Blighty stuffs itself in Galileo airlock and dares Europe to pull the lever

The furore over Britain's potential loss of access to Europe's Galileo satellite system post-Brexit turned up a notch this week – as a report blamed British officials' iffy approach to negotiations. The report in question, published on April 24 by Parliament's Select Committee for European Scrutiny, asked some questions that …

[Voland's right hand]

"We are scoping the possibility of launching our own system."

Is this also budgeted for in the 300M per week?

Some of the sh*** we hear is now so far out, that one starts to wonder if Whitehall water supply has been contaminated with Bolivian marching powder.

[Charlie Clark]

Or maybe something was put in the cakes?

I don't want to do the memory of James Hayter any disservice but somehow "Mr Johnson does make exceedingly good cakes" springs to mind.

"Have cake, eat cake, still have cake!" resounds around the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Bullingdon Club.

[Aladdin Sane]

The cake is a lie.

[Anonymous Custard]

What they don't say is their system would be someone on a zero hours minimum wage contract with a 10-year old OS map, the road atlas from their car and a pair of army surplus binoculars...

[a pressbutton]

Cake

Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the end of the testing period

[Noonoot]

What was put in the cakes is a load of hashish - that's the only explanation

[ITnoob]

Our network of satellites will be designed by Morgan and will feature a revolutionary construction method using natural cellulose fibres.

[TVU]

"Some of the sh*** we hear is now so far out, that one starts to wonder if Whitehall water supply has been contaminated with Bolivian marching powder"

I'd heard that they were going to pay for this Brit satellite system with yet more of the magic Brexit unicorn currency units.

[&rew]

Unicorn currency units?

Wasn't that Scottish currency?

Joking aside - What the heck? What's happening? Nothing makes sense anymore...

[E 2]

@Voland's right hand

You were lied to by the leave side. Why do you expect them to tell you anything true now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep hearing sh*** from every direction;

Remoaners who loved the EU so much because... hm. No cake.

Brexiteers who think we're going back to 1925 or something. Sigh.

EU politicians who smell a kill. Can we have your stuff?

UK politicians with sleight of hand. What? Brexit? Ooh look, Syria!

Honestly, I'm hoping that being part of a Global Union would be better, because otherwise Star trek totally lied to me. ;p

[Ken 16]

It won't cost that much

Since it only has to provide location information within Great Britain + Gibraltar*

It will also provide work for all the UK manufacturers who will need to develop SatNavs and mobile phones compliant with the new Kitemarked GPS standard.

(*Northern Ireland will retain Galileo service as a backstop).

[/\/\j17]

Re: It won't cost that much

"Since it only has to provide location information within Great Britain + Gibraltar*"

Which would be correct if any of these systems were actually built so us plebs could drive around without having a sense of direction. Of course they aren't built for that, they are built so our armed forces can drop bombs on the 'right' things without the need for someone to sit in sight of it pointing a laser at the target.

Building a system that only covers the UK would only be of use if we have a civil war, which hopefully won't be the way Scotland becomes independent.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: It won't cost that much

covers the UK would only be of use if we have a civil war

Well, those Cornish[1] *can* be awfully uppity..

(I know - I'm married to one! Mind you, I always get the last words: "yes dear". The old ones are.. the oldest.)

[1] Kernow bys vikken!

[Steve Goodey]

I can stump up a fiver, will that help?

[Rich 11]

And I can fuck up a drainpipe, but that won't help either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that an uncomfortably tight squeeze?

[Anonymous Coward]

This does make it crystal clear that the EU regards itself as a federal entity with the powers of a single country, despite all the claims of soft-pedalling on "ever-closer" union. Next stop, the EU army.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This does make it crystal clear that the EU regards itself as a federal entity with the powers of a single country, despite all the claims of soft-pedalling on "ever-closer" union. Next stop, the EU army."

For sure, the same that the UK has done everything in years to prevent from emerging, pushing french troops more or less as the only ones to track terrorist groups in Mali !

I find it very amusing the UK is "shocked" to be pushed out from any military related field, including industry which is an integral part, and Galileo, which is also part of it (it's a sub-geostationay system, like GPS, therefore not only for domestic use).

[ArrZarr]

As an overarching body which contains the vast majority of the member states of the ESA, it is absolutely in the EU's interest to remove a country which is being politically hostile for No Good Reason as this strengthens the power of member states while weakening the belligerent state.

The fact that the EU has gone from grumpily accepting that the UK was a big fish within it's membership to gleefully throwing the book at us while we look at our hand full of blank cards to their royal flush should come as a surprise to nobody.

If this game were monopoly, we have no money and just landed on the EU's Mayfair with a hotel.

If this game were Settlers of Catan, we have three cities around a 6 tile that the EU keeps putting the robber back on.

If this game were Scrabble, we're looking at seven Zs while the EU has actual letters

If this game were Snakes and ladders, we just fell down the big snake while the EU climbed the big ladder last turn

If this game were Go, we just noticed that a key group has been put in Atari while we were concentrating elsewhere

If this game were Chess, our Queen just got taken and that put us into check

If this game were Draughts, the EU just took four of our pieces and Kinged themselves in the same move

If this game were Magic the Gathering, we haven't seen a land forever since we built the deck so badly

If this game were Yu-gi-oh, the EU just summoned Exodia following us making them draw a load of cards

If this game were D&D, our cleric just died and ten more goblins appeared in a round.

Have I made myself clear?

[Snivelling Wretch]

Are you saying that if this game were Twister, we have all our limbs in one corner and they just called left foot on red, and the only remaining red space is in the diagonally opposite corner?

[ArrZarr]

@Snivelling Wretch

All I'm saying is that if this game were charades, we're wearing a blindfold.

[Rich 11]

And if this game was Two's Up, we've just been fucked by a pair of kangaroos.

[eldakka]

@Snivelling Wretch

Are you saying that if this game were Twister, we have all our limbs in one corner and they just called left foot on red, and the only remaining red space is in the diagonally opposite corner?

Nah, more like:

if this game were Twister, the UK have all its limbs in one corner and the UK was given a choice of what colour and limb to use, and chose left foot on red, even tho the only remaining red space is in the diagonally opposite corner.

[Gordon 10]

If this was....

If this was a pack of cards we'd be playing Patience whilst the EU is placing Free Cell.

If this was computer gaming we got the Netbook whilst the EU got the Neon Gaming rig with the VR Goggles.

If this was DC superhero movies we would be Batman vs Superman and the EU Wonderwoman.

If this was Marvel superhero movies we would be Ang Lee's Hulk and the EU Age of Ultron.

If this was famous directors we would be Roman Polanski and the EU Steven Spielberg.

If this was famous producers we would be Har

If this were real life all the regions who voted for Brexit will be the ones who are most likely to suffer the worst under it.... oh wait scrub that one...its not an analogy.. its true.

[codejunky]

Re: If this was....

@ Gordon 10

"If this were real life all the regions who voted for Brexit will be the ones who are most likely to suffer the worst under it.... oh wait scrub that one...its not an analogy.. its true."

Actually the country is gaining the benefits of leaving. Oddly every time it looks like we will give in to the EU the benefits reduce, the remainers rejoice and want brexiters to be punished for voting leave while we are all losing the success because of remain.

As for the article, oh what a shame we wont get to pay for and build the EU's toy for them.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: If this was....

"the remainers rejoice"

No, we don't. We're saying "we told you so" because - well, we did tell you so. That's not the same thing at all.

We didn't rejoice about the result because we could see what would happen. We're not rejoicing now that what we said is starting to become obvious because, frankly. it's nothing to rejoice about: it never was, it isn't now and it isn't going to be.

A bit of mea culpa from the leavers would be appropriate but I don't think it'll happen. At some point it'll transpire that nobody actually voted leave because nobody can be found who'll claim to have done so and the result of the referendum will appear to have been some odd fluke of mathematics so we'll end up going back in. Giving up the pound in favour of the euro will, of course be the price, referendum day anniversary will be celebrated by burning effigies of Farage and the anniversary of leaving day by burning effigies of Gove. Something will have to be thought of the BoJo and the rest of them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: If this was....

We didn't rejoice about the result because we could see what would happen. We're not rejoicing now that what we said is starting to become obvious because, frankly. it's nothing to rejoice about: it never was, it isn't now and it isn't going to be.

1) We haven't left yet. We're still in the negotiation stage. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, remember?

2) All the things Project Fear told us that were going to happen the moment the referendum result was announced (instant recession, emergency budgets, etc.) have failed to materialise. So you'll perhaps excuse our scepticism when you make predictions about events that are even further off into the future and with more uncertainty associated with them.

Remoaners such as yourself are mistaking threatening statements announced as part of the EU's negotiating strategy as gospel truths. There is only one concrete financial certainty related to Brexit. If the UK walks away without a deal, the EU will be left with a £14 billion hole in its budget. A pretty scary prospect considering that more than one continental European country is technically bankrupt, with several others teetering on the brink.

So much for that Royal Flush! ;)

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: £14 billion

Looks like (£350 million - rebate) x 52

Well done for remembering the rebate. That makes you a better informed AC than 90% of Brexiters. After a bit of discussion with Bremainers, Brexiters switch position: instead of claiming all that money goes to the EU and never comes back, they pretend they always know the bulk of the money comes back in the form of development grants, science funding and pork. They then say the reason for Brexit is control: that money will no longer be controlled by a bunch of unelected MEPs (yes really), it will be controlled instead by the intelligent honest qualified professionals who inhabit the house of commons.

[Hans 1]

Re: £14 billion

it will be controlled instead by the intelligent honest qualified professionals who inhabit the house of commons.

This is witty wisdom of the day!

[Nifty]

Re: £14 billion

“money will no longer be controlled by a bunch of unelected MEPs (yes really), it will be controlled instead by the intelligent honest qualified professionals who inhabit the house of commons”

Ones who can be booted out by their local constituents.

[Dan 55]

Re: £14 billion

Indeed. It is currently impossible to boot out MPs because EU.

[H in The Hague]

Re: £14 billion

"It is currently impossible to boot out MPs because EU."

I'm not an expert on electoral law, so I would appreciate it if you could explain how the EU makes it impossible for constituents to recall a Westminster MP. As far as I'm aware this is solely governed by UK law (e.g. the Recall of MPs Act 2015 which makes this possible in certain cases and which does not mention the EU).

[Dan 55]

Re: £14 billion

I'm not an expert on electoral law, so I would appreciate it if you could explain how the EU makes it impossible for constituents to recall a Westminster MP. As far as I'm aware this is solely governed by UK law (e.g. the Recall of MPs Act 2015 which makes this possible in certain cases and which does not mention the EU).

I was replying to Nifty and should probably have added a joke alert or facepalm icon.

[ridley]

Re: £14 billion

Except for a large proportion of the population that isn't the case is it?

"Safe seats in Parliament.

•368 seats are so safe the Electoral Reform Society has already called the result in them.

•25.7 million voters live in safe seats.

•79.3% of constituencies in North East England are safe seats, with 77.8% in Northern Ireland and 70% in the East of England.5 BBC May 2015"

About 5 out of 6 seats would need a swing greater than 10%.

I for one am sick and tired of living in a safe seat where my right to vote is meaningless as I am sure are the 25.7 million others in the same situation. What sort of lunatic voting system disenfranchises 40% of the voters?

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: £14 billion

What sort of lunatic voting system disenfranchises 40% of the voters?

The one preferred by $RULING_PARTY. Status Quo isn't just a borning 3-chord pop-rock group y'know.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: £14 billion

"Ones who can be booted out by their local constituents."

Unlike MEPs who can only be booted out by their local constituents.

[strum]

Re: £14 billion

>Ones who can be booted out by their local constituents.

You do realise that the European Parliament is much more democratic that Westminster, don't you?

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: £14 billion

controlled instead by the intelligent honest qualified professionals who inhabit the house of commons

Or, once the futile search for one of those has failed, by Rees-Mogg and Boris.

Which means that we'll end up with state-funded bleeding by leeches on the NHS and every newspaper will have to be published in Latin as well as English..

[David Beck]

Re: £14 billion

It's £180 odd million a week nett. That means after all the items you listed as "money coming back". And why develop another GPS, without the French involved we can use the US one.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: If this was....

"We haven't left yet. We're still in the negotiation stage."

And the problems are already beginning to show.

Burying your head in the sand is such an undignified posture. It leaves your arse sticking up in the air.

[austint]

Re: If this was....

Saw the "remoaner" word, so can safely ignore.

[strum]

Re: If this was....

>Project Fear

...was nothing more than a kneejerk response, a clueless Brexiteer would give to any question he couldn't answer (which was most of them).

There was little comment about immediate problems (as it happened, the BoE, prepared for and averted most of the immediate problems).

But the major Remain arguments were about long-term problems - which are just beginning to emerge.

[codejunky]

Re: If this was....

@ strum

"But the major Remain arguments were about long-term problems - which are just beginning to emerge."

Recession the day after a leave vote! Erm.

Recession once article 50! Erm,

Recession some time in the future which we will then blame on brexit. *Crossing fingers for the next recession to hurry up*.

It does look like remain arguments are long term when they keep running off with the goal posts.

"This is the most far-reaching negotiation in British history. Anyone who thinks it can be ended as easily as leaving the pub - is not a serious person."

I am glad you highlight me as a serious person even if you probably didnt mean to.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: If this was....

It does look like remain arguments are long term when they keep running off with the goal posts.

UK growth has been below that of the rest of the EU since the referendum but this is just the uncertainty premium. In the meantime the expandsion of world trade is making a lot of economies healthier than they actually. None of us actually wants a recession in the UK because it's bad for us all, but if access to the single market is lost then there will be one, even if BoJo and Rees-Mogg personally drive the bus around and display their largesse by throwing cash (and cake!) to all and sundry.

It's also not just about a recession: the NHS is losing EU employees and the universities are worried about a squeeze on funding and also losing qualified EU employees.

Parliament, the body that is supposed to be sovereign, has just voted to stay in the customs union. The government walked away from a binding vote for fear of losing it. So, still no policy in sight. The longer this drags on, the higher the chance of things staying largely unchanged but also of a palace revolution in the Tory Party by the true believers, assuming that is, that they can get day release.

[codejunky]

Re: If this was....

@ Charlie Clark

"UK growth has been below that of the rest of the EU since the referendum but this is just the uncertainty premium."

Actually no. Growth is where they were to where they are, that is the measurement. So here we have full employment and we left the recession while they were flirting with deflation. So our growth rate cannot be stunning, it can only be as good as a developed country at full employment under our regulatory limits. You are comparing that with the EU primarily Eurozone which flirted with deflation, high unemployment and self inflicted economic damage (crap currency). Their growth is catch up growth particularly reducing the unemployment figure by reducing the value of their currency and they expect to need to continue well into this year.

"In the meantime the expandsion of world trade is making a lot of economies healthier than they actually."

Expanding world trade will do that, it is good to trade, we should do more of it! Unfortunately EU rules dictate we apply protectionist trade tariffs against the world to protect the EU from global trade/competition. That is why they want us to agree to their rules when we leave otherwise we will have a competitive advantage (it is them who have said it!).

"None of us actually wants a recession in the UK because it's bad for us all, but if access to the single market is lost then there will be one"

Is this the absolutely certain recession we would have after a leave result? Or the one once we hand in article 50? And now when we leave the single market. You do know recessions occur approximately every decade? So if you keep saying one is coming then yes one will likely happen around one of the many guesses. But a country cannot be run on a broken watch.

"the NHS is losing EU employees and the universities are worried about a squeeze on funding and also losing qualified EU employees."

The NHS we import people from around the world? A specialist and exempt profession? I wonder if its the smart ones, like them doctors who if we leave the EU will leave the UK for that little known EU country New Zealand. And yes universities will be worried about funding. Just as they always are. I am guessing its hard to keep golf course management and left handed puppetry courses running without foreign students. Like those from the well known EU areas of Asia, Africa, US, etc as a number of my friends who managed to move here did. While my non-EU friends who want to move here cant because EU citizens get priority.

"The longer this drags on, the higher the chance of things staying largely unchanged"

A good reason for getting on with brexit instead of pandering to the EU. That would mean carrying out the leave vote instead of trying to please the minority vote.

[colinb]

Re: If this was....

@codejunky

- The UK growth is predicted to be the slowest in the G20! not even the G7 for gods sake. your rant on the comparisons to the EU economy is irelevant. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43384718

- The Services sector make up 79% of UK GBP. Services are hard to export.

- To trade you need to produce things people want.

- Manufacturing and Farming needs to grow for exports to grow, how will that happen with Full Employment and lower immigration.

- There is full employment, but full of 0 hours contracts.

- The new royal baby has been given a french name.

- Trump has not been invited to the Royal Wedding.

All of these things may be related, or not related at all.

The Black Knight in Monty Python was supposed to be satire, not a handbook.

[codejunky]

Re: If this was....

@ colinb

"The UK growth is predicted to be the slowest in the G20!"

Please read my comment- "So our growth rate cannot be stunning, it can only be as good as a developed country at full employment under our regulatory limits". Those limits currently including being in the EU as we transition out which means uncertainty and we are still bound by EU regs while coming out of it. Explaining to Charlie why UK growth and EU growth is not comparable because ours is actual/new growth while theirs is catch up growth is relevant to what he said.

"The Services sector make up 79% of UK GBP. Services are hard to export."

Yet it is being done- https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/ons-figures-show-record-growth-in-uk-services-exports-uk-finance-responds/

"To trade you need to produce things people want."

Pope is cathoilic. How does this add to the discussion (see above).

"Manufacturing and Farming needs to grow for exports to grow, how will that happen with Full Employment and lower immigration."

Manufacturing is up. We have full employment even with higher immigration of the EU (pre-referendum).

"There is full employment, but full of 0 hours contracts."

Are you suggesting the members of the EU could solve their unemployment problems by offering 0hr contracts?

"The new royal baby has been given a french name."

"Trump has not been invited to the Royal Wedding."

Who gives a flying? About the baby or the name or the wedding?

[colinb]

Re: If this was....

Services > "Finance Services". Finance is now only 6.5% of GBP, it was 10% pre bust, that's why its climbing back. oh yeah, 44% of finance exports are to the EU.

You get the difference between a finance product and a person.

Services are mostly people, consultants, waiters, leisure etc.. People are not widgets and cannot be duplicated and packed off for export.

There is nothing stopping a EU country matching Germany for exports today, apart from planning and vision.

"Are you suggesting the members of the EU could solve their unemployment problems by offering 0hr contracts?"

0hr contracts are are scam, gives an illusion of employment and inflicted on people who can least choose not to take them. Flexible working does not require 0hr contracts but suits employers of course.

[codejunky]

Re: If this was....

@ colinb

"oh yeah, 44% of finance exports are to the EU."

So the EU would be pretty dumb to shoot themselves in the foot then.

"Services are mostly people, consultants, waiters, leisure etc.. People are not widgets and cannot be duplicated and packed off for export."

What the hell are you on about?

"There is nothing stopping a EU country matching Germany for exports today, apart from planning and vision."

Oops not a good comparison. West Germany succeeding through capitalism while the East Germany was economically retarded by socialism. Now Germany is in that interesting situation of an undervalued currency while the currency is still being pushed down further through QE. Germany is not a normal manufacturing example.

"0hr contracts are are scam, gives an illusion of employment and inflicted on people who can least choose not to take them. Flexible working does not require 0hr contracts but suits employers of course."

You didnt answer the question. Are you seriously suggesting the EU could fix its unemployment problem through 0hr contracts?

[Charlie Clark]

Re: If this was....

A bit of mea culpa from the leavers would be appropriate but I don't think it'll happen.

The usual approach is to claim that any problems are because it is the right kind of Brexit or it is being done by the wrong people, or something equally vague and difficult to disprove. This makes it easy to stoke discontent with the system while continuing to talk up jam (and cake!) tomorrow.

[codejunky]

Re: If this was....

@ Charlie Clark

"The usual approach is to claim that any problems are because it is the right kind of Brexit or it is being done by the wrong people"

Interestingly so far the complaint from leave voters seems to be that there is a distinct effort to remain or to get in the way of brexit. Primarily by May who doesnt seem to be willing to just walk away from the EU even if it is the right thing to do (the EU refusing to negotiate).

However so far we hear the following from remain-

>We didnt have a recession after the result because it was assumed article 50 would be the day after (the cause of recession).

>We didnt have recession after handing in article 50 because we are still in the EU.

>We have good economic news because we are in the EU.

>We have bad economic news because we voted leave.

>We cant tell the difference between good and bad news (thanks Osborne/Carney) and think the falling pound, rising inflation, increasing base rate and cooling housing market are bad news even if it has been the aim of the gov and BoE since 2008 and is still their aim to recover from the last recession.

It is amazing to listen to people argue against economic recovery to remain in the EU who is still desperately digging itself out of the last recession at the same time fearing the US who is unwinding the stimulus and so were we when hard brexit looked certain.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: If this was....

Primarily by May who doesnt seem to be willing to just walk away from the EU even if it is the right thing to do…

Vlad got you on the afternoon shift, I see.

Thanks for confirming my thesis: "everything would be great if only the right people (not Theresa May even though she won the leadership election) would do the right thing (leave the EU and customs union unconditionally tomorrow)".

As for sabotaging the process, never suspect intelligence when incompetence could also be at work and let's face it: everything since the referendum was called has been a catalogue of incompetence.

[codejunky]

Re: If this was....

@ Charlie Clark

"Vlad got you on the afternoon shift, I see."

When the security of your argument requires I must be a stooge for Putin you really dont have much of an argument.

"As for sabotaging the process, never suspect intelligence when incompetence could also be at work and let's face it: everything since the referendum was called has been a catalogue of incompetence."

I am not going to argue against that. To negotiate brexit is pretty simple, we are leaving and there is nothing the EU can do to stop us or charge us for the pleasure. Starting from there everything is negotiation of what the EU needs and what we would like. Being willing to walk away from the negotiations shouldnt be a second thought for us yet May went over to try and bring the EU back to the table.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: If this was....

I must be a stooge for Putin

Oh, we established that a while ago.

To negotiate brexit is pretty simple…

There again the counter-factual argument that conveniently can't be proven or, and this is your point, disproven. And, as long as things don't go your way, you can continue to assert sabotage.

In point of fact leaving the EU does require negotiation over precisely the areas the EU requested: the rights of EU citizens in the UK; accounting for liabilities; the border between the Republic of and Northern Ireland.

But there's more: the UK also wants a free trade agreement and barrier-free access to single market. How's that supposed to happen without negotiation?

Currently, of course, the markets seem to be pricing in a deal that includes remaining in the customs union. Presumably only a leadership challenge or a general election will change this. But the markets have been wrong before…

[codejunky]

Re: If this was....

@ Charlie Clark

"Oh, we established that a while ago."

Oh please do tell me how you reached your conclusion.

"There again the counter-factual argument that conveniently can't be proven or, and this is your point, disproven. And, as long as things don't go your way, you can continue to assert sabotage."

Actually it can be proven. If we want to leave the EU we can literally just leave the EU with nothing more to it. If you somehow believe that cant be done then you are going to have to give at least some reasoning. As for payments, borders and whatever, yes negotiation would be good, but it is not necessary. We literally can leave without a deal. I dont understand how you cannot grasp that.

"In point of fact leaving the EU does require negotiation over precisely the areas the EU requested: the rights of EU citizens in the UK; accounting for liabilities; the border between the Republic of and Northern Ireland."

No. It requires none of that. All of that would be good to negotiate but none of it is required and if the EU refuses to negotiate we can walk away and give none of it. Zero. Zip. The EU is entitled to squat. And without negotiation we would still have left hence leave hence without requiring a negotiation to be out of the EU. That is factual.

"the UK also wants a free trade agreement and barrier-free access to single market. How's that supposed to happen without negotiation?"

Bingo 100% it is a want. The EU wants money and a border and various rights for citizens. This is where negotiation comes in. It is not a requirement. But it would be a good thing to have a mutually beneficial parting.

"Currently, of course, the markets seem to be pricing in a deal that includes remaining in the customs union."

It does seem that way. The return to normal in repairing the economy has stalled as it looks like we might remain. While it looked like we were getting brexit the BoE was looking to remove some of the stimulus from the recession. Something the US has been doing for a while and something the EU still only dreams of being possible as it increases QE

[strum]

Re: If this was....

>To negotiate brexit is pretty simple

Only the simple would believe such nonsense. This is the most far-reaching negotiation in British history. Anyone who thinks it can be ended as easily as leaving the pub - is not a serious person.

[codejunky]

Re: If this was....

@ Doctor Syntax

"No, we don't. We're saying "we told you so" because - well, we did tell you so. That's not the same thing at all."

To provide the full section you selectively quote- "Oddly every time it looks like we will give in to the EU the benefits reduce, the remainers rejoice". We are telling you so, the BoE is telling you so as the base rate rise coming because of inflation is put off because hard brexit looks less likely. Remain is causing damage, and demanding more (to remain).

"A bit of mea culpa from the leavers would be appropriate but I don't think it'll happen"

I have said plenty that the reduction of the currency and economic recovery due to it was not caused by the leave vote, although I accept the timing was due to the leave vote. If you want to credit leave voters with the success I will let you though.

"At some point it'll transpire that nobody actually voted leave because nobody can be found who'll claim to have done so"

You mean like Euro supporters in the UK who labelled people like me 'eurosceptic'. A word that fell out of favour when we were proved right and the last time I asked where such Euro supporters vanished to a single AC stepped up. I expect remainers will again be the ones to vanish when they realise they are wrong, again.

"Giving up the pound in favour of the euro will, of course be the price"

I almost fell off my seat at that. You are trumpeting success of not being in the Euro. Something we eurosceptics opposed joining and proved clearly we were right. Yet the desire for more Europe and federalising would probably drag us into accepting the Euro in future or leaving a project we have opt outs for anyway. If the EU is so good why are you not advocating joining it fully? I do appreciate you realise the Euro would be a cost not a gain.

[John Smith 19]

"oh what a shame we wont get to pay for and build the EU's toy for them."

Yes, that's right.

What does the UK economy need with any part of another $13.4 Bn?

That's not even 7 Ecclestons*

*Named after the F1 bosses alleged avoided tax bill.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: If this was....

Actually the country is gaining the benefits of leaving

Said benfits being loss of vastly profitable trade, removal of human rights and a swift path to the break-up of the UK?

[LeahroyNake]

Re: If this was....

I believe Batman gave Superman a nice arse kicking in some film that I was half watching... I always preferred the Bat :)

[Christoph]

Seen floating round the net:

EU lays down a royal flush. UK looks at own cards: Mr Bun the Baker, Pikachu, a Shadowmage, a fireball spell, and the Fool

[Anonymous Coward]

EU lays down a royal flush.

To wash the royal turds away in Brussels?

[anothercynic]

If this was Uno...

... The two EU players on either side of us have all the +4 and <> cards in the deck, ping-ponging us between each other and making us draw +4, and +4, and +4, and +4, and...

[Dan 55]

Re: If this was Uno...

Are you saying if this were Ludo we'd never get to throw a six to start?

[VinceH]

Re: If this was Uno...

@Dan 55

What I think he's saying is that if this were a game of Countdown, the UK managed to write every single one of its letters down incorrectly, while the EU managed to get a nine letter word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: If this was Uno...

the EU managed to get a nine letter word.

Unfortunately it was "arrogance"

[anothercynic]

Re: If this was Uno...

The +6 only comes in if we had to choose a colour and guessed wrong. ;-)

[SundogUK]

Yes, it's clear you're a dickhead.

[iRadiate]

Have I made myself clear?

Sorry no.

What if the game was Risk?

[Dan 55]

What if the game was Risk?

If it were Risk we'd be always playing defence, with just one dice, and with just one spot on each of the six faces of that dice.

[BinkyTheMagicPaperclip]

If the game was Crysis..

No, your system wouldn't run it.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

If the game was Crysis..

No, your system wouldn't run it.

But we have Mr Babbage's finest Calculator! That fine Mr Rees-Mogg[1] assures me that it's the latest thing!

[1] Contrary to appearance, I don't actually dislike the man - in person he's apparently fairly witty and accepts the heckling he gets as part of the usual political process. I just think he has an incredibly narrow world-view due to underexposure to Real Life - much like a lot of his peers.

[ArrZarr]

@iRadiate

All I'm saying is that if the game were Risk, we'd have sat on Austrailia for the whole game without noticing the fact that the EU was sitting on all of Asia for the whole game.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

If this game were D&D, our cleric just died and ten more goblins appeared in a round

I'd be a bit more worried if it was 10 more ghasts just appeared after our only cleric[1] died. And we didn't have a magic-user with fireball. And our thief was on the side of the ghasts *and* was behind us..

[1] Especially if it was a properly-specced cleric that can actually turn undead..

[ArrZarr]

@CrazyOldCatMan

I'll admit that was one of the weaker ones, I was grasping at straws somewhat by that stage of the rant, but I hope the point where all I'm saying is that if this were blackjack, we would have kept a pair of twos, thinking that we were playing poker.

[Dan 55]

I'll admit that was one of the weaker ones, I was grasping at straws somewhat by that stage of the rant

So what you're saying is if you were grasping at straws you'd always end up with the short one.

[Charlie Clark]

Nice conspiracy theory you have there!

Anyway seeing as the UK has already agreed to share aircraft with the French, because it doesn't have enough money for its own, you could argue its already happened and you'd better get into your bunker before Macron arrives and declares himself president of North Normandy!

[Uffish]

Grande Bretagne

Emmanuel Macron has already announced that London is the sixth biggest French city.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Grande Bretagne

"Emmanuel Macron has already announced that London is the sixth biggest French city."

FYI, that stat was being bandied around long before Macron came to power. IIRC, the number of French living in the UK was conflated with the number in London alone, inflating the figure.

A quick search and he quote seems to have originated in 2008

BBC April 2014

"I got the ball back very firmly over the net, folks," said {Boris} Johnson, "because I said there were 250,000 French men and women in London and therefore I was the mayor of the sixth biggest French city on earth."

Johnson wasn't the first to make this statement about the size of London's French contingent. It was aired in the French media when Nicolas Sarkozy visited London as French president in 2008 and has been repeated many times since, including by the BBC.

When asked, the consulate said this figure was for the whole of the UK, although most of those French people would be in the capital.

This is at odds with the figure from the UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS). It carries out a household survey once a year and its most recent one says there are 123,000 French nationals in the whole of the UK and only 66,000 are in London.

[Hans 1]

Re: Grande Bretagne

When Brexit comes into effect, Britain will become Air Strip One ... if it has not already ...

[ridley]

"Anyway seeing as the UK has already agreed to share aircraft with the French, because it doesn't have enough money for its own, you could argue its already happened and you'd better get into your bunker before Macron arrives and declares himself president of North Normandy!"

Surely not, Greater Britttany is more traditional.

[Gordon 10]

OMG

I find myself periliously close to agreeing with an AC. Whats obvious in the EU positition on all this is that the same Hawks who argued for the semi-white Elephant that is Galileo (everyone else has one so why can't we) in the first place are obviously an overlapping set with the EU Army Hawks. Lots of interesting internal tensions behind this one, mostly around the assumption that the EU army is going to at all effective without NATO. At best it will be a beefed up UN peacekeeping force (Nato-lite) at worst it will it will be like forming a team from the runners up of WW2.

NATO works because the Brit-Europeans are surrounded by 2 800lb Gorillas - the "good" Gorilla of the US and the "bad" Gorilla of the USSR*. The EU army wont have that "healthy" pressure.

Not having to be involved in the EU Army is probably the only good outcome from Brexit. Its an adolescent wank fantasy brought on by resentment of the Yanks.

*Yes I know its not called that any more.

[Voland's right hand]

Re: OMG

NATO works because the Brit-Europeans are surrounded by 2 800lb Gorillas - the "good" Gorilla of the US and the "bad" Gorilla of the USSR*.

That describes the situation correctly from the days when Eu was in post-war ruins. This includes the post-fall of the wall period which in some Eastern European countries was actually worse than the post-WW2 recession.

Economically, the tables are now in a position where you have: 18.57Tn Gorilla, 20Tn Gorilla in the center and a 1.28 Tn Minnow. If we do the math for EEA, not Eu we are looking at even more - 24Tn+ gorilla. One _WITHOUT_ a drug, sorry debt addiction problem which has the economical power to create the military resources it needs and when it needs them.

By the way, Russia today is a very different beast from either USSR or its preceding Russian empire. Using the old USSR values in the equations yields the wrong results - they will _NOT_ react the same way USSR (or the Russian Empire for that matter) would have reacted under the same circumstances. That, however is a very different story and is offtopic for this discussion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU Army

There will never be an EU Army, simply because there is no appetite for it.

It was just an idea that was floated, and like many other ideas, it was shot down in flames by all concerned and will never be implemented.

[strum]

Re: OMG

>the assumption that the EU army is going to at all effective without NATO

Which makes the assumption that there's going to be a NATO, by the time the final bird flies.

[John H Woods]

EU Army

Why is an EU-wide military alliance "the EU Army" considered to be a symptom of federalism and NATO isn't?

[Gordon 10]

Re: EU Army

Derrr maybe by definition you cant have a federal state where the military is controlled outside of that Federal State (ie the US).

You big bag of fail you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU Army

>Why is an EU-wide military alliance "the EU Army" considered to be a symptom of federalism and NATO isn't?

NATO was born out of the cold war and did was it was supposed to do, possibly until it expanded into conflicts outside Europe. Member states are clear that it is a defence alliance, not part of a federation.

The EU Army is part of the EU project and a French brain baby. That alone makes for a federal issue. The UK, if it has to be repeated, was always for a trade block but very much against a federal EU. France on the opposite side wanted a federal United States of Europe to "counter" the US, one that could be ruled by France. The French were confident about this since Germany would never make military decisions over other countries, and I hope the reasons are obvious.

The results ere seen in the less than glorious Balkans Wars where EU succeeded in ... well, doing nothing other than issuing threats. nothing happened until the US and Russia airlifted troops into Balkan. And I really had hoped people would not have forgotten that. Then again, how many have forgotten Srebrenica?

So the reasoning for fearing a federal EU-wide military "alliance" is very real.

[John70]

Re: EU Army

"The EU Army is part of the EU project and a French brain baby."

Ah, so an extension of the French Foreign Legion.

Wonder if the EU Army also have to speak French.

[Potemkine!]

Re: EU Army

nothing happened until the US and Russia airlifted troops into Balkan.

Not really

[zero-gravitas]

If find your lack of Brexiteer Caps Lock use ..... progress. Small steps...

[Hollerithevo]

Yes to an EU army

The EU has to stop being dependent on the USA and has to take its own military interests seriously. I woudl suggest USA military bases can be removed -- why allow the yanks to fight the next land war in Europe?

If the EU had had a proper fighting force, we might have seen a different 'take' on the recent Yugoslav war.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yes to an EU army

The EU has to stop being dependent on the USA and has to take its own military interests seriously.

Very true, empires don't build themselves, and one always has to be able to keep the natives in line.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yes to an EU army

So instead of half of NATO trying to sabotage the NATO action, the EU countries could have argued among themselves for years and done nothing?

[Vanir]

Re: Yes to an EU army

The EU has an army or two: armies of bureaucrats each having a division of technocrats.

Of course they make war on all of us and each other.

Being armies, they're not democratic institutions.

History ad nauseam.

[davyclam]

Re: Yes to an EU army

Hollerithevo; possibly the pen name of Vladimir Putin, to judge by the sentiments expressed. I really LOLd at the "allow the Yanks...etc.", considering continental Europe was begging the Yanks on at least two occasions to come over and help. And where's the gratitude for that? Pphhht.

[Anonymous Coward]

Next stop, the EU army.

Good. I hope they occupy us. It will be better than living in a post-Brexit Britain!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Next stop, the EU army.

And there you have it..

The 'Pro Europeans' that want to see Britain gone.

That want to see France gone

That want to see Germany gone

That want to see Sweden gone

Not just the borders, but everything about those people and cultures.. Oh wait "we dont have cultures" according to a bunch of virtue signalling retards..

And yet its the Brexiteers that are branded xenophobic.

I do love watching this Orwellian double speak..

[Lee D]

Re: Next stop, the EU army.

Excuse me a second while I play devil's advocate here:

"And there you have it..

The 'Pro Mixedraces' that want to see White People gone.

That want to see Black People gone

That want to see Asian People gone

That want to see African People gone

Not just the borders, but everything about those people and cultures.. Oh wait "we dont have cultures" according to a bunch of virtue signalling retards..

And yet its the "Everyone stay their own race forever party" that are branded xenophobic.

I do love watching this Orwellian double speak.."

Honestly, I don't see a problem with... integrating with the other countries on the continent that we live in. Interbreeding. Having croissants in the morning, Italian coffee in the afternoon, a good plougman's lunch, a paella for dinner.

You make it positively sound as if "mixing" with any non-British people will somehow destroy "us". Where every single culture on Earth is basically a mash-up of every culture that came before it (we were all Romans at one point, all Africans further back, and all related to Genghis Khan one way or another). Do you know - not one culture in the history of humanity has ever survived on its own. We were invaded by the Vikings. We then invaded large parts of the world. The world invaded each other and those parts we'd already invaded (but were by no means the first to do so).

You know what, I do want to see all those countries gone. And referenced only as regions within something we call "the world", that can speak with one voice, work once without duplicating that work 200+ times over, while preserving local history, culture, language, etc. Pretty much any idyllic scenario you want to reference, from Star Trek's perfect universe to any other work of significant fiction, idolises just that scenario, doesn't it? I don't remember in 2001: A Space Odyssey everyone being horrified by the idea that the first interstellar traveller was a white American. He was just a guy, wasn't he?

Honestly, we need to stop this petty-squabble shite, for everything from nationalities, to languages, to races, to sub-factions of certain countries, to religions, to political leanings. Britain within the EU is no different to California in the United States. It doesn't agree with certain things, has some things pushed on it for the sake of legal homogeneity, has certain independence, has its own accents, has its own localities, has its own "borders", has its own laws, has its own taxes, etc. but its still American too and supported (and argued with) by the other states.

Scale that up, and that's how Britain was in Europe. Now we're basically suggesting "California hates being in America, we're going to break off and be our own independent state once again". That sounds stupid to me, hence so does Brexit.

You know what I want to see gone? People thinking that their country of origin matters. Why the hell is it even on passports? You either have citizenship, and all the rights and privileges that come with that, or you don't.

Orwell wrote other books apart from 1984, you know. America has been reading too much Animal Farm. Let's not try to go their way either.

Oh, and it's double-think. Or new-speak. Double-speak isn't an Orwellian term at all. Maybe try reading that book you're alluding to.

[Intractable Potsherd]

Re: Next stop, the EU army @Lee D

Bravo! We need more people saying these things. Have a great day!

[VinceH]

Re: Next stop, the EU army.

PINT FOR LEE D, PLEASE!

Also:

"integrating with the other countries on the continent that we live in. Interbreeding."

And reading that was the moment I finally remembered the name of the law introduced in Piers Anthony's Ghost as a means to prevent the population growing too fast: The miscegenation act.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: Next stop, the EU army.

The 'Pro Europeans' that want to see Britain gone.

You've heard of the concept of "reductio ad absurdiam" have you? If not, look it up since you appear to be wedded to it as a discussion tactic..

PS: You can also look up the concept of "Exeptionalism" while you are at it.

[Chemist]

Sabre rattling ?

I've always assumed that this involve rattling the sabre in it's scabbard. Funny place to put ones nose !

On a more serious note it makes you wonder how many more issues will surface.

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-EU

I thought that there were already some non-EU countries involved in Galileo? I seem to recall reading that Israel were involved and I'm sure that that some hardware comes from Switzerland (which I don't think is EU)

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Non-EU

Involvement is always possible but may come with restrictions and at a cost. The UK is giving it up its rights as part of the EU and will only be able to join in at the EU's terms.

This is not really any different to leaving NATO and expecting to have access to all the GPS stuff.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: Non-EU

It is a big mix. Some Brexits have deluded themselves into thinking that that Galileo is an ESA project and as ESA is more than the just EU, the UK could stay with ESA and remain on the inside track of the Galileo project.

ESA plays an important part of Galileo and provides some of the funding. Galileo was supposed to be funded by a public/private partnership. As US GPS is free, the private side saw no way to get a return on their investment so kept their cheque books shut. The EU decided they needed an accurate GPS that the Americans could not switch to approximate mode (or off). They found the bulk of the money. If the UK is not in the EU, then the same logic that funded Galileo implies that the EU needs a GPS that the UK cannot bugger about with.

When the UK voted Brexit, every other state in the EU saw an opportunity to divide the UK's share of EU pork among themselves. As the UK has negotiated away its voting rights, we can expect future negotiations to go like this.

[SEPAM]

Re: Non-EU

>It is a big mix. Some Brexits have deluded themselves into thinking that that Galileo is an ESA project and as ESA is more than the just EU, the UK could stay with ESA and remain on the inside track of the Galileo project.

Cite? Considering Switzerland is not nor have ever been member of the EU I find your statement odd. I hope you or your 20 odd upvoters can explain this. Same with China and India, neither of which are even inside Europe.

So, cite?

[Alan Brown]

Re: Non-EU

"Galileo is an ESA project and as ESA is more than the just EU, the UK could stay with ESA and remain on the inside track of the Galileo project."

The civilian part is and we're still part of it.

The military part is an EU project and that's what we're being frozen out of.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Non-EU

>The military part is an EU project and that's what we're being frozen out of.

And only that? The discussions here suggests the UK is thrown out of far more than that, including already signed contracts.

[Jason Bloomberg]

Re: Non-EU

I thought that there were already some non-EU countries involved in Galileo?

Yes. And we can have as much involvement as they have once we leave the EU.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Non-EU

>I thought that there were already some non-EU countries involved in Galileo?

Correct. China is/was one. Search for the technology transfers they did. The story is really, really long.

The clock units are Swiss and part of the core technologies involved. They are not part of EU.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Non-EU

The clock units are Swiss and part of the core technologies involved.

The clocks also don't work

[nematoad]

Me too!

I'll have what ever it is the government are smoking.

They are living in a fantasy land where £13Bn projects can be conjured out of thin air and along with the "magical thinking" over topics like the Irish border I seriously doubt that this bunch are capable of negotiating their way out of a wet paper bag.

If I had the chance I would take Old Bill's* advice and "Find a better 'ole to go to" as I can see the train crash starting to happen here in the UK.

* A popular cartoon figure from the Great War drawn by Capt. Bruce Bairnsfather.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Me too!

I would take Old Bill's* advice and "Find a better 'ole to go to" as I can see the train crash starting to happen here in the UK.

The whole point of that cartoon, of course, being that finding a better 'ole would be unlikely since they were all in the middle of the war. But if you think you can find one, please do feel free to go.

[FlatSpot]

EU friends apparantly

The more the EU play the big I am the more gleeful I'll be when they do one. The resulting posturing towards the UK will just push us towards closer union with the USA and outsource our requirements to cheaper providers such as SpaceX for delivery. We are more than capable of building satellites and opportunities come out of adversity. $60mil per rock launch, how many satellites do we need to build?

[ArrZarr]

Re: EU friends apparantly

Ten satellites, all focused on the UK for exceptional precision.

What rest of the world?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU friends apparantly

Without a world wide GPS how will The Empire know where to Strike Back?

It’s about time the UK took back the internet and computers as they were British inventions in the first place!

[HieronymusBloggs]

Re: EU friends apparantly

"It’s about time the UK took back the internet and computers as they were British inventions in the first place!"

Don't be ridiculous. India invented the internet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-43806078

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: EU friends apparantly

Don't be ridiculous. India invented the internet:

Well the zeros anyway, you can still use the ones

[David L Webb]

Re: EU friends apparantly

The TCP/IP protocols were developed by the American's Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf also known as the fathers of the internet.

http://history-computer.com/Internet/Maturing/TCPIP.html

Though the World Wide Web was developed by a Brit Sir Tim Berners-Lee whilst working at CERN in Switzerland

https://thehackernews.com/2016/08/first-website-ever.html

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: EU friends apparantly

Though the World Wide Web was developed by a Brit Sir Tim Berners-Lee

Building on top of a whole pile of pre-existing technologies and standards.. (For example HTML was originally a subset of SGML..)

[JassMan]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

I don't believe 10 is enough. Galileo wouldn't be using 24 with a further 6 spares if they didn't need need them. The problem is that you can't use geostationary 'cos they are all in the same plane which is no good for accuracy. Not to mention the fact that in the north of Scotland most of your satellites will be so low on the horizon that every medium sized bush will blank your signal. Even if you could find a set of polar orbits which gave good trilateration over UK you would still need a minimum of 3 on each orbit which makes 12 the least you can use. (Trilateration requires that 4 satellites are visible at the same time, 3 for position + 1 for altitude)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

"You can't use geostationary"

Correct, but you can use geosynchronous and not be in the same plane and give good coverage for all of the UK including Scotland

That said I've never heard a compelling argument of why we need Galileo let alone a UK system. What is the problem that it solves?

[Andy france]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

"compelling argument of why we need Galileo let alone a UK system"

Here you go. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/why-we-need-galileo-0_mt

It and the short PDF on that page is the EU Commissions published reasoning. It's far from compelling. Basically the argument is that global navigation is important (which it is), and ignores the fact that there are 2 and soon to be 3 other global navigation systems that all provide backup for each other.

It basically comes down to their statement "One of the key reasons is precisely that Galileo is European." Which is the least compelling reasoning I have ever seen.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

Basically the argument is that global navigation is important (which it is), and ignores the fact that there are 2 and soon to be 3 other global navigation systems that all provide backup for each other.

This seems to be the default British position: someone well else will do it and give it us for free. But this conveniently ignores the consequences of saying the service is important. For example, think of energy supplies. These are also important. Now, what happens if you do not control your energy supply and have a dispute with whoever does? See the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for examples.

We've got so used to the ubiquity of GPS that we forget that it is only available as long as the US military thinks it good for them. Indeed encouraging a culture of dependency on it might actually be deliberate…

[Andy france]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

"we forget that it is only available as long as the US military thinks it good for them"

That used to be the case but no longer is. I struggle to think of a scenario where the US, Russian and Chinese are all so pissed off with us and chumy with each other that none of them will let their navigation system be used in the UK and the big chunk of the globe that would be impacted by shutting off the commercial signal that reaches the UK.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

I struggle to think of a scenario where the US, Russian and Chinese are all so pissed off…

You clearly don't seem to understand how GPS works, particularly how much control the owners have of it. The EU is already at a stand-off with Russia so we can't expect reliablly accurate GPS data from GLONASS. With Trump in the Whitehouse, accurate data from the Americans is a tantrum away from being withdrawn, or being used as a bargaining chip in, say, trade negotiations. See the similarity?

[Andy france]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

"You clearly don't seem to understand how GPS works".

Yes they can reduce the accuracy and even push a fake almanac and ephemeris data (I do know quite a bit about how they work) but that impacts all users in the region receiving that civilian signal. (Note, the military one is encrypted and different). But by knobeling the civilian signal they do it for all users except their own military. e.g if the Americans played with GPS to affect the UK it would also affect an American Airlines jet landing in Paris.

What situation are you expecting to be in when the Americans, Russians and Chines are all united in hurting themselves to do us harm?

[Charlie Clark]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

But by knobeling the civilian signal they do it for all users except their own military

But it's because of the military use that Britain is due to be frozen out of Gallileo… ie. no different than if anyone has a spat with the US, which is why the EU decided to go with Gallileo when the US made it plain that it reserved the right to switch the service off.

Good luck getting insurance for any service that depends on GPS that you know someone else controls… Not that it really matters as UK planes are soon not going to be able to use EU airspace either!

[Lars]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

"One of the key reasons is precisely that Galileo is European." Which is the least compelling reasoning I have ever seen.".

If you want to fall behind in technology and let your industry rot, then indeed, why bother with Galileo and similar. Britain showing the way?.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

That said I've never heard a compelling argument of why we need Galileo let alone a UK system. What is the problem that it solves?

Simples. GPS is American.

[Andy france]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

"Simples. GPS is American."

And GLONASS is Russian and BeiDou-2 is Chinese. We can use all 3 individually or together. After the UK has left we will still be able to use Galileo too. What is the problem you are trying to solve by throwing money at it?

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

What is the problem you are trying to solve by throwing money at it?

GPS being American is the problem. It's an affront to the EU that the Americans have something they don't, and they'll happily throw our tax money at it just to show they are as good as the US. "Keeping up with the Joneses" on a grand scale.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

we need Galileo let alone a UK system. What is the problem that it solves?

The US owns the GPS satellites and can degrade them or switch them off at will. Which might not matter for the average pleb[1] but very much does for military stuff.

You might argue that, since we are allies with the US, that isn't a problem. In which case, I refer the honourable commentard to the purported reason from Brexit: "taking back control"..

[Orv]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

While technically the US could switch off GPS, it would be so disruptive to our own systems that it's hard for me to imagine a situation where it would happen. Presumably any adversary would simply use devices capable of using other satnav systems. It's not like multi-system setups are hard to come by; my cheap smartphone can use at least three.

As for degrading the civilian signal, they gave up on Selective Availability in 2000, and the latest satellites reportedly no longer have the hardware for it. Again, it's hard to see what could be gained by turning it on at this point.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

"I don't believe 10 is enough."

These will be Brexit satellites. They'll go round in small circles over the UK. If they were to stray off course the big nasty EU might be able to use them as well. 10 should be plenty.

[Nick Kew]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

Who needs satellites?

Once upon a time, before we had GPS, I worked briefly for a company developing and deploying a navigation/tracking system. Using not satellites, but land-based beacons, sending out the signals from which to compute a position. We would even track a live position and display it on digital maps, sourced (from memory) from Bartholomews in those pre-google-maps days.

I left that job in 1989. Sometime after that, they switched to GPS, thus dispensing with the expense of custom positioning infrastructure. But since money is now magic, we can just resurrect that 1980s infrastructure.

Then build our own mobile 'phones featuring the Great British Positioning System on a raspberry pi. Snub Apple, Samsung, and all those Chinese!

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

Using not satellites, but land-based beacons

Which is all very well in Norfolk, but in the Real World, we have these inconvenient things called 'hills' and 'mountains'. All of which make ground-based location systems a bit more problematic..

[Orv]

Re: EU friends apparantly @ ArrZarr

Once upon a time, before we had GPS, I worked briefly for a company developing and deploying a navigation/tracking system. Using not satellites, but land-based beacons, sending out the signals from which to compute a position.

This sounds suspiciously like LORAN.

[H in The Hague]

Re: EU friends apparantly

"The resulting posturing towards the UK will just push us towards closer union with the USA"

Ermm, do you consider that a good thing? How amenable to the UK's wishes do you expect the current occupant of the White House to be? (Remember trade barriers targeting aeroplane wings from Northern Ireland and steel from UK mills.)

Are you one of those folk who think we should replace EU food and safety standards (generally developed with a lot of UK input) by American ones (which the UK will not have influence over and which generally appear to be lower than EU ones)? Just asking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU friends apparantly

>Are you one of those folk who think we should replace EU food and safety standards (generally developed with a lot of UK input) by American ones

The entire purpose of Brexit is not to have EU decide for UK and certainly not to have the US doing it either. Why would the UK do that??

Also the EU permitted azo colouring in food, very much against what north European countries wanted but was shot down. You might want to look closer at 4 digit E-numbers.

[lamacra]

Re: EU friends apparantly

Well this may not have been the idea. but fact is thanks to brexit. the US EU and china WILL rule over britain in the future. Britain alone is not powerfull enough to compete on a even level with this global powers. But ok brexiters wanted it now you have to deal with it. Have fun! when they start to tell you either my way or highway because you no longer have 500 million europeans to back up.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: EU friends apparantly

"But ok brexiters wanted it now you have to deal with it."

Sadly, we all have to deal with it.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: EU friends apparantly

You might want to look closer at 4 digit E-numbers

Oooh! Those evil E numbers! Like E153![1] Or E100[2] Or E150a[3]!

[1] Carbon black (Vegetable origin). AKA charcoal..

[2] Curcumin - as derived from turmeric. Something found in pretty much every Indian-derived curry.

[3] Plain caramel. As in 'slightly burnt sugar'.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU friends apparantly

{3} Going to have to check the acrylamide & furan levels if you're using enough of that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU friends apparantly

You might want to look closer at 4 digit E-numbers

Oooh! Those evil E numbers! Like E153![1] Or E100[2] Or E150a[3]!

Check your fingers again, those only have 3 digits. While I wouldn't worry so much about E1510 unless I were an alcoholic (it's Ethanol) I'd be less keen to try:

E1505 Triethyl citrate foam stabiliser

E1516 Glyceryl monoacetate flavour solvent

E1517 Glyceryl diacetate or diacetin flavour solvent

E1518 Glyceryl triacetate or triacetin humectant

E1519 Benzyl alcohol

E1520 Propylene glycol humectant

[strum]

Re: EU friends apparantly

>Why would the UK do that??

Because the UK can't feed itself. It has to agree to accept someone else's standards.

[BinkyTheMagicPaperclip]

Re: EU friends apparantly

I'm amused that you're getting downvoted for the completely uncontentious statement that the UK can't feed itself.

The UK cannot feed itself.

It can't now, and it couldn't in WW2. That's coming up to eighty years ago.

We still have some manufacturing left (i.e. (non British) cars), but a lot of it has disappeared. We are part of a worldwide supply chain using parts from many other countries. Standards are part and parcel of this.

[codejunky]

Re: EU friends apparantly

@ BinkyTheMagicPaperclip

"I'm amused that you're getting downvoted for the completely uncontentious statement that the UK can't feed itself."

I downvoted him but not for that statement which as you say is uncontentious. The part which is contentious is- "It has to agree to accept someone else's standards." which is not only rubbish but clueless.

The EU is ever increasing its standards/regulations above places outside the EU and do not have to accept someone elses standards. The rest of the world outside the EU doesnt have to accept EU standards, and can happily live with products and services and regulation that the EU wont tolerate. Yet they can still trade!

One of the arguments to leave is that we would be able to have cheaper food by leaving the EU and their tariffs and regulations to have perfectly fine food at lower costs to a standard we are willing to accept. Like the rest of the world.

[H in The Hague]

Re: EU friends apparantly

"The EU is ever increasing its standards/regulations above places outside the EU ..."

Please note that EU standards have gone through the elected EU Parliament. So democratically approved by the electorate.

However, many products supplied in the UK are subject to standards which are stricter than the EU's: those of the British Retail Consortium - https://www.brcglobalstandards.com/brc-global-standards/food-safety/ So probably quite sensible, but not democratically approved by the electorate.

This is yet another example where British industry piles requirements on top of UK and EU law. Other examples include the construction site safety passports. So I'm surprised you're complaining about EU standards being demanding - apparently the UK supply chain think they're not demanding enough. Anway, I would much prefer strict food safety standards than loose ones. Incidentally, contacts in the industry tell me that non-EU countries also accept EU standards for, say, lifting gear, simply because they're good standards (and it saves them developing their own).

Here's one for the weekend, brewed to the German Reinheitsgebot (also stricter than EU standards, as it happens :)

[codejunky]

Re: EU friends apparantly

@ H in The Hague

"So I'm surprised you're complaining about EU standards being demanding"

You seem to have made a big thing of the wrong thing. The point being the stupidity of strums comment (which you yourself are now also torching with me) that to trade we have to accept others standards.

Cheers

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU friends apparantly

Are you one of those folk who think we should replace EU food and safety standards (generally developed with a lot of UK input) by American ones (which the UK will not have influence over and which generally appear to be lower than EU ones)? Just asking.

I'm one of those people that don't see any need to change them at all, unless you're suggesting that the EU won't let "us" use "their" standards??

[BinkyTheMagicPaperclip]

Re: EU friends apparantly

Are you one of those folk who think we should replace EU food and safety standards (generally developed with a lot of UK input) by American ones (which the UK will not have influence over and which generally appear to be lower than EU ones)? Just asking.

I'm one of those people that don't see any need to change them at all, unless you're suggesting that the EU won't let "us" use "their" standards??

Have you really not thought about this at all?

You can try and apply whatever standards you want, but if they become a sticking point in receiving sufficient income and resources to enable the UK to run successfully, what do you think the government will do?

The UK in exiting the single market are losing favourable terms with our largest trading partner. We need to maintain suitable income via imports and exports, and being an isolationist country (self sufficiency without other countries) hasn't been viable for over eighty years. So, we need other trading agreements.

Let's look at the other options.

India. India will be willing to trade with us. One price will be increased immigration, and if they have any sense, British citizenship for immigrants. Personally I don't have a problem with that, but the more racist brexiteers will.

China. China are already forming close alliances. The UK will (are already) selling off great swathes of our national infrastructure to China. When China dumped a load of cheap steel on the world market and it affected the industry, the UK's response was to veto an EU import tariff. The opinion of a British director of a UK company (on Radio 4) who works closely with the Chinese is that we are a soft country who receive far too much for too little. Expect to pay more for less in the future.

USA. The orange orangutan has already made it abundantly clear that 'America first' involves shitting all over the UK. Fighting the UK for valuable financial services, and tariffs on the aerospace industry are but two recent examples. There will be terms for dealing with the USA, and you know, all those food hygiene standards, and public healthcare systems just get in the way of a healthy US profit, don't you know?

Whilst we're at it, now that we're leaving the EU, things such as guaranteed holidays and the EU working time directive aren't really necessary, are they? After all, anyone that can't fund that themselves obviously isn't working hard enough, and needs to be incentivised with less money. In the same way the Tories withdrew money from the chronically disabled, as that always makes them more likely to concentrate on finding work..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU friends apparantly

Have you really not thought about this at all?

Yes, have you?

If we want to sell in EU, we make products to EU standards, just as we do today.

If we want to sell in the US, we make products to US standards, just as we do today.

Not being in either the EU or the US does not prevent us from applying the relevant standards for the market concerned.

[BinkyTheMagicPaperclip]

Re: EU friends apparantly

My point was about buying, not selling.

Not being in the EU or the US does not prevent us applying standards for selling to that market (although it may or may not prevent us selling to them full stop for certain very specific instances, as per this article).

Not being in the EU or the US may well prevent us from keeping current standards when buying from any market (i.e. If the US want to reduce standards in return for a trade deal, this then weakens standards for products from any market including the US, in a race to the bottom).

This isn't a fantasy, the right wing of the Tories have been trying to attack EU employment rights for years, and Tory opposition to the ECHR (which we set up *headdesk*) in favour of a 'similar' British bill of rights (why bother, unless it is weaker than the ECHR) is well known c.f. all those inconvenient people trying to avoid deportation, and pesky appeals with the DWP from people who deign to suggest that perhaps points assessments on disability living allowance carried out by people who have targets of assessments to fail, are commercially driven, and aren't doctors are not in their interest.

When the Tories said they would 'make work pay', some idiots interpreted this as an increase in benefits, instead (to no surprise, well, not mine) they slashed and victimised benefit claimants. See also the ongoing hard line on immigration, and the recent Windrush scandal. When they have a decent idea (universal credit) the implementation is poor, and insufficiently funded (the architect of UC was on Radio 4 and defended the concept, but said it had to have more money dedicated to it to make it work). The direction is crystal clear : you're going to receive less from the state when in need.

(in the interests of balance, the other political parties aren't much better. LD were complicit with the Tories, and Labour only started to modify their policies less than six months before the last but one general election when they realised it was a vote winner).

You might think this is all irrelevant, and I have the fortunate position of being in a varied and moderately well paid IT job, so I can cope and have planned for a few ups and downs. However, I have broken bones in the past due to accidents, and any one of us could be disabled in a hit and run accident. I don't fancy my chances of coping with a life changing event in a post Brexit Tory driven world, but it appears to be what the majority are happy with.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU friends apparantly

My point was about buying, not selling.

Not being in the EU or the US may well prevent us from keeping current standards when buying from any market

What does being in the EU have to do with that? Go to Amazon and look at the amount of Chinese tat on sale that doesn't meet EU or UK standards. I can personally import stuff from the US if I want, and if I'm willing to accept shitty quality & 90-day warranty in return for a low price, that's up to me. UK and EU standards have no impact.

Tory opposition to the ECHR (which we set up *headdesk*)

You're confusing ECHRs. Tory objection is to the Court, not the Convention (which, as you say, the UK helped to define). The Tory dislike is of having a European court able to overrule a British one on matters of British interest, like deporting hate preachers.

you're going to receive less from the state when in need.

For state you mean taxpayer, of course. The problem as always is telling the difference between "need" and 'want".

I don't fancy my chances of coping with a life changing event in a post Brexit Tory driven world, but it appears to be what the majority are happy with.

I, like you, am in a well-paid IT job. Post-Brexit I still expect the "state" to cover serious unexpected problems, I've paid enough for that cover, but I have of course also made my own provisions for that, in a way that suits me. I neither want nor expect the state to coddle me.

[BinkyTheMagicPaperclip]

Re: EU friends apparantly

My point was about buying, not selling.

Not being in the EU or the US may well prevent us from keeping current standards when buying from any market

What does being in the EU have to do with that? Go to Amazon and look at the amount of Chinese tat on sale that doesn't meet EU or UK standards. I can personally import stuff from the US if I want, and if I'm willing to accept shitty quality & 90-day warranty in return for a low price, that's up to me. UK and EU standards have no impact.

Whilst we are in the EU we have to follow various EU laws that we've benefited from - cleaner beaches, safer food, etc, etc. If those are relaxed someone will take commercial advantage of this, and apply pressure to other companies. At the moment there is a level playing field. I'm talking everyday purchases here, not importing via Amazon or Ebay.

Tory opposition to the ECHR (which we set up *headdesk*)

You're confusing ECHRs. Tory objection is to the Court, not the Convention (which, as you say, the UK helped to define). The Tory dislike is of having a European court able to overrule a British one on matters of British interest, like deporting hate preachers.

OK, to be accurate they're looking to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights which replaces part of the Convention. I still consider leaving ECHR (both definitions) as-is to be a wise idea. We can perhaps debate whether the law is too soft on hate preachers, but as the government appears to be doing its best to be judge, jury, and executioner on things such as the appeal of poorly thought out benefit assessments I see any weakening of this as dangerous.

you're going to receive less from the state when in need.

For state you mean taxpayer, of course. The problem as always is telling the difference between "need" and 'want".

I would agree the definition is sometimes fuzzy, but that there are an increasing number of cases where the government is clearly shirking its social responsibilities.

I don't fancy my chances of coping with a life changing event in a post Brexit Tory driven world, but it appears to be what the majority are happy with.

I, like you, am in a well-paid IT job. Post-Brexit I still expect the "state" to cover serious unexpected problems, I've paid enough for that cover, but I have of course also made my own provisions for that, in a way that suits me. I neither want nor expect the state to coddle me.

If you expect the state to cover unexpected problems you are clearly not making your own provisions for everything. Forced into such an unexpected situation the evidence is that you will be poorly catered for by the state and that this is worsening.

We also need to consider that this needs to apply for not only people on a well paid job, but minimum wage or unemployed/disabled people with no savings.

Alternatively, would you be happy to give your disabled mate a few hundred quid a month, because an outsourced on a target assessor made a bullshit decision that their ailment wasn't serious, they're not able to appeal (because, goodbye ECHR), and their motability car was withdrawn, leaving the only alternatives for them to rot at home, or be supported by friends and family. Some of the more left wing websites are perhaps a bit enthusiastic about covering this, but it's a real thing covered in more centrist or local news.

[strum]

Re: EU friends apparantly

>Tory objection is to the Court, not the Convention (which, as you say, the UK helped to define).

Is it bollocks! They want out of the whole shebang.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: EU friends apparantly

"Yes, have you?"

You seem to have omitted standards for the home market. What will those be and who will set them?

[strum]

Re: EU friends apparantly

>Not being in either the EU or the US does not prevent us from applying the relevant standards for the market concerned.

The difference being that we will have no say on the formation of those standards. Missed that, didn't you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU friends apparantly

Missed that, didn't you?

Not in the slightest. Why on earth would we have a say on other countries' standards?? They can define what they want, we decide if we want to sell to them enough to follow them. That's how standards work.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: Food

One problem/benefit with posting as AC is that people are not sure if contradictory statements come from the same person:

"The entire purpose of Brexit is not to have EU decide for UK and certainly not to have the US doing it either."

"the EU permitted azo colouring in food"

"I'm one of those people that don't see any need to change them [EU food and safety standards] at all"

So you want to keep EU food and safety standards as is with azo colouring, not let the EU decide for the UK and remove the UK's influence when setting EU food and safety standards. Next time there is an election or referendum, you can indicate your preference for contradictory proposals by ticking all the options.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: Food

ticking all the options

I read that as 'licking all the options'. Which may be appropriate in the case of the OP..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Food

>One problem/benefit with posting as AC is that people are not sure if contradictory statements come from the same person:

Why not then address each statement on the basis of the statement rather than by the person who made the post? Back in the day when I was a researcher (in the UK) this principle was made clear to us in no uncertain term. Big names or big institutions shall never be grounds for an easy pass.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: EU friends apparantly

I'm one of those people that don't see any need to change them at all, unless you're suggesting that the EU won't let "us" use "their" standards?

That's fine for existing standards. What about standards that get made in the next few years? Do we make out own or do we use the EU's? How much would it cost to make our own? If we made products conforming only to our own standards how would we persuade others to accept our exports? Would it be economic for manufacturers to produce two lots of products, one conforming to our own standards and those of the EU? Would that then mean it would be more economic to just accept future EU standards as well as existing ones? What input would we have into the EU's future standards? What was all that about taking back control?

[John Smith 19]

"The resulting posturing towards the UK will just push us towards closer union with the US"

Obvious troll is obvious.

Do not feed.

[Orv]

Re: EU friends apparantly

I think the GPS III block satellites were estimated at $500 million each, not including launch costs. (They're expected to go up on Falcon 9's for something like $90 million each, starting in the next year or two.) The 1990s ones were about 10% of that, so if you're willing to not have the latest and greatest tech you could probably build one cheaper. You'll need about 30 of them, plus spares, so try to negotiate a bulk discount. Mind the replacement costs; estimated lifespan is 7.5 years for current builds, and the record so far is 10, so you'll have to pony up cash for new ones on a regular basis. Also keep in mind you can't just throw them up there and forget about them, you'll need a ground station network to keep tabs on them, do software updates, and make adjustments as necessary.

[JohnMurray]

Re: EU friends apparantly

24, plus extras. But we will have to purchase licences for core technology as well..if they will allow their use. Maybe better to just give-up on the idea of everyone not-driving autonomous vehicles..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU friends apparantly

SpaceX only launches satellites with the permission of the US government. The US government already fucked Britain over once over access to space and we shouldn’t trust them again. When we still had a viable launcher, the US promised the U.K. free access to American rockets. The offer was withdrawn almost immediately once Black Arrow was scrapped.

[bazza]

Re: EU friends apparantly

@Mike Richards

When we still had a viable launcher, the US promised the U.K. free access to American rockets. The offer was withdrawn almost immediately once Black Arrow was scrapped.

Well, the Blue Streak / Black Arrow project was intended to produce an ICBM. The whole thing was deeply flawed; solid fuel boosters were obviously better, and Britain simply doesn't have the right geology (we're mostly mud) for building silos able to withstand a first strike. The idea of a liquid fuelled ICBM was a dead end (quite literally).

Also at the time it was far from clear that there was going to be big money in the commercial launch sector. Turns out, there isn't (SpaceX's margins aren't that great), at least not in comparison to building big geosats. Satellites are something we've become very successful at, thanks to a big government investment back in the 1980s, and make good money out of.

And besides that, bits of Blue Streak were still being used on Ariane 4, so we had a direct hand in that business for a loooong time.

It's better to specialise in the valuable parts of business, rather than the whole thing where margins are small.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: EU friends apparantly

Britain simply doesn't have the right geology (we're mostly mud)

I think large chunks of Cornwall and Scotland would disagree.. (in the case of Cornwall, it's mostly granite. Which isn't known for being soft.)

[Mage]

Re: more than capable of building satellites

Well a private company in Surrey is. But UK is only country in the world to have reached space and abandoned it.

Possibly the only country to develop viable nukes to point of reliable use and then abandon them to "rent" off USA. The Vanguard subs are the UK's, but who really controls the Trident Missiles supplied by USA?

[&rew]

Re: more than capable of building satellites

Just a clarification that Trident is the big dumb rocket/launch vehicle only - the actual nuclear warhead - with its guidance and payload - are British.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: EU friends apparantly

towards the UK will just push us towards closer union with the USA

And you think that's a good thing? Have you seen how utterly dysfuntional their political process is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: EU friends apparantly

Have you seen how utterly dysfuntional their political process is?

Yes, it's almost as bad as the EU's political processes.

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll be alright, we can just use a compass and a trundle wheel, should be accurate to the centimetre albeit a bit slow.

[Flocke Kroes]

Stick to British technology

Use a difference engine to create an ephemeris, precision clockwork for time keeping and a sextant. We invented longitude. Any time we want to mess with Galilieo, we just have to make the location of Greenwich a state secret.

[Anonymous Coward]

Centimetres? Nearest barleycorn should be good enough for anyone...

[Wolfclaw]

Just ask for refund and develop our own system. People are just getting pissed off with the UK/EU unable to sit down and come to a mutual agreement instead of acting like spoilt morons !

[Flocke Kroes]

I hate to break it to you

UK politicians have been a bunch of spoilt morons for years. You insisted they negotiate a bunch of important trade deals. WTF did you expect to happen?

By all means ask the EU for a refund. If they are tired of laughing at us, you might even get a polite reply along the lines of: "We've got the money, we're keeping it."

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I hate to break it to you

"We've got the money, we're keeping it."

That would be entirely typical, but we can just subtract it from the "Brexit bill" they're trying to impose, and let them whistle for it.

[AndrueC]

Re: I hate to break it to you

That would be entirely typical, but we can just subtract it from the "Brexit bill" they're trying to impose, and let them whistle for it.

You do realise that we have to establish deals with new trading partners soon don't you? They are going to be watching how we deal with the EU and taking notes. Acting the hardman and showing contempt toward our current partners is unlikely to help us negotiate new deals.

Britain has to be seen to be open for business and that means it has to be seen to be fair and respectful toward those it trades with.

[BinkyTheMagicPaperclip]

Re: I hate to break it to you

It's not a 'Brexit bill', it's payment for existing commitments.

If you got divorced, but still had kids, a mortgage, and a car hpi with both your names on it you can't suddenly decide that you don't need to pay, the bailiffs will be at your door. How long do you have to pay the kids for, and if you pay only the minimum amount for the minimum period, what happens when you need something from your ex (and you will).

Then there's the infrastructure projects funded by the EU/that really fancy dinner set you bought with your ex. You can't quite remember who suggested it first, and it's still being delivered, but it didn't matter whilst you were together did it, it all came out in the wash. Now you're parting, it's an asset, and needs to be accounted for..

The UK has agreed to pay the bill because it's the right thing to do, we're liable for it, and more importantly because the EU countries are large trading partners. Let's piss off the EU as a whole, and then try to maintain sixty billion quid of German imports without punitive terms, that's going to work well..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I hate to break it to you

UK politicians have been a bunch of spoilt morons for years.

The presence of "UK" in that sentence is completely superfluous.

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem - go with GPS

No problem with giving up Galileo. Just go with American GPS. After all, what is Britain but just Airstrip 1 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: No problem - go with GPS

It is worth asking why we have a need for Galileo or any British equivalent. Perhaps the special relationship isn't so special after all. Might not have been for a long time.

[Will Godfrey]

Re: No problem - go with GPS

It ceased being "special" the moment our war debt was paid off.

I seem to recall that more-or-less coincided with American air bases starting to disappear.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: No problem - go with GPS

It was a 2%-interest loan over a period when inflation averaged >3%, and we didn't even charge for Robert Ross's unpaid damages from when he visited Washington D.C.

[Jemma]

Brexit..

If British Leyland made politics..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Brexit..

Stuck in the 70s, unwilling to change even when the rest of the world is moving on, and happy to let unelected people like union reps run the place while ignoring the end-users?

Yes, you're right, it would look just like the EU.

[Boris the Cockroach]

the simplest solution to the EU refusing access to Galileo is to ask for a refund of the money we paid into the EU to fund it in the first place.

So not only does the EU lose our contribution to the budget, but they also have to pay us the cost of any joint project they want to throw us out of.

But more realistically, what is happening now is exactly what I predicted after the vote..... that the big politicians and unelected arses are shouting "WE WON'T ALLOW THE OTHER SIDE TO DO THAT" while the mid level diplomats from both sides are crafting an agreement that lets both sides say they won.

A pox on both their houses I say (and on a personal note, I'd vote remain if I could vote on who was in charge of the EU)

[Voland's right hand]

the simplest solution to the EU refusing access to Galileo is to ask for a refund of the money we paid into the EU to fund it in the first place.

You can ask for a refund if your contract specifies a refund. There is no such concept in any of the agreements by any of the participating countries in the Gallileo program.

That is expected - the conditions for Gallileo are the same as a lot of international R&D or advanced tech programs. They are investment into technology and capability, not shopping for Prosecco in Waitrose.

If you decide to drop out mid-program that's it - you drop out. It is like dropping out of University - you cannot ask for a refund for the 3 years of tuition fees and dorm fees because you have decided to bugger off and wave your unruly disorganized hair around the world.

So, sorry, there is no cake. Err... refund.

It was eaten - the money has been used.

[lamacra]

Yeah i would advice the UK to sue the EU in the european court of justice (btw the same court britain does not want to be part of it anymore) but ok hey just beacuse the UK stated that it will no longer follow the rules of this court does not mean that to sue the EU in this court won´t make any sense ;)

[Lars]

"if I could vote on who was in charge of the EU".

Out of curiosity, who do you think is in charge of the EU.

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of curiosity, who do you think is in charge of the EU.

The European Commission, supposedly controlled by the elected European Parliament, which in reality is a toothless talking shop unable ever to use any of the limited power it has. Which is just the way the Commission likes it.

[Lars]

The European Commission, no that would be like claiming Britain is run by the 'unelected' bureaucrats, right now, perhaps a good idea, however, why do you think Britain, a member of the EU can leave, if the Commission is in charge and why is it that the UK can veto decisions in the EU,

Give Radoslaw Sikorski, a former Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of National Defense, a chance to explain how it actually works, in his speech at the University of Greenwich.

(and why so many Brits don't quite get it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI54yarKz_o

[CrazyOldCatMan]

European Parliament, which in reality is a toothless talking shop unable ever to use any of the limited power it has

Sounds remarkably like the House of Lords..

Glass houses and all that.

[Flocke Kroes]

" if I could vote on who was in charge of the EU" ...

You did for a President of the Council of the European Union for H2 2017. It was going to be a Brit, but the Brexits gave us Jüri Ratas of Estonia.

[Paul Smith]

What planet are you on?

Can somebody please explain to this poor thick Irishman what the British politicians think is going on?

A rather small and self interested group of people supported by the media they owned managed to force/trick/con a tiny majority of the British population into thinking that leaving the EU would be a good idea. OK, well sh1t happens and maybe leaving is the right thing for the British nation (though I strongly doubt it) but having then (unnecessarily) signed and delivered divorce papers to Europe, why on earth would anybody think they would be able to keep the best silver or that their requests for a quickie 'for old times sake' would be granted? Sorry lads (and lasses), the only people who do well from a divorce are the lawyers. If the costs of Galileo, or any other project that British politicians representing British voters agreed to is increased by the actions of British politicians, then British voters and tax payers will have to pay those costs.

[Voland's right hand]

Re: What planet are you on?

The planet of cake.

The one that is eaten while still being had and the whole show is being run by a Mad Hatter, March Hare and a Dormouse. Cake is consumed with tea without the cake ever being exhausted. +/- rotating the places around the table.

For more details on the actual coordinates of said planet ask Chess - he is on the tree over there. Smiling.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What planet are you on?

Can somebody please explain to this poor thick Irishman what the British politicians think is going on?

Look at it this way: a small part of a large empire is getting fed up with having little control over how the empire is run, while still being exploited to cough up taxes. many of its people have left to find a better future elsewhere. A few determined people, through a mix of fair means and foul, finally persuade their countrymen to vote to leave. The empire is trying to make it difficult, and laughing at the ridiculous idea they anyone wants to leave, but they eventually have to give in.

Over time that small part forges a strong relationship with the US, and other world powers, and eventually gets to hold up it's head proudly. Even their old colonial lords recognize them.

Now, let's fast-forward from 1921 Ireland, and reflect on the parallels with the modern-day situation of the EU empire and the wishes of its client states...

[Cipherpunk]

Re: What planet are you on?

So this story ends with the UK joining the EU like Ireland did?

[colinb]

Re: What planet are you on?

Apart from that fact it was a province of England, Marshall law was in force, that was no home rule, civilians were shot at a football match and the rebels were executed, yeah it's just like that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What planet are you on?

Apart from that fact it was a province of England,

It was a country within the UK.

Marshall law was in force

Is that like Juncker law?

that was no home rule

It had a parliament with free elections, but subject to a foreign parliament and leader.

civilians were shot at a football match

A reason to be glad the EU doesn't have an army?

and the rebels were executed,

Which was the big mistake that pushed people over the edge to vote for change.

[Slx]

Re: What planet are you on?

Don't forget they burnt down Cork City too!

The EU hasn't been threatening anything like that.

[Andy Livingstone]

Province of England.

Not possible. England is not a country. Try saying Great Britain instead. Yes, I know the true name is longer with lots of other words but that's too long to be bothered typing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Province of England.

>England is not a country.

Indeed. We don't even have a Parliament!

[Nick Kew]

Re: What planet are you on?

A few determined people, through a mix of fair means and foul, finally persuade their countrymen to vote to leave.

Whose countrymen? It's more the revenge of the Colonials: Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black, poisoning the Great British Public Consciousness since the 1980s.

[Adam 52]

Re: What planet are you on?

"a tiny majority of the British population"

a large minority of the UK population. Turnout was 72%. Can't be bothered to work out the British vote, but it was a slightly larger minority.

[maffski]

Re: What planet are you on?

'Can somebody please explain to this poor thick Irishman what the British politicians think is going on?'

You'll have to follow closely because this will be a strange concept for someone from Ireland. But we were given a vote on something and when we gave an answer the EU didn't like our politicians actually followed our instructions.

[Uffish]

Re: "our politicians actually followed our instructions"

I sometimes drop my guard when driving and follow the instructions of the GPS without thinking - usually followed by a pretty dangerous moment or two before I can get back to a rational course.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "our politicians actually followed our instructions"

I sometimes drop my guard when driving and follow the instructions of the GPS without thinking

So buy a map and make your own decisions, instead of blindly doing what you're told by something you really should know better than to trust.

[fredj]

Re: "our politicians actually followed our instructions"

Yes, I have one like that as well. It is so old its positional accuray is about 3 meters out so somtimes it can not tell you how to navigate road junctions. To really help the manufacturers have stopped supporting the thing which was very good.

If I was not so tight with money......................

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: What planet are you on?

"But we were given a vote on something and when we gave an answer the EU didn't like our politicians actually followed our instructions."

Which is really strange considering most of the government didn't want brexit , the referendum was advisory not legally binding and anyway, since when does a politician ever keep their promises and do what they were elected to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What planet are you on?

What we're seeing happening is the inevitable result of the poorly thought out treaties that make up the EU. They're rubbish. The problem with all of them is that no one ever sat down and discussed what the treaties should say in detail about happens when things go wrong. Talking about failure cases in treaty discussions is poor manners, apparently, and so treaties rarely mention anything useful for dealing with them.

And before anyone starts saying that Brexit is the first such example, it isn't. The crisis in the Euro zone is the first example, and that's been a litany of bodge and improvisation, because the treaties behind the Euro say nothing about what should happen if a member country goes bust, or turned out to be fabricating it's GDP figures.

BTW, Germany has done pretty well out of exploiting that, but it's beginning to unravel for Germany's economy. German economic downturn and the rise of the Right? Scared yet?!

The refusal of the EU politicians to discuss failure cases in advance and decide what to do about them makes it very weak in comparison to, say, the USA federation. Treaties are a plan for what to do, and good plans cover every plausible eventuality.

The Concorde treaty was a good plan, it had detailed exit conditions that were ruinous. They were the only reason the plane got built.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: Failure cases

Article 50 was clear. It said if you leave the EU you will be buggered by all the member states on the way out. That was the intention and it is working as planned. For such a short section of treaty it has proved most effective. Who ever came up with it must have thought it through properly.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: What planet are you on?

please explain to this poor thick Irishman what the British politicians think is going on

And when they have, could they explain it to me[1]?

[1] A poor thick, English/Welsh hybrid (married to someone from Cornwall who manages to have a majority-Iberian bloodtype) with (doubtless) wedges of other random country genomes wedged in..

[DaveB]

Yeh right

Wonder if the EU know how to change the satellite reboot command codes......

[YARR]

Yet Another Satellite Navigation System

With so many SatNav systems to choose from (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, BeiDou, NAVIC) why waste money creating another? A cheaper option is to merge the publicly available positioning data from them all to get increased precision.

As the Russians or Iranians (presumably) have demo-ed in Syria, current SatNav systems are vulnerable to electronic interference meaning they can't be relied upon for military applications. Better to invest in alternative navigation systems combining inertial + ground radar data etc. If you must have a private SatNav for military purposes, launch 3+ disposable micro-satellites near the target area (keeping the protocol secret). All major powers can destroy satellites from the ground, so you can't expect SatNav satellites to remain active for long in a real conflict.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Yet Another Satellite Navigation System

Better to invest in alternative navigation systems

Map + compass + sextant. There is a reason the Royal Navy doesn't rely on GPS

[Lars]

Re: Yet Another Satellite Navigation System

"There is a reason the Royal Navy doesn't rely on GPS".

So very true, long ago, like when there was no GPS. Learning navigation using the sun and stars is a tradition in many navy's.

Before GPS there was Decca and Loran.

(or did you just forget the Joke Alert icon with your comment)

[adam 40]

Re: Yet Another Satellite Navigation System

Surely Map + compass + sextant + cronometer + transit telescope + red ball on a pole?

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: Yet Another Satellite Navigation System

The reason for Galileo is so the EU can have precision GPS even if the US says no you can't. I am sure there is plenty of room for argument about whether that reason is worth the money for the EU. For the UK, £350 million per week for most of a year should pay for it, and thanks to Brexit, we will have an extra £350 million per week for anything and everything by delaying the money promised for the NHS.

Civilian GPS is subject to spoofing. Military GPS is supposed to be able to deal with it, but at a cost. A huge cost. Such a huge enormous cost that even with their gigantic budget, parts of the US military use civilian GPS. So many civilian GPS units that the US decided turning on selective availability hurt them more than their enemies.

One satellite tells you the time. A second gives you a pair of big egg shaped lines for where you could be. With three, the GPS gives you a position but has to assume you are at sea level to do it. This may have consequences for aircraft and missiles. You need four to get altitude, and if any three are on the same great circle (like geostationary) one of the three gives you no useful information. To avoid the great circle problem you effectively need at least two rocket launches. A cube sat cannot direct its power limited signal accurately enough to get enough signal from geostationary orbit to a hand held GPS antenna.

If you are not launching till you need the satellites you then have to buy a bunch of kit that cannot be tested and has no civilian use to bring the price down to something sane.

[fredj]

Re: Yet Another Satellite Navigation System

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/europe-gives-up-on-eloran#gs.F8ExE1M

this is interesting and I don't think it is good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

The new system

Will involve phoning a premium rate number, detailing your trip at least 14 days in advance of your planned date of travel, paying a booking fee by cheque or postal order and then receiving a printed sheet by second class post. Trips across international borders will be liable to additional charges.

[lamacra]

Very smart britain. First spend billions to get this working and then bugger out when you could reap the benefit of all this spend money... just out of interesst is the UK really ruled from a bunch of morons right now?

[Lars]

Yes.

[Will Godfrey]

... and has been for centuries

[ArrZarr]

To be fair though, which country isn't?

[Noonoot]

Stop snivelling

as a (ex)Brit (so emabrassed to be one to be honest) living in the lovely EU - UK should really stop snivelling and just accept that the lovely cake you had hoped on eating is out of reach.

[Anonymous Coward]

"hope" is now a valid strategic position

I like it, I wonder if my own enterprise could work with that...

[ForthIsNotDead]

How?

How are they going to switch off access to god knows how many millions of sat navs and mobile devices in the British Isles? Physically, how are they going to do that?

GPS devices don't authenticate in anyway with the satellites. They're listen only. Are they going to send a man into space and have him physically move the dish to put the UK "in the shade". Are they going to change the orientation of the satellite to do the same thing? If they do, what effect will that have to GPS accuracy on the ground throughout Europe? It certainly will have *some* affect.

The whole thing sounds like a lot of bollocks to me. I mean, what are they going to do? Change the bloody password on the satellites?

GTF outta here!

[H in The Hague]

Re: How?

"How are they going to switch off access to god knows how many millions of sat navs and mobile devices in the British Isles?"

It's not about general access to Galileo. It's about access to sensitive information. And being outside the EU will make life more difficult to British businesses who want to supply kit to the project. This is explained in more detail in https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/26/uk_struck_off_galileo_project/

[Mage]

Re: How?

It's only the datacentre stuff and military stuff etc. Ordinary civilian user access not affected, nor even ability to be involved in non-sensitive equipment supply. May did more than invoke Article 50. UK referendum purely was an in/out question. It was left up to the Government to decide how. May seems to have implemented a harsher Article 50 letter than needed and seems to have invoked it before doing any research. There was no time limit even implied in Referendum on when to leave EU, nor how. No-one explicitly voted for what T. May and her cabinet are doing / proposing in terms of N.I., GFA, ECHR, ECJ, customs union, single market, Euratom etc.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: How?

"No-one explicitly voted for what T. May and her cabinet are doing / proposing in terms of N.I., GFA, ECHR, ECJ, customs union, single market, Euratom etc."

No one voting leave explicitly voted for any particular thing because the only explicit option was staying in. The other was a load of unicorn droppings which would have meant different things to different people.

[Slx]

Europe doesn't owe the UK a living. You've chosen to leave. That means leaving.

I find this ranting and raving stuff a bit ridiculous.

You've chosen to leave. So go and stop endlessly moaning and throwing hissy fits when you realise there are practical consequences to your decision.

It's like a toddler who's just throw their ice-cream on the floor in a big tantrum and then throws an even bigger tantrum because now they've no ice-cream.

All of these consequences were forewarned. All of the experts were told to shut up and go away.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Europe doesn't owe the UK a living. You've chosen to leave. That means leaving.

"You've chosen to leave."

No I haven't.

[adam 40]

Re: Europe doesn't owe the UK a living. You've chosen to leave. That means leaving.

We may have chosen to leave but will the EU let us leave??

The latest nonsense is that the EU don't want a hard border between Eire and N.I.

This means:

- We have to stay in customs union

- We have to stay in single market

therefore

- We have to allow free movement of labour (no cherry picking allowed)

- We have to pay the EU probbaly just as much per annum.

Things will come to a head, and I hope sooner than later.

We will find out what Brexit means:

HARD BREXIT

[codejunky]

Re: Europe doesn't owe the UK a living. You've chosen to leave. That means leaving.

@ adam 40

"We may have chosen to leave but will the EU let us leave??"

They actually have no choice. They cannot force us to be part of the club, to accept their rules, to pay them nor to accept their terms.

"The latest nonsense is that the EU don't want a hard border between Eire and N.I."

The only party between the UK, both parts of Ireland and the EU who wants a hard border is the EU. If they dont want one it is a simple matter to agree no border is needed, or even soft border options which the EU looks to implement elsewhere anyway. The fact that they insist on a border means one thing and one thing only- if they want one they can make it.

"Things will come to a head, and I hope sooner than later.

We will find out what Brexit means:

HARD BREXIT"

Hopefully. This is the best option we seem able to hope for. Remaining in name or not is bad for the UK. A trade deal would be mutually beneficial but the EU makes no secret that they desire to punish us and fear our advantage if we leave. Hard brexit is not only our best option available but also can be unilaterally achieved by us. The EU cannot do squat to stop that.

[[e-mail]]

Two words - Black Knight

A British rocket that worked well and would have made an excellent First Stage for what became (eventually) Ariane... if only the French and German 2nd and 3rd stages hadn't failed so miserably.

But don't worry, the revisionists amongst the Remainers and the EU will soon edit history to show that the UK is going to be a total loss without them (in which case, why were the European aerospace companies so keen to buy up all the UK's manufacturing and design companies?)

[ArrZarr]

Re: Two words - Black Knight

So you're suggesting using a rocket with four successful launches and no development for the past half century that our own government cancelled because they were too fucking stupid to see the offer of cheap US launches for what it was?

36 United Kingdom Independent Positioning (UKIP) satellites at $60M a pop on a falcon 9 comes out to £1.5Bn before you do any development work, using a tried and tested launcher or build any satellites. This is all money that we wouldn't have needed to spend if we hadn't voted to leave.

[Jemma]

Re: Two words - Black Knight

Oh you meant the rocket?

I thought you meant "flesh wound guy".

Now the question becomes - which one is Britain?

I'm thinking "Brave" Sir Robin..

Which makes the EU a quad amputee in plate armour with a serious problem with reality.

As to GPS/Galileo - the general use GPS are set to a certain accuracy - ie a given point ±10ft/15ft. You can get much more accurate pinpoints by using military grade gear off the same system that can reduce the ± to with 5ft but if I remember right these have to be licensed and allowed to use the more detailed function. Ie you have to be able to buy the high accuracy decoder and that's how EU-ites could interfere by blocking use/sale in the UK, kind of like sanctions.

I very much doubt it'll happen because even if the politicians are stupid enough, there are too many industries relying on high accuracy GPS including agriculture, bulk transport, many water based industries such as fishing (for fishing for the right catch in the right place for a start).

Our little dictator T.May (do you remember an election? I don't) along with Cameron have stirred up a hornets nest and more importantly have made EU officials do work for the first time in their miserable lives.. And they fully intend to sting us for the privilege, so hard that even our grandchildren say ouch..

[fredj]

Key patents anyone? Is this why the EU want / are going to handle our patents cases in law?