangerously unstable by driving people into the arms of the extremists, but as usual short-sighted politicians are too busy empire-building to see the grassroots danger.

                  1. Alien8n Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    @Phil O'Sophical that's why a second referendum should not be just In/Out. It should be on the deal itself.

                    And it should be truly reflective, with a transferable vote so we don't have the ridiculous reality that a Minority of the population can hold the Majority of the vote. Select first and second preference, In/Out No deal/Out with deal. Effectively EU/EEA/WTO and you make it explicitly clear that it's a binding vote. Not an advisory one that somehow is treated as law without any further discussion of what it actually is everyone was voting for.

                  2. strum Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    >We've had the referendum, we've had an election, both indicated a desire to leave, so we leave. It's the only democratic choice.

                    We had the referendum, in 1975, (after an election, when the referendum was promised), and we said Yes. (But a bunch of oligarchs decided they wanted out, and threw their barrels of ink at the problem.)

                  3. John Savard Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    Well, unfortunately, the way things are now, if Britain leaves the European Union, it will also be thrown out of the Common Market. British voters were promised that this wouldn't happen when they voted in the referendum. How is it democratic to deceive voters and then tell them they're stuck?

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: RE: Mooseman

                      @ John Savard

                      "How is it democratic to deceive voters and then tell them they're stuck?"

                      Happened for over 20yrs. Hell how many times were we offered a vote on the EU (Blair did a couple of times). We were told we would be at the back of the queue for a trade deal with the US. Told if we dare vote the way the government doesnt want we would be actively attacked with the punishment budget.

                      Cameron did promise he would stay to negotiate whatever the result. That art50 would be submitted the day of the result.

                      Screw it, both official campaigns lied their arses off and were an embarrassment to democracy continuing with the FUD now.

                      If it makes you feel any better we were to be some lone island that nobody will trade with because we didnt take on the Euro. Be grateful we didnt all fall for the lies that time either.

                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: RE: Mooseman

                      British voters were promised that this wouldn't happen when they voted in the referendum.

                      No, we weren't. No-one had the power to make such a promise.

                      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                        Re: RE: Mooseman

                        No, we weren't. No-one had the power to make such a promise.

                        Ah, I think it's beginning to dawn that referendum was a sham and a lie. People promised rainbows and unicorns before the referendum knowing they wouldn't have any accountability or responsibility afterwards, Leave won, then entirely different people do entirely different things based on the result.

                3. TolerantViews

                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                  The vote was to leave the EU, nothing more, nothing less. Leaving the EU means leaving any levers of control over the UK by the EU as a starting point. Everything else is negotiable. That's why the UK red lines exist, it's about control.

                  1. werdsmith Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    I was responding to "Have you asked Ireland their opinion?". NI was asked and is leaving as part of the UK. ROI is part of the EU and they are not leaving the EU nor planning on asking are they? So what is your point and is there one?

                    NI was asked indeed, and taking their vote on its own they chose remain.

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: RE: Mooseman

                      @ werdsmith

                      "NI was asked indeed, and taking their vote on its own they chose remain."

                      Yes they did. As part of the UK. And as a democratic vote of the people of the UK we are leaving the EU. Problem solved, no grey area, no confusion.

                4. briesmith

                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                  It really is so very good of you to take so much trouble to explain things to us; we are truly grateful and I am sorry that you are finding it fatiguing. When I told my doctor that it hurt to lift my arm over my head she told me to stop doing it. Perhaps there's a message there?

                  As for all the things we weren't asked when we voted to leave in 2016 - ie no longer be a member of the EU - can I assume with any confidence that when the next referendum comes round asking us to (re)join the EU, all the things that weren't mentioned in 1975 - "ever closer union", the euro, Schengen, EU passports, EU army, EU foreign service, EU government (qualified majority voting as opposed to member sovereignty/veto) and so on - will all be on the voting paper?

                  And just why exactly would a Common Market need an army?

              3. strum Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                >It's called the democratic will of the people.

                That's a bit rich, coming from people who've been dismissing the 1975 referendum, for 40 years.

                You only need to see their reaction to a new, democratic vote (best of three, anyone?), to see their contempt for democracy.

          2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            "The EU is in multiple self inflicted crises, the chaos is already there. Everything is going to be the end of the EU and Eurozone according to its presidents and leaders of member countries."

            Project Fear.

          3. Dan 55 Silver badge

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            Too late. The EU is in multiple self inflicted crises, the chaos is already there. Everything is going to be the end of the EU and Eurozone according to its presidents and leaders of member countries. They are finally talking of reforming the EU after all this time because it has finally penetrated their little bubble that the project is in a dire state. Cant blame the UK for wanting some distance from that wreck.

            You suffer from the same problem as the UK's political class... just because you say it is so, it doesn't make it true.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              @ Dan 55

              "just because you say it is so, it doesn't make it true."

              I am not sure which part you dont believe? Is it the EU in multiple self inflicted crises? Repeated claims that it will be the end of the project by those in the project (and support the project)? Or that they have finally come around to the idea of reform (I can understand your disbelief at this)?

              1. NerryTutkins

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                Firstly the EU isn't about to collapse. It really isn't.

                Hungary may get kicked out if their autocrat doesn't start unwinding his power grab (which the Tory MEPs, incidentally, voted not to censure). Italy or possibly some others may, at worst, be forced from the Eurozone if their populists won't abide by the rules. But no other country wants to leave the single market or customs union. Even if all the politics did fall apart, and the currency union broke up, they'd all still want to trade with each other without customs and with common standards. So they would. The single market and customs union will stay, as will freedom of movement and all the other aspects, because it's been hugely successful and beneficial. And even in the more right-leaning, anti immigration EU countries, they're not obsessing over EU immigration, only non-EU immigration. It's only the UK where the single market and customs union is an issue.

                Brexitters seem to believe that leaving the EU won't stop us trading with them, or damage us economically (considering that's 50% of our trade, we'd be in trouble if it does).

                But that it would magically insulate us from an economic collapse in the EU.

                Sorry, I have some really bad news for you. If the UK does in some way manage to avoid economic oblivion by maintaining that huge level of trade with Europe, it's going to be absolutely screwed regardless if there is an economic collapse in the EU.

              2. Dan 55 Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                I am not sure which part you dont believe? Is it the EU in multiple self inflicted crises? Repeated claims that it will be the end of the project by those in the project (and support the project)? Or that they have finally come around to the idea of reform (I can understand your disbelief at this)?

                Well, the part I quoted just some text from the end of your post so there, what I don't agree with is all of it. Just the deluge of Brexit good, EU bad.

                The EU is not perfect, I don't think anyone claimed it was, but the current political class in the UK however is a thousand times worse. It has been unable to do anything about the UK's own problems during the past two and a half years. Any policy announcement is not based on logic or evidence. The government is divided, the opposition useless. The Brexit referendum itself was a vote on how happy people were and May took a knife-edge referendum result, set up some red lines, and made practically anything except no deal impossible.

                What's the latest? The ERG saying their hard Brexit plan would add a trillion pounds to the economy then two weeks later saying a Super Canada proposal would be the perfect deal (it wouldn't) and today Mogg said that there must not be an Irish Sea border, which was an essential part of the Super Canada proposal. A few days ago there was the fucking Foreign Secretary of all people using "EUSSR" which he probably got from the Daily Mail and today complaining about Russia (how's that for irony).

                It's b o l l o c k s. All of it. Brexit is impossible to deliver, has no upside that any rational economist can find (Minford doesn't count), has no basis in fact. It's just Cameron's gamble to so the Tory party doesn't lose electorate and politicians turned by May into a valve so the disaffected can release steam, pointed towards the EU instead of where it should be, the government.

                And that is why I don't agree with the ridiculous laundry list of failure that you find the need to post every time there's a Brexit discussion. The EU is not perfect, but this bollocks is a whole lot worse.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                  @ Dan 55

                  "Just the deluge of Brexit good, EU bad."

                  Probably as nauseating as the EU good brexit bad garbage.

                  "The EU is not perfect, I don't think anyone claimed it was, but the current political class in the UK however is a thousand times worse."

                  This argument is extremely poor. Assuming we have a terrible government how does it make anything better to put an additional and terrible government above it?

                  "The government is divided, the opposition useless."

                  I dont argue against that at all. Our socialist opposition is somehow more terrifying than the spineless and antidemocratic government. However that is not improved by putting the unpopular and in multiple self inflicted crises EU above it.

                  "The Brexit referendum itself was a vote on how happy people were"

                  1 general election to get the vote, 1 referendum to get the result, 1 general election to confirm the result. We have been in the EU a couple of decades and voted to leave because we were not happy with it. Throughout the EU people are voting increasingly against the EU and countries (France for example) will not give the voters a choice because they will likely vote leave.

                  "Brexit is impossible to deliver"

                  Actually that is entirely incorrect as it can be unilaterally delivered with no requirement to get any agreement. We can brexit by our own choice to not participate in the project any longer. Getting a deal might be harder, getting some fantastic wet dream deal might be impossible but brexit is very possible.

                  "has no upside that any rational economist can find"

                  With i am sure a very restrictive idea of rational (i.e. must agree with you). Apart from that there are arguments for and against economically but also politically and as a matter of sovereignty and survival.

                  "It's just Cameron's gamble to so the Tory party doesn't lose electorate"

                  True. UKIP got stunning support as Cameron got the majority he didnt expect on the back of promising a referendum that people have been pushing for and increasingly supporting for a long time.

                  "pointed towards the EU instead of where it should be, the government."

                  I dont disagree with that particularly. Our gov (Blair) decided to sell out the country and gold plate whatever EU laws into the UK in the hopes of being the EU president. He was scum. He would have sold his own grandparents. Continuing with our stupidity of being so under the EU may be what pushed us over the edge. Maybe if the gov were loyal to the UK instead of the EU maybe people wouldnt have been so badly against the EU. Maybe.

                  "And that is why I don't agree with the ridiculous laundry list of failure that you find the need to post every time there's a Brexit discussion. The EU is not perfect, but this bollocks is a whole lot worse."

                  So you dont agree with my laundry list of EU problems because you dont like it? That doesnt change the laundry list of EU problems as they are real problems. Finding remainers who even accept those very public crises is hard enough, and if they cannot accept reality then how can we take them seriously?

                  The laundry list is repeated because it is reality. You might notice I dont particularly stick up for the gov nor the opposition in our gov. I am not biased to UK good EU bad, I am honest. I dont particularly like this gov but I give them credit where due and disagree with plenty of their stupidity. And I do the same with the EU. I dont ignore ones failings because the other is worse.

                  1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    1 general election to get the vote, 1 referendum to get the result, 1 general election to confirm the result.

                    Wrong, it's a minority government propped up by the DUP for £1.5bn, which didn't represent NI's remain vote. The result was not confirmed, certainly not to the extent of leaving the SM and CU.

                    We have been in the EU a couple of decades and voted to leave because we were not happy with it.

                    See the Anywhere but Westminster series then come back to me.

                    Throughout the EU people are voting increasingly against the EU and countries (France for example) will not give the voters a choice because they will likely vote leave.

                    Not one right-wing populist party in an EU country in government or in coalition has any intention of leaving the EU or the eurozone. Greece doesn't either. Even they recognise it's not perfect but it's better in than out.

                    "Brexit is impossible to deliver"

                    Actually that is entirely incorrect as it can be unilaterally delivered with no requirement to get any agreement. We can brexit by our own choice to not participate in the project any longer.

                    Getting a deal might be harder, getting some fantastic wet dream deal might be impossible but brexit is very possible.

                    Brexit is possible but will fail. A deal in impossible. So reckons this expert (first link, second link), if you care to listen.

                    1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
                      Facepalm

                      Re: RE: Mooseman

                      "which didn't represent NI's remain vote"

                      Northern Ireland didn't get a vote - The UK did. The opposite of how the UK didn't get a vote during the Scottish independence referendum - Only Scotland did. It's not difficult buddy, we've had 3 votes now and you lost all 3. Over 75% of voters at the last election voted for parties pursuing Brexit. Move on and grow up you anti-democrat.

                      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                        Re: RE: Mooseman

                        Northern Ireland didn't get a vote - The UK did. The opposite of how the UK didn't get a vote during the Scottish independence referendum - Only Scotland did.

                        Of course Northern Ireland got a vote as did England, Wales, and Scotland. The results are available by region. Much like the referendum result itself (from those who bothered to vote) it was a tie, NI and Scotland voted in, England and Wales voted out. What gives England and Wales the right to a) dictate that there's a Brexit and b) it's a hard Brexit/no deal which is completely out of line with 52%-48% and 2 countries-2 countries?

                        Over 75% of voters at the last election voted for parties pursuing Brexit.

                        Nope. Labour is still resolutely sat on the fence, the government is a minority government propped up by the minority DUP in Northern Ireland.

                        It's not difficult buddy, we've had 3 votes now and you lost all 3. Move on and grow up you anti-democrat.

                        lol, you believed Aaron Banks, Cambridge Analytica, and the Internet Research Agency when they said it would be good to jump off a cliff and voted that we all jump of a cliff, why are you still angry, why aren't you happy you won?

                        Brexiteers are still angry Brexit isn't about facts, data, or information, Brexit is just a feeling. They know that they have no answers to complicated questions nor any inclination to find out because that might make them change their mind, and that's why they've got nothing but 'we won, you lost, get over it'.

                      2. strum Silver badge

                        Re: RE: Mooseman

                        >we've had 3 votes now

                        We've had two - and it's one-each.

              3. strum Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                >Is it the EU in multiple self inflicted crises?

                Most of the planet is in a crisis, inflicted by US banks. The Putin-lovers' wet dream of a collapsing EU will just get the sheets damp.

          4. Teiwaz Silver badge

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            The EU is in a less envious position as they really dont want a net contributor to leave the fragile project.

            I think the UK has been pretty well written off by the EU at this point.

            But neither can the Union, if it wants to retain it's current form, allow any special deal with an ex-member (we've gotten special deals before, but that was before the whole leave decision).

            To do so, would set the worst sort of precedent, and definitely kick off the break-up of the Union. With all countries uncomfortable about one part or another wishing to back out of different bits.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              @ Teiwaz

              "I think the UK has been pretty well written off by the EU at this point."

              Good I hope so. Not in any harsh or bad way but the fact that we voted leave and hopefully we will do so. It makes sense for the EU to prepare and that is a good thing.

              "But neither can the Union, if it wants to retain it's current form, allow any special deal with an ex-member"

              I have no problem with that. Hard brexit is the only certainty we have but we should be able to make a mutually beneficial trade deal which shouldnt even be difficult.

              I must say I found nothing objectionable in your comment. The EU needs to look after the EU and the UK the UK. A mutual deal could easily be beneficial to both sides but the approach of both sides has been unimpressive.

              1. Teiwaz Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                The EU needs to look after the EU and the UK the UK

                I don't believe a Hard Brexit is looking out for the UK.

                England, maybe, but the UK, no.

                Likelihood of it upsetting the Irish border is great, and it'll increase the chances of Scotland opting for Independence.

                The Welsh weren't on same page with the vote mostly either

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                  @ Teiwaz

                  "I don't believe a Hard Brexit is looking out for the UK."

                  Thats ok. Everyone has their own opinions and that is to be expected. And so we hold a vote to democratically determine the direction to go (2 actually in this case) and so with our varied opinions we voted to remain or leave, and the result was leave. That doesnt mean you have to suddenly believe it will be good for the UK but it does mean you hold the minority opinion and you are not considered better than everyone else (1 vote each).

                  "Likelihood of it upsetting the Irish border is great, and it'll increase the chances of Scotland opting for Independence."

                  Ok. So? The UK can unilaterally decide not to enforce a border or implement our side as we wish. The EU has the same freedom their side. Preferably to both sides of Ireland and the UK there would be no border or some low interference border, but the EU wont agree to that.

                  If Scotland want another vote for independence (not looking popular any more) then fine. Except last time they didnt want independence they wanted more devolution with the UK picking up the tab. Also it would be very unhelpful to have such a referendum on the basis of joining the EU as Scotland really does not qualify.

                  "The Welsh weren't on same page with the vote mostly either"

                  Again so what? The Welsh are also not counted as more than anyone else. That is why we have a 1 vote each system where we are equal.

                  1. DavCrav Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    "And so we hold a vote to democratically determine the direction to go (2 actually in this case)"

                    Please stop repeating this. There was one referendum that just asked 'leave the EU yes/no', with no detail on what yes means. So soft or hard Brexit cannot be divined from this decision. Then there was a snap general election in which the two largest parties both campaigned on a Leave platform. They received, for example, over 90% of the English vote between them. The idea that 90%+ of the English population support Leave is insane, so maybe the GE was about more than Brexit. So the GE cannot be used to prove that the UK population want Brexit, and especially not the hard-to-pass super-hard Brexit we seem to be heading for.

                    To claim that there is a settled will of the UK population on this issue is being either disingenuous or deluded.

                  2. Lars Silver badge
                    Happy

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    "The UK can unilaterally decide not to enforce a border or implement our side as we wish".

                    Only if you are prepared to break that international agreement you have signed.

                    I would suggest you would enter "brexit lies" into your browser and remember how it all started.

                    Some suggestions:

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBxWiRz6A9E

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTt8XafbA60

                    .......

                    Enjoy.

                    1. Wellyboot Silver badge

                      Re: RE: Mooseman

                      I'm pretty certain entering " $subject$ lies " into any browser will return some very partisan rhetoric.

                      1. Lars Silver badge
                        Happy

                        Re: RE: Mooseman

                        @Wellboot

                        Try "brexit truth" instead then, it's as interesting.

                  3. strum Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    >The UK can unilaterally decide not to enforce a border or implement our side as we wish. The EU has the same freedom their side.

                    I keep seeing this garbage from hardline headbangers. It's impossible. It's a madey-up answer to a question you can't answer. There is nowhere on the planet with such a one-sided border - because it can't work.

                2. Freedom Farmer

                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                  Likelihood of it upsetting the Irish border is great, and it'll increase the chances of Scotland opting for Independence.

                  Gets my vote!!

                3. Mooseman Bronze badge

                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                  "The Welsh weren't on same page with the vote mostly either"

                  Wales voted to leave.

            2. Tigra 07 Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              "But neither can the Union, if it wants to retain it's current form, allow any special deal with an ex-member (we've gotten special deals before, but that was before the whole leave decision).

              To do so, would set the worst sort of precedent, and definitely kick off the break-up of the Union. With all countries uncomfortable about one part or another wishing to back out of different bits"

              This is the thing i never get with you deluded remainers. Look at Canada's deal with the EU. It is better than anything the EU has offered to us or agreed with May, and funny enough Canada is not a member. They break their rules when it suits them. It's a protectionist racket

              1. nsld

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                "This is the thing i never get with you deluded remainers. Look at Canada's deal with the EU. It is better than anything the EU has offered to us or agreed with May, and funny enough Canada is not a member. They break their rules when it suits them. It's a protectionist racket"

                You've not read the Canada deal have you?

                May set her red lines, one of which is the ECJ.

                Those red lines dictate what you get offered. The EU did a handly single powerpoint slide on how it works, the more red lines the worse the deal on offer.

                Its not so much remainers who are deluded, its more the quitlings like you who spout stuff you don't understand

                1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
                  Thumb Up

                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                  Here's a link to the Brexit red line slide, showing how May has excluded all but Canada or South Korea style deals: http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/BRITAIN-EU/01006039065/brexit.jpg

                  1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    And a Canada or South Korea-style FTA are only possible with an NI sea border, which is another red line. So that's impossible too.

                    When that slide was made that red line wasn't known, but now it's known that slide should be modified to cascade all the way down to no deal.

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: RE: Mooseman

                      @ Dan 55

                      "And a Canada or South Korea-style FTA are only possible with an NI sea border, which is another red line. So that's impossible too."

                      Instead of the border being between the UK and Ireland it could be between Ireland and the EU. I hear the EU red lined that themselves so thats impossible to do.

                      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                        Re: RE: Mooseman

                        Instead of the border being between the UK and Ireland it could be between Ireland and the EU. I hear the EU red lined that themselves so thats impossible to do.

                        Have you asked Ireland their opinion? Them also having sovereignty and that. Perhaps they don't want to leave the single market and customs union which works for them just to make life easier for the UK, when it was the UK which decided to leave.

                        The fact is an NI sea border would not make any practical difference, it's already there for food and livestock.

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: RE: Mooseman

                          @ Dan 55

                          "Have you asked Ireland their opinion? Them also having sovereignty and that. Perhaps they don't want to leave the single market and customs union which works for them just to make life easier for the UK, when it was the UK which decided to leave."

                          Yes we asked their opinion, there was a referendum. The United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland) are leaving the EU.

                          1. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: RE: Mooseman

                            >Yes we asked their opinion, there was a referendum. The United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland) are leaving the EU.

                            Ireland is not Northern Ireland, and hasn't been since the end of the Civil War in 1916. Nobody from Ireland was asked about whether they wanted to Leave the EU. You are correct in that people in NI were asked, and the majority of those didn't want to leave.

                            1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                              Re: RE: Mooseman

                              Yes we asked their opinion, there was a referendum. The United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland) are leaving the EU.

                              You seriously don't know the difference between Northern Ireland and Ireland?

                              1. codejunky Silver badge

                                Re: RE: Mooseman

                                @ Dan 55

                                "You seriously don't know the difference between Northern Ireland and Ireland?"

                                I was responding to "Have you asked Ireland their opinion?". NI was asked and is leaving as part of the UK. ROI is part of the EU and they are not leaving the EU nor planning on asking are they? So what is your point and is there one?

                                1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                                  I was responding to "Have you asked Ireland their opinion?". NI was asked and is leaving as part of the UK. ROI is part of the EU and they are not leaving the EU nor planning on asking are they? So what is your point and is there one?

                                  Let's copy and paste something from Wikipedia:

                                  Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland declares that the name of the state is Ireland; Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 declares that Republic of Ireland is "the description of the State".

                                  Anyway, from now on you are not allowed to refer to Spain as Spain, instead you must call it The Kingdom of Spain. If you do call it Spain, I reserve the right to be deliberately obtuse.

                                  1. codejunky Silver badge

                                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                                    @ Dan 55

                                    "Let's copy and paste something from Wikipedia:"

                                    Sorry to put it in these terms but your the idiot who wrote "have you asked Ireland their opinion?". My legitimate assumption was you mean NI which we have the legal position to ask, why would we ask ROI? So it does seem you are being deliberately obtuse.

                                    "Lost imports and exports from the UK will be made up with trade agreements with other countries, which the UK doesn't have. Simples."

                                    Yet again I dont think you quite follow the situation or are just being an idiot. We are currently still in the EU we cannot have other trade agreements. The EU doesnt allow it.

                                    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                                      Re: RE: Mooseman

                                      You said:

                                      Instead of the border being between the UK and Ireland it could be between Ireland and the EU.

                                      You which I said:

                                      Have you asked Ireland their opinion?

                                      Them also having sovereignty and that. Perhaps they don't want to leave the single market and customs union which works for them just to make life easier for the UK, when it was the UK which decided to leave.

                                      To which you replied:

                                      Yes we asked their opinion, there was a referendum. The United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland) are leaving the EU.

                                      You say I'm the idiot (your gramatical error removed), but I'm afraid replaying the conversation back leads us to a different conclusion.

                                      Yet again I dont think you quite follow the situation or are just being an idiot. We are currently still in the EU we cannot have other trade agreements. The EU doesnt allow it.

                                      There was the word "will" in my original post. Perhaps that gives you a clue?

                                      Perhaps the enormity of getting 700-odd non-trade agreements that the UK will be leaving agreed all over again as well as enough trade agreements to replace the current EU ones is finally dawning? What's it like realising you're on the wrong side of history?

                                      1. codejunky Silver badge

                                        Re: RE: Mooseman

                                        @ Dan 55

                                        "You said:"

                                        Yes I did. Because if it is fine to suggest the border is between Ireland (Ni and ROI) and the UK it is just as correct to suggest the border is between Ireland (Ni and ROI) and the EU. I make this suggestion because some remainers dont seem to realise it is the same stupid suggestion and they see one as acceptable but the other as not.

                                        "To which you replied:"

                                        And I am right. We legally only have the right to ask NI. The EU could offer ROI a choice and ROI would possibly vote to remain in the EU. But the idea being proposed isnt to ask but to negotiate where the border will be. If its ok to suggest it is between the UK and Ireland it is also ok to suggest it is between the EU and Ireland.

                                        "There was the word "will" in my original post. Perhaps that gives you a clue?"

                                        So what 'will' the situation be as we are still in the EU and cant sign a single deal?

                                        "Perhaps the enormity of getting 700-odd non-trade agreements that the UK will be leaving agreed all over again as well as enough trade agreements to replace the current EU ones is finally dawning?"

                                        Why? Your assumption that all is doom and gloom assumes the only way for a country to survive is to be in the EU. In no way has that been shown. You forget we already trade with these places to to prepare a new deal is pretty simple as the terms are pretty much already there.

                                        "What's it like realising you're on the wrong side of history?"

                                        No idea, so far it doesnt seem I am on the wrong side at all. Just like when I used to be called eurosceptic and those pro-EU people were saying much the same as now... and were wrong.

                                        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                                          Re: RE: Mooseman

                                          You are wrong. It is not okay to suggest Ireland do anything because any suggestion that Ireland do anything is a non-solution which is not workable (as is, incidently, "Brexit means leave so we just leave"). Ireland is an independent sovereign state. Ireland don't have to change one single thing, they aren't leaving the SM and CU and don't want to leave because leaving would be a monumentally stupid thing to do.

                                          The EU doesn't have to offer Ireland a choice. Ireland chooses on its own, just like the UK. If Ireland wanted to leave, they would hold a referendum as the Irish constitution obliges them to, but they don't, so they won't.

                                          In short, the UK shat the bed, the UK has to clean up the sheets.

                                          So what 'will' the situation be as we are still in the EU and cant sign a single deal? [...] to prepare a new deal is pretty simple as the terms are pretty much already there.

                                          The cognitive dissonance is pretty astounding. What makes you think other countries would just want to replicate the same deal with the UK that they have with the EU and just wave things through? They don't:

                                          The thorniest is the planned sharing-out of import quotas, which has already been rejected by the United States, Argentina, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, Thailand and Uruguay.

                                          And that's just the WTO, before any bilateral trade deals.

                                          1. codejunky Silver badge

                                            Re: RE: Mooseman

                                            @ Dan 55

                                            "It is not okay to suggest Ireland do anything because any suggestion that Ireland do anything is a non-solution which is not workable"

                                            Not workable? I wouldnt go that far but unacceptable I can see. Just as it is similarly unacceptable for NI to remain in the EU and the border be between the UK and Ireland. The point I am making is it is a stupid suggestion regardless of which part of Ireland is forced to border it parent.

                                            "The EU doesn't have to offer Ireland a choice. Ireland chooses on its own"

                                            Erm no. The EU doesnt have to offer Ireland a choice, the EU is above Ireland. Ireland do as they are told. For example Ireland doesnt want to take more money off Apple, the EU dictates Ireland takes money from Apple and wins the legal case. Ireland takes the money but appeals against the decision in hope of giving Apple their money back. Or that the EU is negotiating Irelands border not Ireland. That sovereignty thing we leavers were banging on about.

                                            "What makes you think other countries would just want to replicate the same deal with the UK that they have with the EU and just wave things through?"

                                            Why are you thinking things will be the same? Or that things as they are is the optimal or desirable? FYI Japan has extended the UK an offer to join the TPP partnership that the US dropped out of. It does require we brexit though.

                                            1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                                              Re: RE: Mooseman

                                              Erm no. The EU doesnt have to offer Ireland a choice, the EU is above Ireland. Ireland do as they are told. For example Ireland doesnt want to take more money off Apple, the EU dictates Ireland takes money from Apple and wins the legal case. Ireland takes the money but appeals against the decision in hope of giving Apple their money back. Or that the EU is negotiating Irelands border not Ireland. That sovereignty thing we leavers were banging on about.

                                              Firstly, that's about unfair state aid rules which was around since the Treaty of Rome, so no EU country can claim they didn't know what they were signing up to (not even the UK in 1973).

                                              Secondly, if countries in the EU do as they are told, how come it was possible to have a Brexit referendum in the UK in the first place? Is it more of that UK exceptionalism?

                                              And thirdly, as a rules-based union signed up to the WTO, the EU has agreed alongside 160-odd other countries that, in the absence of a trade agreement between two countries then there must be a border with ports and customs inspection points. The EU is not going to waive that rule as they are signed up to the WTO.

                                              Some brain-dead politicians in the UK may claim the solution is to not have any border or customs inspections, that would be against the WTO rules which the UK is falling back on and in breach of the UK's agreements with 160+ other countries. Not an auspicious start.

                                              Why are you thinking things will be the same? Or that things as they are is the optimal or desirable? FYI Japan has extended the UK an offer to join the TPP partnership that the US dropped out of. It does require we brexit though.

                                              The Japanese offer is an invitation to start negotiation after Brexit, it is not done deal. The UK currently has an agreement with Japan now and it will lose that after the 29th of March... so much for the EU stopping the UK having FTAs, eh?

                                              1. codejunky Silver badge

                                                Re: RE: Mooseman

                                                @ Dan 55

                                                "Secondly, if countries in the EU do as they are told, how come it was possible to have a Brexit referendum in the UK in the first place?"

                                                Hang on we are discussing the Irish border and it sounds like you have solved it. If the Irish dont need to listen to the EU then there need be no border if ROI choose not to as well!

                                                "the EU has agreed alongside 160-odd other countries that, in the absence of a trade agreement between two countries then there must be a border with ports and customs inspection points."

                                                Hang on. Is this an EU rule or a WTO rule. Because I am not convinced there is such a WTO rule but there very well could be an EU rule. But based on your suggestion above that ROI does not have to listen to the EU the problem solves itself. I disagree as the ROI is in the EU so the EU speaks for them (hence why the negotiation is UK-EU and not UK-ROI).

                                                "claim the solution is to not have any border or customs inspections, that would be against the WTO rules"

                                                Except it isnt. WTO may be an issue over discriminatory practice but not border (as far as I am aware the WTO does not require a border.

                                                "The EU is not going to waive that rule as they are signed up to the WTO."

                                                It was funny watching Rees Mogg have that long named idiot on the ropes over this (the same one who broke rules stalling negotiation because he didnt like UKIP being in the room). The video is on youtube.

                                                "The Japanese offer is an invitation to start negotiation after Brexit"

                                                Why negotiate after brexit? We can negotiate we just cant sign.

                      2. jmch Silver badge

                        Re: RE: Mooseman

                        "Instead of the border being between the UK and Ireland it could be between Ireland and the EU. I hear the EU red lined that themselves "

                        So, the UK voted for Brexit, and because they can't solve their own border issues you want Ireland to get effectively thrown out of the EU? Sorry mate, UK lost sovereignty over Ireland quite a while ago!

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: RE: Mooseman

                          @ jmch

                          "So, the UK voted for Brexit, and because they can't solve their own border issues you want Ireland to get effectively thrown out of the EU?"

                          Its an option. Next dumb question?

                          The NI doesnt want a border, the UK doesnt want a border, ROI dont want a border.... who's left?

                          1. Lars Silver badge
                            Happy

                            Re: RE: Mooseman

                            "The NI doesnt want a border, the UK doesnt want a border, ROI dont want a border.... who's left?".

                            Only the reality.

                          2. Hans 1 Silver badge

                            Re: RE: Mooseman

                            UK doesnt want a border

                            So UK wants to remain ? You cannot be both inside and outside of the common market. Ireland is in the common market, Northern Ireland wants to stay, so does Scotland, but the rest of the UK wants out. Brexit means hard border in Northern Ireland, so, there are really only three options:

                            Northern Ireland joins the republic of Ireland.

                            UK stays in the common market

                            UK dumps the Good Friday agreement.

                            1. codejunky Silver badge

                              Re: RE: Mooseman

                              @ Hans 1

                              "So UK wants to remain ?"

                              No

                              "You cannot be both inside and outside of the common market"

                              Agreed.

                              "Northern Ireland wants to stay, so does Scotland, but the rest of the UK wants out."

                              And so we took a vote over the whole of the UK and the result is out. So we are leaving.

                              "Brexit means hard border in Northern Ireland"

                              If the EU is so determined. Apparently the UK doesnt want a border, NI and ROI dont want, so that leaves?

                              If the EU wants to make a border its up to them, their choice, they are free to. Neither side has to and both sides could come to an arrangement.

                              1. Anonymous Coward
                                Anonymous Coward

                                Re: RE: Mooseman

                                If the EU wants to make a border its up to them, their choice, they are free to. Neither side has to and both sides could come to an arrangement.

                                The EU has long run out of vaid anti-Brexit reasons, they just keep repeating "but, but, but, More Europe is BETTER". Discovering that the NI/RoI border could be a problem was manna from heaven for them, which is why it's now their main argument. They don't have any others left.

                      3. Teiwaz Silver badge

                        Re: RE: Mooseman

                        Instead of the border being between the UK and Ireland it could be between Ireland and the EU. I hear the EU red lined that themselves so thats impossible to do.

                        @codejunky

                        I don't agree with your position, but you believe it, and I respect that.

                        But this is just silly. It undermines your total argument (I'm going to charitably assume, you forgot a joke icon).

                        Last time I ferried IRL to France* and back, the customs paranoia homeside was a whole world less than UK to France and back.

                        * Although flying to Italy, not without weird language choices onboard Aer Lingus - safety announcements in Irish and English, no Italian on a flight to Italy.

                        1. codejunky Silver badge
                          Thumb Up

                          Re: RE: Mooseman

                          @ Teiwaz

                          "But this is just silly. It undermines your total argument (I'm going to charitably assume, you forgot a joke icon)."

                          I didnt forget a joke icon but yes it is silly and was intentional. The idea of ROI being annexed is as stupid as NI being annexed. It is as silly an idea that there be an Ireland UK border after brexit as an Ireland EU border. It is the same proposal but only one is dismissed as silly by remainers trying to make it,

                          A mutual deal with the EU/UK to treat Ireland differently would probably be the best outcome for Ireland. Failing that the ROI is in the EU and NI is in the UK.

                          When I make this daft suggestion (have done a few times) do feel free to dismiss it as a dumb idea being used to point out the dumb idea I am responding to.

                        2. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: RE: Mooseman

                          Although flying to Italy, not without weird language choices onboard Aer Lingus - safety announcements in Irish and English, no Italian on a flight to Italy

                          Transavia Portugal to France is worse. Only French and English, no Portuguese, and that's between Schengen countries where we still had passport control on arrival!

                      4. Mooseman Bronze badge

                        Re: RE: Mooseman

                        "Instead of the border being between the UK and Ireland it could be between Ireland and the EU. I hear the EU red lined that themselves so thats impossible to do"

                        Except Ireland is a member of the EU. Explain how they should put a border between their member states? If you mean between NI and Eire, then by EU and WTO rules there should be a hard border, which unfortunately contradicts the GFA. Simple, isn't it?

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: RE: Mooseman

                          @ Mooseman

                          "Except Ireland is a member of the EU"

                          And NI is a member of the UK. It is the same dumb idea. The fact that some remainers reject it so hard should indicate how they should be reacting when the EU suggests such bollocks.

                          "If you mean between NI and Eire"

                          Unfortunately that is not what the EU proposes. The EU wants a border between Ireland (the whole) and the UK. I am reversing the argument and watching panties tie in knots. I am poking holes in some remainers fantasies.

                          "then by EU and WTO rules there should be a hard border"

                          Only one set of those rules apply when we leave and that is WTO. WTO does not dictate that we must secure our borders (as far as I am aware). The EU rules mean bollocks to us when we leave, they can turn them sideways and shove em. That means the UK had no reason to apply a hard border, if the EU rules dictate it then Ireland and the EU will have to pay for it, man it and maintain it with whatever fallout follows. It is possible the WTO non-discrimination rule may come into play, maybe.

                          "which unfortunately contradicts the GFA"

                          Which is then a choice of Ireland who can either persuade the EU to grow up, leave the EU or they can break the agreement. If we have no border we aint breaking it.

                    2. jmch Silver badge

                      Re: RE: Mooseman

                      "And a Canada or South Korea-style FTA are only possible with an NI sea border, which is another red line".

                      The Irish border situation is something straight out of Kafka or Orwell. These are the choices

                      - Stay in the EU and have no borders

                      - Leave in EU and have a land border

                      - Leave the EU and have a sea border

                      UK wants option "leave the EU and have no border", because both the UK gov sees both Irish sea border AND the land border as red lines. It's deluded to think that's an option. And it's going right past deluded and straight into the realms of insanity to think that an IT project will solve the problem by creating a 'virtual border' (whatever the fuck that's even supposed to mean) magically enabled by magic IT solution. Have these guys not seen the state of UK gov IT projects??

                  2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                    Unhappy

                    Here's a link to the Brexit red line slide,

                    Excellent.

                    If only this had been circulated during the Referendum, eh?

              2. Teiwaz Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                This is the thing i never get with you deluded remainers. Look at Canada's deal with the EU. It is better than anything the EU has offered to us or agreed with May, and funny enough Canada is not a member.

                Canada isn't a member, was never a member and is across the ocean. All they want is a trade deal, the UK wants in on much more, like they never left regards some things, and wants nothing to do with other bits. You are deluded, if you think it's as simple as Canada or Norway.

                The UKs sea border with the EU has always been 'somewhat outside' the EU, because with sea and channel they could get away with limiting trade with the EU, but remain adamant that a border between NI and IRL or NI and mainland UK remain as is as much as possible.

                The NI / mainland sea border has never been as open as the borders Wales and Scotland, worse before the Good Friday agreement, but still more close to travelling to Europe than within the UK.

                As much as people don't like the idea, it'd probably be the least disruptive, you already have security checks plane and ferry.

              3. strum Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                >[CETA] is better than anything the EU has offered to us

                Blatantly false. The EU has offered "Canada-plus-plus". We just don't have the political leverage to accept it.

          5. NerryTutkins

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            "Of the two sides we can get what we want unilaterally by just not participating in the project (aka leave). "

            And this is going to achieve the frictionless trade that UK factories and farms need for their survival, not to mention to avoid the UK starving?

            Don't tell me, Donald "Rip up the WTO" Trump is going to do you a good deal? The only good deal he's going to do you is if you sleep with him then threaten to go to the papers.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              @ NerryTutkins

              "And this is going to achieve the frictionless trade that UK factories and farms need for their survival, not to mention to avoid the UK starving?"

              Thats a great project fear effort but fails in the fact that we cant provide enough home grown food to feed our population already. The food bill should go down (for everyone rich or poor in the UK) by leaving as we dont need to apply the high tariffs of the EU against the world. You talk of frictionless trade but I assume you mean only with the EU?

              "Don't tell me, Donald "Rip up the WTO" Trump is going to do you a good deal? The only good deal he's going to do you is if you sleep with him then threaten to go to the papers."

              He did seem to take the wind out of the EU's sails. Amusingly Junker actually publicly acknowledged that increasing tariffs is bad for the people in the country applying import tariffs, but then the EU did it anyway. By leaving we will be able to drop the EU high tariffs even Junker recognises as a good idea.

              1. nsld

                Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

                "The food bill should go down (for everyone rich or poor in the UK) by leaving as we dont need to apply the high tariffs of the EU against the world."

                Christ on a bike not this rubbish again, we are beneficiaries of 759 trade agreements with the rest of the world that pretty much remove all tariffs on the food we consume.

                After we leave we have two options, either apply the TRQ's we have proposed to the WTO pre acceptance or drop to 0% for everyone, neither puts us in a better position or makes food cheaper.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

                  @ nsld

                  "Christ on a bike not this rubbish again"

                  Yes because funny enough the fact stands and kicks the ass of the fear fools.

                  "we are beneficiaries of 759 trade agreements with the rest of the world that pretty much remove all tariffs on the food we consume."

                  Pretty much? Thats an asterisk moment.

                  "neither puts us in a better position or makes food cheaper."

                  Sorry but that is where you need to prove your position since you are going massively against even remainer outlet knowledge.

                  1. nsld

                    Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

                    "Sorry but that is where you need to prove your position since you are going massively against even remainer outlet knowledge."

                    You can start with this:

                    https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/25/brexit-mps-tweet-about-foreign-lemons-didnt-go-down-too-well-7976838/

                    Then maybe why don't you list all the tariffs you say apply to foods imported into the UK, remember to include quota levels because a headline tariff which appears high may never kick in because the quota is more than the country can produce.

                    If you need help on tariffs the government provides a really handy tool.

                    This is for high quality Navel Oranges, and like most quitlings you will latch onto the 3.2% and the €81.33 per 100kg duty and tariff, read past the default and look at all those 0% deals with all those citrus producing countries. It also varies by time of year as we don't want crap produce coming into the market so its seasonally adjusted.

                    https://www.trade-tariff.service.gov.uk/trade-tariff/commodities/0805102210?day=3&month=10&year=2018#import

                    And if you need a saddle for your donkey post brexit you will be pleased to know we have a huge number of 0% tariff deals thanks to our EU membership.....

                    https://www.trade-tariff.service.gov.uk/trade-tariff/commodities/4201000010#import

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

                      @ nsld

                      "You can start with this:"

                      I was waiting for at least one remainer to shoot you down for me as it is a common (and not incorrect) argument that brexit would cause inefficient farmers to go out of business as they lose the protectionism for their over expensive produce. Basically because we can import cheaper than now and will not necessarily prop up the industry.

                      https://capx.co/food-will-be-cheaper-after-brexit-if-we-ignore-special-interests/

                      1. nsld

                        Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

                        "You can start with this:"

                        I was waiting for at least one remainer to shoot you down for me as it is a common (and not incorrect) argument that brexit would cause inefficient farmers to go out of business as they lose the protectionism for their over expensive produce. Basically because we can import cheaper than now and will not necessarily prop up the industry.

                        https://capx.co/food-will-be-cheaper-after-brexit-if-we-ignore-special-interests/

                        ===

                        Thats the Minford fantasy or removing all tariff barriers for everything, straight from the 55 Tufton Steet think tanks in a publication which has been universally debunked on many issues from imaginary coffee tariffs to citrus fruit and beyond.

                        You might want to consider that even Minford says it will end UK manufacturing and Agriculture if implemented.

                        What it also does is remove protections for emerging nations and simply benefits the huge agro industrires.

                        You also ignore the lower buying power of weak sterling, but then, you ignore every other fact so no great surprise on that one.

                        But just for laughs, how is dropping all our 0% tariff deals and then opening borders to the world at 0% with no protections for UK industries going to make stuff cheaper when that very action will drop the £ by between 10 and 15%?

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

                          @ nsld

                          "Thats the Minford fantasy or removing all tariff barriers for everything"

                          Is that a concept of free trade where tariffs are economically recognized as a cost on those applying the tariff. The measured loss of jobs for the US applying steel tariffs against China. And since you state we have zero tariffs on an amount of food (your argument) so continuing with that and reducing EU tariffs on other things seems to marry your thoughts on this to mine. Hmm.

                          "You might want to consider that even Minford says it will end UK manufacturing and Agriculture if implemented."

                          So? Agriculture which is unable to compete with the global market (be outward looking like us leave voters) and manufacturing which is still a growing industry in this country if slower than the service industry. Do we want jobs and prosperity or are you seriously arguing against it?

                          "What it also does is remove protections for emerging nations and simply benefits the huge agro industrires."

                          Eh? It would increase jobs in the emerging nations and if they have improved food production for export then surely it will improve availability in that country. And if you are seriously arguing that farming would struggle because we would import more then you are arguing against your previous comment because it would be cheaper to import (or we wouldnt do it).

                          "You also ignore the lower buying power of weak sterling, but then, you ignore every other fact so no great surprise on that one."

                          No I dont. The over strong currency we were told needed to come down before the referendum did and now you complain about it. Yet you complain about losing manufacturing which would happen with an over strong currency.

                          1. nsld

                            Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

                            You really dont have a clue.

                            Lets get back to your original premise, that food will be cheaper.

                            Which foods and by how much?

                            Once you've answered that simple question we can maybe look at the issue of food security and reliance on imports once you have decimated the UK's farming industry.

                            1. codejunky Silver badge

                              Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

                              @ nsld

                              "You really dont have a clue."

                              I must agree you have lost me since you seem to argue food will not be cheaper but our farming will somehow struggle (it will because importing without high tariffs is cheaper). You seem to be arguing that food is already zero rated and so will not be cheaper, but then agreeing that farmers cant compete internationally.

                              "Which foods and by how much?"

                              Lets start with the ridiculously easy one- chicken from the US is much cheaper than in the EU.

                              "look at the issue of food security and reliance on imports"

                              We are already there. We cannot provide enough food in this country for the people in this country. We already rely on imports.

                              1. nsld

                                Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

                                "Which foods and by how much?"

                                Lets start with the ridiculously easy one- chicken from the US is much cheaper than in the EU.

                                "look at the issue of food security and reliance on imports"

                                We are already there. We cannot provide enough food in this country for the people in this country. We already rely on imports.

                                =======

                                Lets also ask why the US has a food poising rate thats nearly 10 times that of the EU, and thats according to the CDC.

                                What do you think the cost of transport would add to the chicken cost?

                                And given the wholesale price is €1.85 per kg in the EU and $2.02 cents in the US we are talking a difference of 10c per kg wholesale before you ship it to the UK.

                                So is that 10c worth it for animals raised thigh deep in faeces in appaling conditions and an industry with chronic safety and hygene issues?

                                And you answer to a weak policy on food security is to make it weaker!

                                1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                                  Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

                                  Fancy eating 1-2lb of maggots, fly eggs and mites per year? Try some US food standards!

                                2. codejunky Silver badge

                                  Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

                                  @ nsld

                                  "Lets also ask why the US has a food poising rate thats nearly 10 times that of the EU, and thats according to the CDC."

                                  And that is why when negotiating trade we negotiate what we import to our standards and exports to theirs. That is how trade works you know?

                                  "What do you think the cost of transport would add to the chicken cost?"

                                  No idea. Which is why people will import what sells and wont bother with what wont, but if you think it is prohibitive then surely you will be happy for the farmers here?

                                  "And you answer to a weak policy on food security is to make it weaker!"

                                  No. The fact that you seem opposed to trade doesnt shock me though. Explains why you would want to hide behind the EU borders, outsource the work to the EU and pretend the world doesnt exist beyond.

                  2. strum Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

                    >Pretty much?

                    Yes, pretty much all of it. Only US and a few others are still tariffed. That's the trouble with hard-line Brexiteers - even facts won't shift them.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

                      That's the trouble with hard-line Brexiteers - even facts won't shift them.

                      Remoaners have the same problem.

              2. strum Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                >The food bill should go down

                More delusion. It takes years (decades, sometime) to negotiate the standards and protections essential for food trade. Currently, we don't have any such agreements in place. (It isn't just about tariffs.)

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              Trump is going to do you a good deal? The only good deal he's going to do you is if you sleep with him then threaten to go to the papers.

              Are you offering?

              1. Teiwaz Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                Trump is going to do you a good deal? The only good deal he's going to do you is if you sleep with him then threaten to go to the papers.

                Are you offering?

                As one of the girls from Buffy might say 'Eww!, just, Eww!"

            3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
              Unhappy

              "this is going to achieve the frictionless trade..UK factories & farms need for their survival,"

              Of course it is.

              Inside the head of the delusional f**kwits who voted for this nonsense anything is not just possible but virtually certain.

          6. nsld

            Re: RE: Mooseman @codejunky

            "I always wince when I hear we have a poor hand to play. "

            That would be the grim realisation that your beloved Brexit is a monumental gangfuck.

            Politics aside we sit in the most sophisticated and powerful trade bloc on the planet which is leading the convergance paths of the other trade blocs to make trade simpler and remove frictions and barriers.

            And the UK response because a minority of shouty xenophobes don't like 'forrin' accents and also fancy making a fast buck on a crashing pound is to bin it all and strike out alone like the Crimson Permanent Assurance.

            If you want a free trade deal we can join EFTA (the clue is in the FTA bit!) and if we want to remove frictions to trade and enjoy other global deals we can form a customs union. Then its only about trade rules, you can meet the binary referendum and stop a few pointy heads making a killing.

          7. jmch Silver badge

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            "Of the two sides we can get what we want unilaterally by just not participating in the project (aka leave). "

            Except that "what we want" is quite different across a wide swath of pro-Brexiteers, and totally incompatible with some of the realities on the ground. For example, if you REALLY just leave, that automatically implies an Irish border.

          8. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            poor hand to play

            "I always wince when I hear we have a poor hand to play. Of the two sides we can get what we want unilaterally by just not participating in the project (aka leave). The EU is in a less envious position as they really dont want a net contributor to leave the fragile project"

            And how is that a bargaining chip? Whatever the EU offers us we are still leaving anyway so this on it's own is no incentive to offer us anything. People who think that the EU needs us more than we need them and that German businesses will go to the wall if we don't get a deal are deluded. For example in 2017 BMW sold 117K cars to the UK which sounds like a lot, but they sold 2.4M to everyone else who wasn't us. Besides do you really think that your average BMW driver will start driving Nissans and Vauxhalls post Brexit because a BMW/Audi/Merc costs 10% (the standard WTO tariff) more?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: poor hand to play

              >For example in 2017 BMW sold 117K cars to the UK which sounds like a lot, but they sold 2.4M to everyone else who wasn't us.

              BMW increased sales in China by around 80,000 in 2017. So if all UK BMW car sales stop tomorrow then within 2 years that loss will be covered by sales in China.

          9. strum Silver badge

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            >The EU is in a less envious position

            And there's that delusion again.

            The EU doesn't want Brexit, sure - but they'll weather the storm a damn sight smoother than UK.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              @ strum

              "The EU doesn't want Brexit, sure - but they'll weather the storm a damn sight smoother than UK."

              Just like they did the recession which they are still years behind in recovery?

              1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                Just like they did the recession which they are still years behind in recovery?

                The EU have negotiated an agreement with Japan and are just starting to negotiate one with NZ. When it comes to imports and exports at least, the UK will not be missed.

                The UK meanwhile us hitting reset on trade agreements and 700+ other agreements and will have to start from scratch.

                No-one pro-Brexit has managed explain how the UK can catch up to where was before. It'll take decades (probably the only thing JRM is right about) and you and I will probably be dead.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: RE: Mooseman

                  @ Dan 55

                  "The EU have negotiated an agreement"... yadda yadda yadda.

                  What has that got to do at all even slightly with what you quoted? For reference-

                  "Just like they did the recession which they are still years behind in recovery?"

                  1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                    Re: RE: Mooseman

                    What has that got to do at all even slightly with what you quoted?

                    Lost imports and exports from the UK will be made up with trade agreements with other countries, which the UK doesn't have. Simples.

        2. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          She has an impossible hand. She is literally trying to ensure free movement of people and goods across the Irish border while, at the same time, restricting the movement of people and goods across the border.

          I would almost feel sorry for her if she wasn't the one continuing to maintain that there's a solution.

          1. NerryTutkins

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            It's amazing how they argue that with computers and technology they can make the Irish border completely seamless and invisible such that it's virtually non-existent and definitely not carving Ireland in two.

            And yet, when it is suggested that this completely and invisible border be moved to the middle of open sea, suddenly it becomes an impenetrable obstacle that is ripping the UK apart.

          2. jmch Silver badge

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            "She is literally trying to ensure free movement of people and goods across the Irish border while, at the same time, restricting the movement of people and goods across the border."

            Well she shot herself in the foot there with the general election. She is now beholden to the N. Irish unionists for her majority in the commons. By far the more logical (if emotive/inflammatory for some people especially Irish unionists) would be to allow a re-united Ireland to stay in the EU and have UK revert to GB

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          a lot of leavers DON'T seem to grasp this fact. I'm fed up with the oh we should tell them to feck of brigade and the they need us more than we need them, errrrmmmmmm really. They sell us more than we sell them, etc, etc. There's 27 other countries you don't really want to pi$$ any of them off!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            There's 27 other countries you don't really want to pi$$ any of them off!

            Such a narrow view. There are over 180 other countries, but only 27 of them are in the EU.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              >Such a narrow view. There are over 180 other countries, but only 27 of them are in the EU.

              Technically, 193 in the United Nations plus a handful not in the UN, so call it 200. Of those, we've fought wars, conquered or had territorial disputes with pretty much all of them at some point in the past.

            2. Mike Richards

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              Countries trade disproportionately with their geographic neighbours. Which of the UK's neighbours are not in the EU or in the EEA?

            3. strum Silver badge

              Re: RE: Mooseman

              >There are over 180 other countries, but only 27 of them are in the EU.

              And they're just over there - 22 miles away.

              1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

                Re: RE: Mooseman

                And they're just over there - 22 miles away.

                You know what they say, keep your friends close, and your enemies closer...

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          May might (sorry!) be a poor negotiator, but given that her main negotiator for a good deal has been Borris-No-Deal, this would indicate she had poor judgement of choosing the best negotiator in the first place. Or, terrible thought, Boris-No-Deal was still the least worst negotiator she could have found...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: RE: Mooseman

            Or, terrible thought, Boris-No-Deal was still the least worst negotiator she could have found...

            No Deal is still better than her Chequers "leave-without-really-leaving" deal, though. That would royally screw us, worse than either all-in or all-out.

        5. m-k

          Re: RE: Banging your fist on the table and talking tough

          remember the cousin's advice:

          "speak softly and carry a big stick

          Unfortunately, in this case, it's the EU side that's been implementing this policy (because they can). And it has been painful to watch UK's puffing and huffing when both sides know _exactly_ there's no ace up UK's sleeve. No ace, no stick, nothing. Other than the gentlemanly message from the highest echelons of British establishment: FUCK YOU, WE'RE NOT PAYIN' THAT BILL! And you're no better than Soviets anyway, so yes, fuck you!

          But... no stick, so it's easy to guess what the EU side says quietly to that.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: RE: Banging your fist on the table and talking tough

            it's easy to guess what the EU side says quietly to that.

            My money is on them saying (internally) "Forget negotiations, just stonewall, eventually they'll give up and stay". They're finally realising that isn't the case, and it hurts...

        6. strum Silver badge

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          >27 boot prints on his fat arse

          A lovely image, which I shall treasure.

      4. Avatar of They
        FAIL

        Re: RE: Mooseman

        Do you understand how contracts work? You sign up for something, you commit to it and you pay the money in. If you then decide to pull out you can't expect all sides to just give you back your money etc. Unless it is in the contract which doesn't look to be the case.

        If you signed a contract for a car, agreed to pay a loan to the finance company for ownership and continued use of that car. Then decided you didn't want the car agreement and left, they won't pay you back what you put in. And you will lose the car because you still signed up to pay the money for it.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          Now imagine if someone decided to 'warn' the finance company to deal with the fact that they were about to stop paying for the car - and to insist they show them 'respect' for doing so.

        2. Anne-Lise Pasch

          Re: RE: Mooseman

          "You sign up for something, you commit to it and you pay the money in."

          Absolutely agree that we should continue paying for things we've contractually signed up to.

          Although its amazing how quick people don't want to give us the dividends on the things we've paid for...

      5. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Re: Tigra 07

        The UK contributed to Galileo and as a result negotiated and received a share of the pork for R&D. Part of the contract we insisted on was that only EU members are allowed big lumps of Galileo pork. Until recently, Brits have done an excellent job of getting an unfair share of EU pork so most of the ~£350M/week came back.

        Although I firmly believe our government lack the skills to negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag I do not blame them that much for this particular cock-up. Everyone in the UK is now is a lousy position to tender for long term EU projects and our share of the pork has already fallen.

        Article 50 has always been particularly clear: any EU member that leaves gets fucked over by all the others on the way out. If any Brexit voter is any happy about this they can go to the bathroom, look in the mirror and rant at one of the people responsible.

        1. Rupert Fiennes Bronze badge

          Re: Tigra 07

          "Brits have done an excellent job of getting an unfair share of EU pork so most of the ~£350M/week came back."

          https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40860657

          We are a net contributor to the EU budget. Plus, the majority of what we get back is agricultural subsidies and regional aid, neither things that the EU does very well.

          1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

            Re: Rupert Fiennes

            Thanks for the link. If you read the report you will notice that the net contribution is calculated as (Money to the EU)-(Money back to the UK government). It misses out money back to the UK private sector (which exceeds money back to the UK government).

            It also misses out EU citizens working over here and paying UK taxes. A big thank you to my Dutch NHS GP and all the Polish bus drivers (and their very welcome tobacco tax).

          2. Lars Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: Tigra 07

            "Plus, the majority of what we get back is agricultural subsidies and regional aid".

            That is a silly comment, the pork mentioned earlier is all about "that only EU members are allowed big lumps of Galileo pork", pork for British industry.

            A lot of the money put into Galileo has ended up in Britain.

            The pork comes from being a EU member. Ten other net contributing countries seem to understand it.

            How so many Brits fell for the snake oil salesmen is still beyond me, (but then I look at your cabinet, and I listen to the Eton boys).

          3. Hans 1 Silver badge

            Re: Tigra 07

            https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40860657

            That does not include all the business you get from EU-land .... like e.g. Nissan in Sunderland selling 55% of the production to EU-land - which will grind to a halt on April 1st if nothing is done for all the parts that need to come in daily from EU-land, just in time, for production (long waits + 5% tariff) and the cars that need to go to EU-land. Carlos is very concerned and thinks about down-sizing despite the state aid (40m, iirc) and laughter he got back in 2016 when May tried to convince him to export to 3rd world countries instead of EU ... he had to remind May that there are Nissan factories across the globe and that transporting vehicles by sea is not economically realistic ... especially ones built in the UK with UK labour costs, compare to Indian labour costs ... she does not have an 'ff'ing clue.

            I try, each time I reply here to give other examples ... Airbus, LCH, etc etc etc ?

            I am at a point where I just think the deluded Brexiteers have ruined the country and we might as well leave them create havoc, I guess they will be the first to suffer, lets make them the only ones ... any remainers in the UK should move to Ireland or elsewhere, NOW, it is f-UK-ed, Jim!

        2. Tigra 07 Silver badge
          Thumb Down

          Re: Tigra 07

          "Until recently, Brits have done an excellent job of getting an unfair share of EU pork"

          No...We're a net contributor. And Blair handed back a chunk of the rebate we get while the French still pull in massive subsidies for their farmers and veto any discussion of reform in this area. It's a protectionist racket where we're squeezed for more and more each year to give to economic basket cases as a bribe to join and make the EU even bigger, all the while "democratically" representing the people less and less.

          1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

            Re: Tigra 07

            I know we are a net contributor. I have never said otherwise. That is still consistent with getting an unfair share of EU pork which used to be true but is being eroded. What I massively object to is Brexits promising the gross ~£350M/week (16% of the NHS budget) when the net amount which could theoretically be available is a rounding error on the NHS budget. The signature benefit of Brexit has been a big lie from the start.

            The next crap down on the list is to restrict freedom of travel. That hits both ways. You are contributing towards restrictions on my freedom of travel.

            "We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act. The violent drug dealer who cannot be sent home because his daughter – for whom he pays no maintenance – lives here. The robber who cannot be removed because he has a girlfriend. The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had a pet cat."

            "This is why I remain of the view that the Human Rights Act needs to go."

            Do you really want to be stuck in the same country as cat-gate?

            1. Dan 55 Silver badge

              Re: Tigra 07

              Cat gate was given credibility by a certain Theresa May to further her agenda. You should not believe everything (anything?) she says.

              The cat example

              It has been reported in several newspapers that a Bolivian man has been spared deportation on Article 8 grounds (right to respect for family life) because of his pet cat.

              (for example, The Sun, 9 February 2011; Sunday Telegraph, 12 June 2011; Daily Mail, 17 June 2011)

              The Home Secretary also referred to this case in her party conference speech in 2011, saying: “We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act…The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had pet a cat. This is why I remain of the view that the Human Rights Act needs to go.”2

              In fact the immigration judge found that it would be disproportionate on Article 8 grounds to remove this claimant because he had a long-term relationship with a person settled in the UK and they had lived together for four years.3 The reference to the cat was one detail amongst many provided by the couple as evidence of the genuineness of their long-term relationship. The judge also relied on a former Home Office policy4 which said that if an individual lived in the UK with a settled spouse for two years or more without enforcement action being taken against them, they were entitled to leave to remain. The Home Office appealed but a senior immigration judge upheld the decision on the basis of the former Home Office policy.5 All other factors in the original determination, including ownership of the cat, were deemed “immaterial”.

              Source (PDF)

            2. Tigra 07 Silver badge
              Pint

              Re: Tigra 07

              "The next crap down on the list is to restrict freedom of travel. That hits both ways. You are contributing towards restrictions on my freedom of travel"

              Really? You can't go to Europe anymore? Telling porkies are we?

              Let's twist this. You're forcing me to remain in a United States of Europe that takes more of our GDP each year, foists more rules on us each year, and is slowly combining armies to achieve military dominion over members (another thing you lying remainers said wasn't happening during the referendum you cheated and lied in constantly).

              1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                Re: Tigra 07

                Really? You can't go to Europe anymore? Telling porkies are we?

                No deal means planes or trains grounded until agreement, it's in the government's own technical notes. After Brexit, it will be harder to live and work in Europe than it is now unless you're lucky enough to have Irish ancestry.

                I won't dignify the rest of your post with a reply because it's bollocks.

                1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
                  Thumb Down

                  Re: Tigra 07

                  "No deal means planes or trains grounded until agreement"

                  What planet do you come from where trains aren't on the ground?

                  Your other post consists of an angry rant accusing me of being angry - Something certain remainers have been ever since the referendum. I'm not angry, i'm dismayed that people like you are still fighting the inevitable with your lies and "alternative facts" 2 years on from your rigged referendum.

                  1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                    Re: Tigra 07

                    Lies and "alternative facts" - it's established fact that Banks was funded from Russia, one Leave group illegally funded the other, and Cambridge Analytica targeted swing voters.

                    The Remain campaign was guilty of an insipid campaign and forecasting the apocalypse in the immediate days after the referendum (then again the QE probably helped), but I really fail to see where lies are on the same scale as Leave's campaign.

                    But now, knowing what we now know two years later, it would not be anti-democratic to run the advisory referendum again.

                    1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
                      Facepalm

                      Re: Dan 55

                      "Lies and "alternative facts" - it's established fact that Banks was funded from Russia, one Leave group illegally funded the other, and Cambridge Analytica targeted swing voters.

                      The Remain campaign was guilty of an insipid campaign and forecasting the apocalypse in the immediate days after the referendum (then again the QE probably helped), but I really fail to see where lies are on the same scale as Leave's campaign.

                      I'd say threatening the country with a punishment budget if they voted leave is quite despicable, as is wheeling out world leaders and handing them statements to read out in favour of your side, as is spending more than the agreed amount to keep it fair right before the campaign started, as is lying that no other country would trade with us if we left, as is extending the deadline and encouraging more youngsters to vote just to prop up your side, lowering the age limit just for the vote because it favours your side. That's just what springs to mind, there were many more lies from remain.

                      Vote Leave should never have been fined. They followed to the letter the rules given by the Electoral Commission, who now admit they got the rules wrong - And they gave them a fine for doing as they were told. The head of the Electoral Commission should be out of a job for that and the fine should be rescinded since it is unjust.

                      "Liar. Any military arrangements, within the EU were always subject to our veto. But, we will lose that veto - so they can do whatever the hell they want."

                      You're in denial. Germany is already doing it and has been for a while now. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/22/germany-is-quietly-building-a-european-army-under-its-command/

                      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                        Re: Dan 55

                        The fact that Vote Leave received incorrect advice does not absolve them, they still have to follow the law and still have to be fined.

                        Stronger In also received incorrect advice but it did not breach spending limits.

                        As for punishment budgets, that's a Tory Party thing. It probably turns them on.

                        1. nsld

                          Re: Dan 55

                          "The fact that Vote Leave received incorrect advice does not absolve them, they still have to follow the law and still have to be fined."

                          This is actually incorrect and its the spin vote leave put on the outcome of the case.

                          They actually recieved correct advice that they could donate money to other campaigns but they could not work in co-ordination with them.

                          They ignored that bit and thought they could launder money through Darren Grimes and no one would notice. The reality is, as all the evidence shows, they co-ordinated from the outset and they knew throughout that this went against the guidance the electoral commission gave them.

                          They lost the leave to appeal case yesterday as well as they have no realistic prospect of convincing the court they didn't coordinate.

                    2. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: Tigra 07

                      @ Dan 55

                      "but I really fail to see where lies are on the same scale as Leave's campaign."

                      Direct threats against the population by the government (Chancellor) with a punishment budget if we dare not do as they dictate.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Tigra 07

                  I won't dignify the rest of your post with a reply because it's bollocks.

                  Goes for all of yours (I'm a "leaver" working in the EU, without problems or fears)

              2. strum Silver badge

                Re: Tigra 07

                > is slowly combining armies to achieve military dominion over members

                Liar. Any military arrangements, within the EU were always subject to our veto. But, we will lose that veto - so they can do whatever the hell they want.

              3. Mooseman Bronze badge

                Re: Tigra 07

                "Let's twist this. You're forcing me to remain in a United States of Europe that takes more of our GDP each year, foists more rules on us each year, and is slowly combining armies to achieve military dominion over members (another thing you lying remainers said wasn't happening during the referendum you cheated and lied in constantly)."

                Name one law imposed on you by the EU. How much of our GDP are they taking? Our contribution to the EU, the magical 350 million quid a week, is about 0.6% of your tax bill. This also includes some of our contribution to overseas aid. To put it in perspective for you, over the last 10 years we have paid in around 110 billion to the EU (plus or minus )- we have paid out over 850 billion to prop up our banks despite their criminal activities.

                Which armies have been combined? And assuming any have (they haven't) who is seeking military dominion over member states that ASKED TO JOIN IN THE FIRST PLACE?

                Cheating in the referendum? Hmm lets see, who is being investigated and fined for improper behaviour during the referendum again?

                When you have anything sensible to say please come back, but leave your idiotic slogans and UKIP lies behind, please.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: Tigra 07

                  @ Mooseman

                  "Name one law imposed on you by the EU"

                  All of them dictated by the EU and written into UK law. Otherwise May wouldnt be transferring EU laws to UK law once we have left and then trying to weed them out.

                  "How much of our GDP are they taking?"

                  This is tough to work out as it would not be a glorious utopia if such was asked. I found the following amusing. Not because of its result but the amount of assumptions required to guestimate if there even is a benefit-

                  http://www.cityam.com/235348/eu-membership-the-true-cost-to-britains-economy-and-the-unrealistic-assumptions-you-need-to-make-the-numbers-net-positive

                  "we have paid out over 850 billion to prop up our banks despite their criminal activities."

                  How much of that is the propping up of the banks which they paid back plus a healthy interest to the public coffers benefit? The alternative being what happened in the EU with high unemployment, sacrificing countries and even now are still behind in the recovery process.

                  "Cheating in the referendum? Hmm lets see, who is being investigated and fined for improper behaviour during the referendum again?"

                  Which group wont be investigated regardless of the same accusation of cheating? And is it not improper for a government to actively threaten its population just like Osborne did with the punishment budget?

          2. This post has been deleted by its author

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Rubbish claim.

              How so? Blair gave up a third of the rebate, that's acknowledged fact. Google it.

              1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                In December 2005 the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed to give up approximately 20% of the rebate for the period 2007–2013, on condition that the funds did not contribute to CAP payments, were matched by contributions from other countries and were only for the new member states. Spending on the CAP remained fixed, as had previously been agreed. Overall, this reduced the proportion of the budget spent on the CAP. It was agreed that the European Commission should conduct a full review of all EU spending.

                Source

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Pressed by most of his colleagues to give ground, Mr Blair raised the amount of rebate which Britain is prepared to forgo from €8bn (£5.4 bn) a week ago to €10.5bn - £1bn a year for seven years. That is almost a third of the annual rebate Britain has enjoyed since 1984 as compensation for the lopsided farm subsidy system.

                  Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/dec/17/eu.world

    2. Steve Channell
      Flame

      Scrap value

      Galileo should never have been created in the first place: There are two faults with GPS (coverage for accuracy, US right to switch it off or encrypt it).. which could have been addressed with funding contribution and contract.

      Space is outside of the realm of Earth laws.. if the UK is locked out through decision to leave the EU, a price can be negotiated on the scrap value.. It is a question of the inconvenience price for recovering them

  2. Jess

    At least it's somewhere nice and close, without a big time difference for collaboration.

    1. Wellyboot Silver badge

      @Jess >>>At least it's somewhere nice and close, without a big time difference for collaboration.<<<

      Working for a globally spread company here, that works quite well for planning 24h operations. some t/c meetings can be at odd hours though.

  3. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    Go

    Excellent news

    Does this mean the SPB can get back in operation with LOHAN?

    Surely Lester's memory requires this.

    1. SVV Silver badge

      Re: Excellent news

      Surely it'd have to be called KYLIE : Knowing Your Location Is Expensive

  4. Rupert Fiennes Bronze badge

    Still irrelevant

    <sigh>

    Being in Galileo is irrelevant for all practical purposes other than sending money (our own!) to our space industry. It's purpose is purely to pretend that the EU can guide smart munitions via it's own satellite navigation systems if the US stops us from using GPS (the likes of ships and aircraft can carry alternatives). In practice, this is nonsense because neither the EU or individual countries within the EU (partially excepting ourselves and France) could ever mount any independent operation without US support. Being outside Galileo has no practical impact: we never needed it anyway.

    On the other hand, beefing up our own satellite communications capability has actual utility...

    1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

      Re: Still irrelevant

      Being outside Galileo has no practical impact: we never needed it anyway.

      Words that no doubt come as great comfort to the many people currently employed in the UK space industry who are now contemplating unemployment.

      1. Rupert Fiennes Bronze badge

        Re: Still irrelevant

        https://www.ft.com/content/64c9d77c-4a12-11e8-8ae9-4b5ddcca99b3

        "The navigation system itself represented a minuscule percentage of the £13.7bn revenues generated by the uk space industry in 2014-15, found the study."

        "many people"? Nope

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Still irrelevant

          "many people"? Nope

          Actually yes. Quite a lot of people.

          It's easy to forget just how big the UK space industry is - even the workforce associated with that "miniscule percentage"is a significant number of people.

          And that's the important word: "people". These are real people, with real families and real commitments.

          It's very easy for you to come onto a forum like that and spout an opinion, but this is all a very real situation for some very real people.

          Would you care to speak to any of these people in person? Tell their spouses and kids that "well, you may lose Daddy's (or Mummy's) income, so it'll be hard to put keep a roof over your heads and put food on the table, but that's OK, because Daddy (or Mummy) was irrelevant anyway"

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Still irrelevant

            >These are real people, with real families and real commitments.

            In an industry that only exists to be the recipient of govt pork-barrel projects ?

            I assume that the rocket scientists will have better prospects than when a previous tory govt shut down the mining industry.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Still irrelevant

        I guess they can easily re-locate to one of those EU countries (you know, free labour movement within the EU and all that...)

    2. David Nash Silver badge

      Re: Still irrelevant

      "the likes of ships and aircraft can carry alternatives"

      Galileo is the alternative. That's the point.

  5. This post has been deleted by its author

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Maralinga and Woomera

    Rockets are welcome but don't bring the plutonium nasties like you did in the 50's.

    Mind you, Dad was brought out to work on the Oz Atomic tests, so I wouldn't be here without the nukes.

    1. defiler Silver badge

      Re: Maralinga and Woomera

      I wouldn't be here without the nukes.

      Do you have superpowers? Enquiring minds...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Maralinga and Woomera

        RE: Superpowers.

        Yes, but the Official Secrets Act is still in place.

        I have said too much already.

    2. Wellyboot Silver badge

      Re: Maralinga and Woomera

      There are also a few other locations near the equator flying the correct flag that may be quite happy for a ground station & a rocket lauch facility where any aborted launch hits a big patch of water and not some poor chaps farm.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Maralinga and Woomera

        Equator is a lot less useful these days.

        It helps for equatorial orbits, GSO and going to the moon. It doesn't help at all for polar orbits.

        For most modern swarm systems (GNSS, sat-coms, sat-internet) there are orbits in a wide range of planes so location is less important then ability to launch often and reliably. Weather is now the biggest factor

  7. arctic_haze Silver badge

    A great success!

    Especially that neither country is likely tol have its own navigation satellites any time soon.

  8. Nick Kew Silver badge
    Angel

    The last satnav constellation anyone will need

    'Cos under aussie law, there'll be a backdoor to the encryption. So those countries that don't already control a constellation can just tap into it.

    If it ever happens. And works ...

  9. DougS Silver badge
    Trollface

    They should talk to Canada and India next

    Then they can form their own union from the remains of their empire, with blackjack and hookers...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: They should talk to Canada and India next

      Canada makes a lot of sense as Australia are already talking to them as well. I don't know how compatible the Indian system is.

      This is exactly the kind of global opportunity that Brexit is opening up for us. Thanks ESA for pressing the point home, you bunch of ****s.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Re: They should talk to Canada and India next

        Thanks ESA for pressing the point home, you bunch of ****s.

        The rule, lobbied for by the UK at the time, was that the ESA would only allow EU companies to bid for Galileo contracts.

        So, this is what leaving means. You should be happy, it's proof you've left.

    2. Old Tom

      Re: They should talk to Canada and India next

      India is maybe a bit iffy for this, but yes we should talk to Canada. Nothing like Empire as you sneer, but as part of the logical progression of the broadening our horizons and increasing cooperation with the outside world that Brexit has fired the starting gun on.

      In this particular case, as four of the Five Eyes alliance are the four Canzuk states, a Canzuk-base for an alliance on alt-Galileo would be a very sensible start.

      1. Lars Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: They should talk to Canada and India next

        Canada already takes part in ESA.

        "Canada

        Since 1 January 1979, Canada has had the special status of a Cooperating State within ESA. By virtue of this accord, the Canadian Space Agency takes part in ESA's deliberative bodies and decision-making and also in ESA's programmes and activities. Canadian firms can bid for and receive contracts to work on programmes. The accord has a provision ensuring a fair industrial return to Canada.[37] The most recent Cooperation Agreement was signed on 2010-12-15 with a term extending to 2020.[38][39] For 2014, Canada's annual assessed contribution to the ESA general budget was €6,059,449 (CAD$8,559,050).[40] For 2017, Canada has increased its annual contribution to €21,600,000 (CAD$30,000,000)".

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency#Canada

    3. jmch Silver badge

      Re: They should talk to Canada and India next

      They should talk to India next

      Since India actually has a proper space program including launch capability

  10. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Poppycock

    "To date, the UK remains the only country to have the dubious honour of developing an orbital launch system and then dumping it."

    That is utter bollocks. The USA made the Saturn V for the Apollo landings and then scrapped it. They can't even make one any more.

    Then they went and made the very impressive and expensive Shuttle, which also got scrapped for reasons we all know.

    So the UK is most definitely not the only country to have developed and scrapped an orbital launch system.

    1. Paul Kinsler

      Re: not the only country to have developed and scrapped an orbital launch system.

      Perhaps "developed and scrapped, without an intention for any replacement", then?

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: not the only country to have developed and scrapped an orbital launch system.

        Perhaps "developed and scrapped, without an intention for any replacement", then?

        More than that. UK just shot a single successful launch - Prospero into orbit, with a radio and a tape loop just to test the launch system.

        Totally incomparable with Apollo and the Shuttle program, which conducted a series of launches to useful space payload missions over a number of years, or in the case of shuttle decades.

    2. steelpillow Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: Poppycock

      Forgive me, but I think the OP's context implies dumping without using it properly first.

      And isn't SpaceX a US company?

      Poppycock and bollocks where they are due, my friend.

    3. ChrisC

      Re: Poppycock

      Quite, though elsewhere that I've seen this comment made it's tended to be worded more like "only country to have developed and then abandoned orbital launch capabilities", which then avoids any nitpicking over whether an orbital launch *system* refers just to the actual launch vehicle itself or to the whole orbital launch infrastructure.

    4. Mooseman Bronze badge

      Re: Poppycock

      "That is utter bollocks. The USA made the Saturn V for the Apollo landings and then scrapped it. They can't even make one any more"

      What, the big Saturn V rocket they used for bloody years to send Apollo missions up? That rocket? Idiot.

  11. hammarbtyp Silver badge

    Inconvenient Truths

    1. this could of happened before Brexit

    2. The money allocated is pinprick compared with the amount which will have to be spent to get a system running

    3. GPS systems are optimized to cover certain areas of the earth. Covering two hemispheres to provide the accuracy required for military will require more satellites and greater coverage

    4. No one has explained where the frequencies required are going to come from since this would require international agreement

    5. we are looking at a huge investment (which is likely to inflate ) and long project timescales. This from a country that has so far failed to build 1 high speed rail track

    6. it is not clear why we need it anyway apart from massaging some huge Tory egos. We struggle to maintain 1 carrier group. The last time we did anything abroad was the Falklands, and that was based on cold war level military readiness. Even then it was a struggle

    7. It is likely we will need the money for other things

    8. The UK on its own is no longer a world super power, and the sooner we come to terms with this, the better the future will be

    9. It will never happen

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Inconvenient Truths

      "The UK on its own is no longer a world super power, and the sooner we come to terms with this, the better the future will be"

      Joining the EU was the result of coming to terms with this.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Inconvenient Truths

        well, clearly joining the EU didn't work to alleviate that trauma, so the great British nation decided it would implement the third way - after the super-power ran out of steam, and coming to terms with it through EU didn't work either. Third way, Great plan, really great. A Plan. Great. Plan.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Inconvenient Truths

          well, we DO have a plan, don't we? I mean, not brexit, that's not the end, it's the means to achieve that end. So, like, what's the post-brexit PLAN?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Inconvenient Truths

      The UK on its own is no longer a world super power, and the sooner we come to terms with this, the better the future will be

      There's a sad reflection on the state of British education. The UK is still the world's 8th-biggest economy, and perfectly able to count itself in the to 10 "superpowers", even if some people, for some unfathomable treason, prefer to classify themselves as failures.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Inconvenient Truths

        >There's a sad reflection on the state of British education. The UK is still the world's 8th-biggest economy, and perfectly able to count itself in the to 10 "superpowers", even if some people, for some unfathomable treason, prefer to classify themselves as failures.

        It was but 5th biggest economy two years ago... :)

      2. Wellyboot Silver badge

        Re: Inconvenient Truths

        The raw economy size #4/5/6/7 or 8 is rather dependant on the $ exchange rate and other criteria being used, one of which is what do you want as the answer to support your initial position, the IMF has UK at 24th & China at 79th place in GDP per/head on 2017 numbers.

        Opinion polls are the same, I'm sure we could come up with a referendum question that has both major political parties committing to retrieving the French territories we lost 500 years ago.

        Yes minister clip (brilliant documentary) -

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xC2bNpXdAo

        Superpower definition: If you class a superpower as any country that meets any of the following criteria and a global superpower as one that meets all 4.

        1) Can totally flatten the planet with nukes :2: (Russia,USA) + China if they're fibbing about their missile count.

        2) Can totally flatten any other country anywhere on the planet with nukes :5: (as above + China,France,UK)

        3) Could successfully invade a reasonably well armed country anywhere without fully committing its military :1: (USA) China will be here very soon.

        4) Can put combat jets over anywhere in the world unaided :1: (USA) China will be here soon too.

        The UKs ability to erase any other country at short notice makes it a superpower, surviving retaliation is not a factor.

        It gets interesting with 'Major' powers that only have tactical nukes so can totally flatten at least one neighbouring country and therefore are pretty well immune (politically) to being invaded by anyone, (4 currently DPRK, India, Israel, Pakistan) plus about a dozen others that could join this club in less than 10 years if they so desired.

        Soon there will soon be two global superpowers with the willy-waving front line across the pacific instead of the Inner German border. (not sure if that's much an overall improvement)

        The 19th century 'Great powers' were the ones that could meet the invasion criteria as that's all that mattered then.

        On a cynical side note the Eastasian, Eurasian & Oceanian blocks are beginning to line up nicely.

        1. Kurt Meyer
          Mushroom

          Re: Inconvenient Truths

          @Wellyboot

          "The UKs ability to erase any other country at short notice makes it a superpower, surviving retaliation is not a factor."

          The UK can erase Russia? China? The US?

          Honestly, I laughed out loud.

          1. Wellyboot Silver badge

            Re: Inconvenient Truths

            @Kurt Meyer

            >>>The UK can erase Russia? China? The US? Honestly, I laughed out loud.<<<

            The UK has 2 SSBNs on patrol regularly, at full load-out that's well over 300 independent warheads (in the spirit of disarmament they normally operate with far less but still enough to maintain deterrence)

            After 300+ impacts & follow on fallout, would you care to identify the largest surviving population centre in any country? Governance would collapse into local warlords fighting for the few non poisoned resources, so yes any country would be effectively erased. Geographically smaller countries (UK included) would be overlapping craters.

            The deterrence principle is called MAD for good reason and 5 countries are in the club. It's not a laughing matter.

    3. FlossyThePig
      Headmaster

      Re: Inconvenient Truths

      1. this could of happened before Brexit

      "have" not "of" boy! If you are smart and understand apostrophes there is the option "could've".

  12. Ochib
    Devil

    ASA

    What has the Averting Sandards Agency got to with this?

  13. defiler Silver badge

    On the other hand...

    ...it's encouraging that I now know that NASA actually stands for Not the Australian Space Agency.

    Glad they could differentiate.

  14. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    Fake news

    Everyone knows Australia doesn't exist - typical Tory lies and fake promises

    1. dnicholas Bronze badge

      Re: Fake news

      Have a belly laugh

    2. John Savard Silver badge

      Re: Fake news

      If Australia did exist, since time zones and all that pretty much mean that if the Earth is flat, it has to have the North Pole in the center, then because of the difference in time zones between Sydney and Perth, it would have to be considerably wider than it is usually given credit for.

      So Australians are uniquely positioned to prove the Earth is round.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    despite the rich history between the nations

    what goes round, comes round...

    who would have thought that in return for screwing / milking half the world for a couple of centuries (purely a side-effect of the flaghip project, i.e. introducing the savages to the modern "values"), they all show us the middle finger when the Empire needs their support in its glorious path towards everlasting world leadership!

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Makes absolute sense

    ...for a satellite positioning system, to partner with a country on the opposite side of the planet.

    1. John Savard Silver badge

      Re: Makes absolute sense

      Actually, it does make as much sense as partnering with any other friendly country, since no doubt the UK is looking for a global positioning system usable by its naval vessels (and aircraft, and anything else) even if they're on the other side of the world from Merrie England.

  17. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

    On Slashdot back before it was overtaken by kids, this sort of poorly disguised trolling in the article used to be called flamebait.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      On Slashdot back before it was overtaken by kids,

      Ummm ... errr ...

  18. spold Bronze badge

    No contingency..

    <Sigh> these arrangements invariably boomerang or get turned upside-down, wattle they do then?

  19. Big_Boomer

    Ahhh, yet another Brexit cluster****! More of our hard earned money pissed down the drain. But it's all worth it, really it is! Soon we will have Blue Passports and no more immigrants, and everything will be sunny and wonderful. Who needs economic growth and low inflation when we can have another nice recession and rampant inflation once 20% gets added to the price of nearly everything we import after the 29th March. Brexit? More like F***sit!!

  20. dnicholas Bronze badge

    Space, who needs it?

    If TV has taught me anything, Brits never get into space on an interstellar way. Time travel is our thing

  21. andrewj

    Put Boris into orbit at a Lagrange point for reference. His ego would be visible from all points on earth, no need for a complex satellite system.

  22. John Savard Silver badge

    Canada, you say?

    Ah, this means that Canada has an opportunity to become part of a satellite navigation system that the United States can't turn off on us, by joining with Australia and the United Kingdom? I must write my Member of Parliament so that he knows about this opportunity!

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Remainers should be Leavers

    As a yank, I don't exactly understand y'all, however, one thing is crystal clear. For all of you that love the EU so much, the English Channel is very small. Brexit. Leave now, your European masters may not let you in later. For all of you that feel English, love England, and want to remain English, god bless you.

    1. I&I

      Re: Remainers should be Leavers

      Out of the Brussels, into the Trump...

    2. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

      Re: Remainers should be Leavers

      ... and what about those who are Scottish and love Scotland/Welsh who love Wales/Northern Irish and live Northern Ireland/Cornish who love Kernow etc, etc?? There is much more complexity than you realise. I was born in England, moved to Scotland less than ten years ago, and consider myself a Scottish. Instead of referenda about individual nations of the UK having independence, what we should have is Scotland, NI and Wales having the chance to throw England out.

    3. Mooseman Bronze badge

      Re: Remainers should be Leavers

      "As a yank, I don't exactly understand y'all"

      Clearly. Are you suggesting that anyone who didn't vote for Trump should leave the USA as well?

      Keep watching Fox news, your brain will eventually melt.

  24. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    FAIL

    WTF does the UK need to build it's *own* sole use nav system?

    Answer.

    F**k all.

    Seriously, could you imagine a bigger waste of taxpayers money?

    This is driven by

    a) Massive MoD egoism and some fantasy that the UK is as big as the US/China/India/Russia (all countries with active or planned sat nav systems, and the tax base to afford it )

    and

    b) A desire to support a chunk of the British satellite industry, which the morons who voted for this bu***hit didn't think twice about throwing under a bus.

    And yes, the UK satellite industry is worth quite a lot of money in terms of foreign revenue, and is growing quite fast.

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