No fandango for you: EU boots UK off Galileo satellite project It's official: the UK is going to be booted off the Galileo satellite GPS program as a result of Brexit, despite furious protestations from Britain that it's a special case. The decision was reached by all 27 member states of Europe at a meeting on Tuesday and was confirmed in a slide deck [PDF] released on Wednesday. Just …
That's terrible - we've insisted that we leave the EU and get rid of it completely, and now they're not letting us say "Ah, except these bits here that we want to keep".
Anyone would think that they're negotiating on their own behalf instead of trying to give the UK whatever it wants in the best possible deal even at great cost to themselves. How dare they - bloody foreigners!
"The Excelsior line!... and that compass in the top will come in handy..."
So off we trot, through the petrified, flaming beaver infested forest with no sense of direction, skint, terrified and lonely with only the clothes on our backs and a walking stick. The metaphor is striking, which is what I suspect you intended and all the pointy-button smashers missed.
@Prst. V.Jeltz
"What the UK government will be most upset about is that the fact it will be no longer be allowed access to the highly secure military-grade signal Public Regulated Service (PRS)"
As I pointed out before, RTFM (Read the Frickin' Material) before you selectively quote, fool.
"sounds more like "want to make the cake and eat it too"
I would rather refer to the "cherry picking". It's also still in response to May's read lines.
Some times I wonder if British MPs have taken "Yes Minister" too seriously and think that showing some courage is off the table for them.
As for the billion, that will be recovered by the EU when Britain finally kicks out that awful Euro clearing malarkey.
> we've insisted that we leave the EU and get rid of it completely, <
I must have missed that bit.
Or no, I get it now, you're talking about the bit where the remainers were saying "if you want to leave the EU, I'm going to pretend that you want to get rid of it completely" and "if you wnat to leave the EU, it's because you don't like foreigners"
if you want to leave the EU, I'm going to pretend that you want to get rid of it completely
No, that's a fact.
If the UK leaves the EU, but in addition to that says it is not going to be a part of the SM, the CU, the ECJ, and the ECHR (red lines), the consequences are that the UK becomes a third country. This means it gets practically nothing from the EU.
There is a legal framework to be inside and out out of things. There is no legal framework to be outside and opt into things.
There is a legal framework to be inside and out out of things. There is no legal framework to be outside and opt into things.
By that rationale no country can do business or research or any other project unless both countries are inside the EU .Many countries in the world are not in the EU .
We arnt out of this galileo thing because we are leaving the EU , we are out of it because of a bunch of bureaucratic tit for tatting and point scoring
We arnt out of this galileo thing because we are leaving the EU , we are out of it because of a bunch of bureaucratic tit for tatting and point scoring
We are out of Galileo because it's an EU-funded project carried out by the ESA and the rules that the UK helped draw up state that the work only goes to EU countries and the PRS can only be used by EU countries.
>We arnt out of this galileo thing because we are leaving the EU , we are out of it because of a bunch of bureaucratic tit for tatting and point scoring
No. We're out of Galileo because the whole point of Galileo was to have its full facilities for members - with no dependence on outsiders. We have chosen to be outsiders.
@david 12 - You're on a loosing battle here, the Remain representation in the Forums is quite loud.
It's unfortunate that some people want to define Brexit as 'cutting all ties with the EU', and treat A50 like a declaration of war. Despite absolving themselves of any responsibility, they're setting the tone as much as any others. As it is, we're changing the terms under which we trade, share, work and play with the member nations of Europe. Apart from a few extremists, you'd be hard to find anyone who wants to 'pull up the drawbridge'. I've heard more from the Guardian about 'not welcoming foreigners' than I have from the Daily Mail lately.
But hey, apparently the world is completely black and white, and it's all the fault of those evil Brexiters. No collective responsibility at all.
Andy, it is the current crop of Brexiteers that drew the red lines. It isn't the fault of Remainers that these have been drawn in the places they have been.
No ones drawn any lines yet , except the EU that has drawn this line around their gps project.
Our government is still arguing with itself about where it wants the lines
No ones drawn any lines yet , except the EU that has drawn this line around their gps project.
Our government is still arguing with itself about where it wants the lines
They're still arguing about what colour the lines should be, what shape and how broad. Some want dotted lines, others want solid and some want no lines at all. They haven't noticed the 27 other Sharpies of varying colours that have been busily drawing € shaped lines on most things already.
What, did you think the EU was going to wait for us to sort our shit out after the dummy-spitting tantrum? Are we that egocentric to think 27 other countries are going to just stand still for two years? Like any parent, they're just going to cover all the sharp edges with padding and close the door until the nerve-jangling noise stops so they can at least hear themselves think long enough to find the Hedex.
It's unfortunate that some people want to define Brexit as 'cutting all ties with the EU', and treat A50 like a declaration of war.
Yes remainers will take the line that Leaving the EU will mean that no immigrants will be allowed in and no goods will be allowed in or out . a kind of strawman misinterpretation / exageration.
Leavers will take the line that we will decide whats allowed in or out .
@Prst. V.Jeltz
Leavers will take the line that we will decide whats allowed in or out
While ignoring the fact that the EU (and it's remaining members) will also decide what's allowed in or out of their domain, considering their own best interests.
Yes, outside the EU the UK will have full autonomy to decide it's own policies, but so does everyone else. We can't demand that the EU (or anyone else) give us what we want, we must negotiate. If they decide, for whatever reason, that they don't want to do something, they are under no obligation to. This is the part most Leavers seem to miss, and start yelling about how unfair the EU are being when they tell us that they aren't going to agree to the latest demands from HMG.
" We can't demand that the EU (or anyone else) give us what we want, we must negotiate"
Thats true for all countries in the world. We cant demand that the USA let us sell our <insert product still made in uk> over their.
The USA cant demand that EU lets them sell their chevys over there, but its mutually beneficial to , even without the EU
We cant demand that interpol share its terrorist data with us - or that they listen when we try to share our intelligence with them , but , and I can scarcely believe this , Its been threatened by some parties that Police and other security agencies will not be able to work together when we leave the EU. With that kind of batshit craziness going on with no ryhme or reason , perhaps it is a bad move to leave. cos politicos be crazy.
How on earth did "The Allies" (clue in the name) co-operate and win WW2 without an economic arrangement about the price of vegatables in place?
Well, it didn't hurt that quite a large number of them were under the Nazi jackboot at the time, reducing the number of voices at the table.
Brexit is madness from where I'm sitting (in the middle of another mess of rampant isolationism and smashing the clocks to see how they work). Something has turned the western world self-destructively insane.
I'm seriously concerned we are in the opening movement of a symphony called "World War".
Perhaps. But if you choose to leave an organization, you don't get to expect to choose which perks of membership you get to keep.
Britain has gone from being an EU member and then constantly wanting to opt out of obligations, to leaving the EU and then constantly expecting to be able to opt back in to benefits. How come when it comes to immigration or ECJ jurisdiction "brexit means brexit" but when it comes to trade, gallileo, standards bodies and so on, suddenly brexit doesn't mean brexit, and we insist we should still be sat at the table?
The UK seems to suggest it will continue to follow the rules of the single market and so on in order to have frictionless trade, while at the same time insisting it won't be bound by the ECJ. That's as absurd as Manchester United insisting it is leaving the premiership, but will continue to carry on playing in the league against the other teams, and will continue to follow the rules, but won't accept the jurisdiction of the referee. I mean, we'd all be happy to trust Mourinho's judgement on whether one of his guys committed handball, right? It's completely ridiculous. If you join the WTO, you have to accept their jurisdiction over disputes. But you don't have to accept ECJ jurisdiction over the single market? You're going to police yourselves? Pffft.
Well, when people were discussing what we could still have, I believe it was Brexiteers that came up with 'Brexit means Brexit'.
All the EU is doing is making sure 'Brexit means Brexit', so yes this complete and utter withdrawal is exactly what the Brexit camp demanded, and any negative emotions you have about this current episode are the fault of the Brexit vote.
To be fair, the irony is that Paul Dacre (part-time psychopath extraordinaire and editor of the Daily Mail), has recently been kicked out and replaced with a Remainer.
My father in law (sadly) reads the Mail, he was confused where all the patriotic anti-foreigner articles had gone.
@Prst. V.Jeltz re: "No Brexit means leaving everthing according to the Remainers in order to convince us that its suicide"
So are you suggesting that Nigel Farage, Rees-Mogg, David Davis etc. are closet Remainers? Or are you referring to the reputedly closet remainer who said "Brexit means Brexit"?
You think he's funny now?
Wait till you see him in government (only you won't. as I expect all devices will be banned as "The Devil's Work (TM)" and if you want to read about it you'll have to learn Latin ("the only language for intelligent intercourse amongst men" as I imagine he would put it).
so its clear that no one with any knowledge of the system made that decision as its completely pointless
americans have access to high precision corrections in fact anyone with a well surveyed site like the current command and control sites and knowledge/equipment of timing should be enough...
So if the UK military have any intelligence they will get in there and keep those sites and personnel going and simply feed the corrections back to any equipment needed.
the U.K. civil service did a number on the europeans and they didnt even realise, one less outgoing and they get to ask for a refund...
the loss will be to the Galileo project which I am actually sad about but thats what happens if you let bureaucrats rather than engineers and scientists run the show...
Yes.
They spent $25.4Bn (in 1973 dollars) to send 12 Civil servants on a flags-and-footprints expedition that was dead by the end of 1972, left no lasting infrastructure in space except a few sensors on the Moon, and which could have all been landed by modified versions of the Surveyor craft.
Concorde is estimated to have cost £1.5-2.1Bn in 1976 pounds, carried millions of passengers, flew for 27 years with a perfect safety record and carried about 2.5 million passengers doing so, without anyone wearing a pressure suit to do so (till Air France tried to take off a grossly over weight aircraft and ended up frying 86 German Burghers).
It will b hard to top Concorde. It won't be hard to top Apollo, if it's done sensibly.
The UK was a founder member of EFTA in 1960. EFTA had a trading agreement with the EEC. FYI.
Leaving the EU takes Britain back to 1959.
On Concorde. The single market, a British idea, was created in 1987. Prior to that many co-operative deals were done bilaterally. The single market made that unnecessary becuase we all agreed standards.
Incidentally on Concorde the UK insisted on using feet and inches whereas France used metric. This meant every measurement was converted.
The mistake here perhaps is to see this as a negotiation to start with from the Europeans point of view when from their side of things it's probably more of an implementation of the rules they already have (rules that in many cases we had a strong hand in formulating - so it's a bit of a mystery why the government didn't see this one coming from the very start).
As Theresa May was so fond of saying until it started being flung back in her direction: Brexit means Brexit. There are consequences to leaving and this is one of them. Pretending this issue can simply be negotiated out of existence is just as likely as finding a solution to the Northern Ireland issue that doesn't involve either a hard border or non-existent technology.
Of course the caption 'Lose access to navigation services, your financial industry, automotive industry, aviation industry and fishing industry too amongst others. Oh, and by the way you might want to say goodbye to your loved ones dying of cancer now as they won't be around much longer when the medicine runs out' wouldn't fit onto the side of a bus quite so easily.
In this case it is the rule we insisted be put in (that no-one outside the EU can have the PRS or bid for contracts) that is now coming back to cost us even more billions, but the brexiters still carry on saying it's all the EU's fault or the remainers fault or whoever else they can blame for kneecapping the UK.
Of course the caption 'Lose access to navigation services, your financial industry, automotive industry, aviation industry and fishing industry too amongst others. Oh, and by the way you might want to say goodbye to your loved ones dying of cancer now as they won't be around much longer when the medicine runs out'
What a load of shite. We'll still have access to navigation services don't you worry.
Financial industry will be fine as nobody is interested in dealing with the 9-5 continentals who couldn't work an extra hour if they tried. Will the big banks move to Paris? Pfft! The French will strike at the drop of a hat, no chance.
Automotive industry? That'll be fine, are they going to start a trade war? You might want to take note of how many EU vehicles we import.
Aviation industry? BAe are global not local and their local work is often tied to military contracts. Any moves by Airbus to remove all contracts from UK factories might make it difficult for them to sell aircraft over someone like Boeing - they ain't the only game in town.
Fishing industry? Do me a favour, it's always been the EU countries fishing our waters.
As for the comments about cancer medicines, fuck me dead you really are desperate.
It's a mistake to portray leave voters as stupid in my opinion, especially when the government itself didn't know initially what leaving would entail. Expecting a member of the public to do so therefore when an entire civil service hadn't got to grips with it seems more than a little unrealistic. You could equally claim that remain voters didn't fully understand the implications of staying in the EU, however positive doing so may or may not be.
Not doing more to stop the over-spending, possible criminal behaviour and collusion with foreign states (*cough*Russia*cough*) to interfere with our democratic processes is, however, a different matter. People talk about respecting the result but from where I sit given the underhanded manner in which the result was secured I see nothing worth respecting. If this were to take place in any other country we would be loudly pushing for a rerun of the process. Funny how that doesn't happen when the mistake is made at home.
Decades of lies from Labour, Tory, Media, BBC etc about EU come home to roost.
In some cases Foreign owned media.
Russia wanted Brexit.
Commonwealth and Obama didn't
No-one wants a British Empire 2.0 either. Most countries didn't want 1.0 either.
No-one wants a British Empire 2.0 either. Most countries didn't want 1.0 either.
The concept of any other nation giving up their sovereignty to be part of and ruled by Britain is causing me laugh the tea I was drinking out my nose....
So Britain doesn't want to be part of the EU and reclaim its sovereignty but they want other countries to give up theirs and be ruled by Britain under Empire 2.0.
Pot... kettle.... black ass!
While I will declare right now I voted to stay, I have to say the problem with the brexiteers view of the world was that everything would be brilliant outside of the EU. We have all this freedom to negotiate new deals with lots of countries outside of the EU. (US? Who is now imposing sanctions on any country that is a threat), NZ and Australia (who only really provide lamb, wine and tourists), we can negotiate a good deal with the EU because we are sooo important to the rest of the EU (aren't we). Now its coming home to roost, we are likely to end up with no deal, we will end up re-enacting most of the EU directives because its just too difficult to put in place new laws in time available and suddenly we are on our own in science research, multi-country programs like galilleo, aircraft and intelligence. So why was brexit so good for the UK?
Perhaps a new guest article by Tim Worstall, detailing the upcoming boom, would be salutary in bring all you ungrateful straying sheep back in the warm fold of Theresa May’s leadership.
Some ancient wisdom in lieu:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/10/so_what_would_the_economic_effect_of_britain_leaving_the_eu_be/
This is all going according to plan /s
It's amazing. And that is from an "intelligent" brexitter, not the 'keep em out' xenophobic wing.
But like virtually all brexitters prior to the actual vote, he proposed staying in the EEA, so as not to lose the benefits of the single market and CU. Hardly any brexitters campaigned for 'hard brexit'. They all promised the prospect of customs checks etc. was 'project fear', and to be fair remainers typically raised the prospect of trade barriers without really thinking the UK would do that.
It would be really interesting to see Worstall's opinion now that the 'leave' vote has been hijacked by zealots who really want to walk away completely. I'd be genuinely interested if he still thinks the UK will be better off crashing out with no deal, than it would just staying in the EU.
"Yes"
"It would be really interesting to see Worstall's opinion now that the 'leave' vote has been hijacked by zealots who really want to walk away completely. I'd be genuinely interested if he still thinks the UK will be better off crashing out with no deal, than it would just staying in the EU."
I'm one of the zealots. Leave, get out entirely, allow them to sail off to perdition as they so obviously desire. I have no desire for us, nor anyone else, to stay in an organisation that can do something as stupid as the eruo.
There's also been a study on this. Patrick Minford. Revert to WTO rules, our exports to them face those tariffs. We decide to go for unilateral free trade. We don't charge ourselves tariffs upon the things that we desire to import. Essentially, what we did in 1846, Corn Laws and all that.
Net effect is to grow the UK economy by 3%. Yes, grow.
But I really am a zealot. I think the very existence of the EU is a bad idea, that everyone should leave it. And I believe that near whatever the economic arguments about it. Proper, full on, zealotry I'm afraid.
>I have no desire for us, nor anyone else, to stay in an organisation that can do something as stupid as the eruo.
The Euro might be stupid, but at least they can spell it correctly. :)
>There's also been a study on this. Patrick Minford. Revert to WTO rules, our exports to them face those tariffs. We decide to go for unilateral free trade. We don't charge ourselves tariffs upon the things that we desire to import. Essentially, what we did in 1846, Corn Laws and all that.
Is that the same Patrick Minford who admits that this will make most of the UK manufacturing sector uncompetitive to the extent that it can no longer survive? And farming?
No, that would be the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Boards "Impact Assesment."
Best case scenario. HMG replaces the CAP payments entirely from its own pocket.
Worst case scenario. Pig farmers do OK. Arable, Cattle, Sheep, Dairy all f**ked.
So much for saving money to spend on the NHS.
>There's also been a study on this. Patrick Minford. Revert to WTO rules
I read the report: From Project fear to Project Prosperity
Whilst he talked a lot about WTO, UFT and MFN it was clear that he was talking theoretically and not real-world - probably because real-world requires doing actual legwork and thinking rather than simply applying vastly simplified economic models and rote solutions - where markets and consumers behave in ways favourable to the model....
So Minford's viewpoint is interesting as it does try to present a different viewpoint; however, I compare it to other viewpoints and my experience and thus find it wanting...
The whole 'passport-must-be-burgundy' thing was a non-binding council resolution. We could have remained members of the EU *and* had blue passports.
Also ignore the fact that the blue colour was actually something brought about by the League of Nations in 1920 and the only reason we've bothered with biometrics is because of demands made by the US in regards to its own visa waiver program. (*muttermutter...bloodyforeigners...muttermuttermumble*)
True.
But British politicians (of whatever supposed persuasion) can never have too many complaints to beat the EU with, despite it really having nothing to do with them.
How many of the supposed "EU" issues really originate from the British Home Office?
Quite a few I'd suggest.
> Expecting a member of the public to do so therefore when an entire civil service hadn't got to grips with it seems more than a little unrealistic. You could equally claim that remain voters didn't fully understand the implications of staying in the EU, however positive doing so may or may not be.
Sorry but no - anyone making the decision that because they don't currently like something then they will vote to jump in to an unknown void without thinking about it, was either stupid, lazy or gullible. Even my fourteen and twelve year old children spent some time at school going through the various EU declarations including bringing home the Cameron missive and taking that apart. They came up with some very rational explanations about why leaving was a foolish idea and were utterly gob-smacked when the vote came in supporting Leave. How on earth could adults be so dumb?
I'm fed up of the semi-defending for Leave voters on the basis that the issue was too complicated. The details are going to be tricky and some people did have valid reasons for voting Leave (one guy I knew had seen his children's school fall apart under the weight of unmanaged, localised immigration). But these primary outcomes like being kicked out of Galileo were easy enough for children to work out well before the vote even occurred.
I have always argued that remain voters entered the voting booth knowing exactly what they were voting for. They knew what the EU had been like so far, they knew what direction the EU was heading and they preferred that known future instead of taking a gamble on what leaving might look like.
Leave voters on the other hand went with the gamble. That, in my opinion, considering they're gambling with the security of their own and their offsprings futures, could well be described as stupid.
I have family outside the major urban centres. Many of them voted Leave because they thought that all the arguments about the economy were protecting the "city folk". They didn't care if "we" were worse off, because they resent the "city folk" talking down to them all the time - and by extension the EU are just remote city folk. So all the arguments about whether the UK would be better or worse off outside the EU were completely wasted on them. It was the "taking back control" meme that resonated with them.
The Leave/Remain split isn't stupid vs clever. It is more about the focus on economy vs control.
I live outside urban centre and did not vote leave (though the local racists did)
Take back control ... FFS
The less control in the hands of May, BoJo etc. the better, as negotiations are showing (if it was football it would be EU 100, GB 0) UK gov are not very competent compared to EU.
Any concept of control is a fantasy, with skewed first past the post system, many peoples votes are essentially wasted as their voice never heard *currently "Control" is via homophobic, anti abortion DUP medievalists - great!)
e.g. if live in Con stronghold but prefer a different party, live in Lab safe seat but hate Lab etc, etc
Vote for the runner up, regardless of your actual views.
In the UK, under whoever-the-f**k-turn-up-on-the-day tactical voting is the only way to have a chance of dumping the incumbent.
Maybe.
I think it's also worth saying that when people voted, many brexitters were convinced that the UK would be no worse off, would not lose single market access and so on, because this is what they were promised. So to them, there seemed no risk. They effectively believed that the UK would be able to opt out of freedom of movement, stop paying fees, but still continue to trade as before.
It's clear that isn't the case, even the brexitters now accept this. And yet they still keep using the referendum vote as justification for leaving the same single market they insisted during the campaign we'd remain in.
What the government, the people and parliament need to decide now is which is more important. You cannot have everything you want. So, do you want to control immigration, or do you want to retain frictionless trade with Europe and avoid a hard border in Ireland? Because a vote in which people essentially voted believing they could have both things is now worthless, because it's clear they will not and would never have got both.
When you put it like that it really does sound completely f**king delusional, does it not?
You really would have to believe in unicorns and moonbeams to beleive such contradictory ideas at the same time.
>It's a mistake to portray leave voters as stupid in my opinion, especially when the government itself didn't know initially what leaving would entail. Expecting a member of the public to do so therefore when an entire civil service hadn't got to grips with it seems more than a little unrealistic.<
The remain campaign was run by the then-Prime-Minister, and warned of very dire consequences of leaving - but it was dismissed as fear-mongering by the leave campaign, if you remember.
>You could equally claim that remain voters didn't fully understand the implications of staying in the EU, however positive doing so may or may not be.<
As 'remain' literally meant 'carry on exactly as we are' I think we all knew the implications, even if leave voters WERE too stupid to realise that.
Actually, I don't think remain was going to be "carry on exactly as we are", for me that was perhaps the worst aspect of the whole referendum. I could just see the next thing after a remain vote being, "Right, you're staying. Now - get with the programme". ie the ever-closer-union stuff which was what I was extremely worried about and wanted to avoid. If the referendum had gone the other way, would we now be being forced into the Euro? I suspect all too likely.
As 'remain' literally meant 'carry on exactly as we are' I think we all knew the implications, even if leave voters WERE too stupid to realise that.
Except any remainer who thought that is equally stupid. Remain was never "carry on as we are", rather it was "you want into this ever tighter controlled group, lock, stock, the fucking lot". For the EU there is no "as you were" in the grand project. They want countries to be all in or in our case...get out. It is about ever close union and that does not mean "the bits you want and veto the rest". Those are the choices that were realistically on offer. The tolerance in the EU for the UK's selective pick and choose membership was seriously coming to a head. If you cannot recognise that then you should pay a little more attention. Stupidity and ignorance is abundant on both sides.
The tolerance in the EU for the UK's selective pick and choose membership was seriously coming to a head.
@Mark 65 - So do you wait it out and get them to make you an offer to leave, given you already have committed to a UK referendum over any treaty change, or do you leave (invoke Article 50) and then hope to get a favourable deal, having told everyone that you would be prepared to walk away with no deal?
Remain always was about a lot more than what the Leave campaign portrayed it as...
@ Roland6
"Remain always was about a lot more than what the Leave campaign portrayed it as..."
Fear-
>Of change! Change is scary.
>Of the Chancellor! Osborne making a clear and direct threat against the population with the punishment budget.
>Of the EU! Because they might try to punish the country in their civilised temper tantrum.
>Of the US! They might try to take advantage by selling us things! The worst being chlorinated chicken proven safe even by the European food standards.
>Of China! The Chinese might try to take advantage by selling us things.
>Of foreigners generally! Those foreigners might take advantage and sell us things. Without protectionism we might actually deal with counties poorer than ourselves and that is beneath us.
>Of economic recovery! Oh no we are doomed. We get the inflation we need to increase the base rate as is needed to prepare us for the next recession due approximately each decade yey business cycle. Brexit delivering what the BoE and gov have been trying to do since 2008.
>Of our own standards! Because apparently dictated foreign standards are better than those who are complaining about it. With so many 'educated, successful, none of that hoi polloi trash" remain voters one would assume they had a part in setting the standards they so fear.
>Of losing other peoples money! As a net contributor to the EU through tax money and then some comes back the people sucking that source of money dont want it to remain with the ones who earned it.
Many more to add?
@codejunky - QED :)
All your points are reasons given out as to why you shouldn't vote Leave. In you haste to mock the Remain campaign, you totally missed the point I was making about the strategy adopted to achieve an end. It is clear the Brexit rabble-rousers became obsessed with invoking Article 50 and as soon as possible, without any regard to negotiations - well you can't negotiate with the EU so why bother, just walk away. Yet now the same people want to negotiate with the EU and are complaining about how unfair things are, whilst totally failing to see it was their own haste that got them into the current negotiating mess...
If however, the Brexit rabble-rousers had more than one brain cell between them, they would have realised that the EU couldn't force the UK to leave and thus by Remaining in the EU the UK, would automatically have a seat at the table at the next round of negotiations and for progress to be made, the UKs concerns and interests would have had to be addressed... Hence why I've always maintained that in-order to leave it may be better to remain...
@ Roland6
"All your points are reasons given out as to why you shouldn't vote Leave."
I am not sure you read the points. Living in fear is not a way to live. Just because the remain case was the fear of the world does not make them right, actually having to resort to such fear tactics and direct threats should raise questions.
"In you haste to mock the Remain campaign"
If it makes you feel any better I dont feel any sympathy for the official leave campaign being mocked. Both official campaigns put on a poor show.
"well you can't negotiate with the EU so why bother, just walk away. Yet now the same people want to negotiate with the EU"
If the EU wont negotiate and we choose to walk away, if the EU still wont negotiate then nothing changes in that respect (an issue some remainers and leavers need to accept particularly in government).
"whilst totally failing to see it was their own haste that got them into the current negotiating mess"
This mess is the result of desiring to remain. The negotiation is simple, the floor of the negotiation (the last resort option) is hard brexit no deal for the UK where the EU and UK are entitled to nothing from the other. I think thats a good outcome, some think it the best outcome, those who wish to remain of course think its the worst outcome. We should accept nothing less than that (i.e. a deal that chains us to the EU or keeps us in nor some 'punishment' agreement). As I said neither side is entitled to anything, no money, agreements, nothing. Of course that leaves a lot of room for both sides to negotiate to mutual benefit if both sides want to.
"they would have realised that the EU couldn't force the UK to leave and thus by Remaining in the EU the UK, would automatically have a seat at the table at the next round of negotiations"
The EU could if they want. The EU is forging its way with rules and agreements and breaking them at will. Greece nearly got thrown out when the recession exposed the weakness of the Eurozone. But even if we remained, the EU didnt want to negotiate. And the EU could not negotiate the freedom of the UK without the UK leaving the EU. So the EU could not negotiate what we want.
@codejunky
>I am not sure you read the points. Living in fear is not a way to live.
Yes, I did read all the points and they made me (ruefully) smile; from the emotive language being used across many forums, it would seem that many Brexit supporters are living with an unhealthy level of paranoia about the EU...
But once again you demonstrate that you don't understand what I'm saying. So let us be clear, there was the Referendum which fundamentally was about Leave-Remain and living happy ever after, and then there was after the Referendum, where the focus was on implementation and "honouring the result". I'm talking about after the Referendum.
>This mess is the result of desiring to remain.
No the mess is entirely down to the Brexiteers, remember whilst the various Brexit camps could agree that the UK should leave the EU, there were vast differences in viewpoint of just what 'Brexit' meant. The Leave camps (and specifically those in the Conservative party), in their haste to grab on to power, just didn't bother to clarify matters, probably because they thought once in a position of power they would be able to prevail over those with different ideas. Hence why T.May has repeatedly asked for people to get behind her - she wasn't talking to Remain supporters but to the various Leave camps - particularly those within the Conservative party and thus preventing the development of a coherent government stance.
>The EU could if they want....
I read this as just another outing of paranoia...
@ Roland6
"I'm talking about after the Referendum."
Ok go on. I will look with fresh eyes.
"there were vast differences in viewpoint of just what 'Brexit' meant"
That is very true. But that isnt wrong or invalidating, there were many different views of what remain was. Remainers were on the same page about wanting to remain and leave on the same page about wanting to leave, that was it.
"The Leave camps (and specifically those in the Conservative party), in their haste to grab on to power, just didn't bother to clarify matters"
Nobody could possibly clarify. Simply the vote was rigged, and yet people want to leave the EU enough even rigging it wasnt enough. Simply-
>Cameron will support leave if his 'amazing demands' (damp squib) wernt met.
>They were not. So Cameron supports remain anyway.
>Cameron refuses to negotiate anything to do with the possibility of a leave vote nor allow clarity. To enforce this further promises to stay to negotiate if leave is voted.
>Cameron abuses tax payer money to print propaganda. Obama is over to make an empty threat. Carney presents good news with a negative spin. Osborne makes a last ditch effort of directly threatening the population if we do not comply.
>Leave wins, Cameron continuing his jellyfish act runs away.
>The only party to have a plan to leave was Farages UKIP and they were not the gov. A weak remainer takes over the party and refuses to accept a no deal brexit when the EU refuses to negotiate.
Is it a shock leave have a level of paranoia.
"she wasn't talking to Remain supporters but to the various Leave camps"
I can believe that. We voted leave, expect leave and she keeps trying to offer leave soft aka remain. All the while the remain propaganda continues. Even the dire state of the EU/Eurozone is presented as positives. The only reason to pretend the EU is doing well is to try and keep us in.
@codejunky - The referendum occurred on 23-Jun-2016; nearly two years ago, I think you do need to move on...
>Nobody could possibly clarify. Simply the vote was rigged
Your "fresh eyes" are clearly still in referendum mode...
>Is it a shock leave have a level of paranoia.
The trouble is that as Brexit has progressed, their level of delusional paranoia has markedly increased...
>I can believe that.
Good! :)
>We voted leave, expect leave and she keeps trying to offer leave soft aka remain.
T.May is clearly just an administrator, not a leader and so whatever it is she has put on the table - which has been very little, is what her Brexit monkeys have given her...
@ Roland6
"Your "fresh eyes" are clearly still in referendum mode..."
The rest of my post was about the rest of yours. I am interested in hearing of how negotiations could be pushed better.
"The trouble is that as Brexit has progressed, their level of delusional paranoia has markedly increased..."
To what particularly do you reference? Not saying you are wrong but I am aware the EU are being awkward for awkward sake. Not that that should be a problem as we just walk away until the EU realise they are not acting smart.
"T.May is clearly just an administrator, not a leader and so whatever it is she has put on the table - which has been very little, is what her Brexit monkeys have given her..."
She isnt much of a leader but I think she has more say than I like. The negotiations stalled when the EU tried to dictate demands and the UK shot down the fantasies of the EU (e.g. brexit bill line by line). The problem seemed pretty solved until May went to the EU to make a conditional offer of money to continue talks (condition of a trade deal. I hope she sticks to the condition rigidly).
I have no love for the EU but I dont think this gov is doing a good job.
@codejunky
>I am interested in hearing of how negotiations could be pushed better.
?! where to begin...
Given we are where we are...
Remember, the "EU are being awkward" and are sticking to the rules and thus have been very clear: the UK is leaving on 29-March-2019. So I fully expect as this deadline creeps ever closer, T.May et al will accuse the EU of "being awkward" by not being flexible about this deadline...
I suspect there are more corkers that will befuddle T.Mays Brexit monkeys, so I expect March-29 will come and go and the UK won't have a deal... then the fireworks will start as the recriminations begin...
The only real way forward is for T.May to find her backbone and sacrifice "Conservative party unity", it doesn't really matter which way she goes, the negotiations will go better; albeit not necessarily in the direction some are wanting. [Aside: As I don't see Labour being any more capable, there is a flaw in this plan... :) ]
>Not that that should be a problem as we just walk away until the EU realise they are not acting smart.
So basically, by "walking away" you are implicitly accepting the EU are right to exclude the UK from the Galileo project, because that is what the rules - as amended by the UK - say...
>To what particularly do you reference?
Well, given those who voted Leave didn't expect to 'win' the referendum, it is notable how to many (ie. those who express a public opinion) the bogeyman EU has grown in size and maleficence.
@ Roland6
"So I fully expect as this deadline creeps ever closer, T.May et al will accuse the EU of "being awkward" by not being flexible about this deadline"
You think it will take her that long? It didnt take them long to complain they wanted more time and a transition time. May seems about as good a leader as Cameron, just as a jellyfish.
"The only real way forward is for T.May to find her backbone and sacrifice "Conservative party unity", it doesn't really matter which way she goes"
I think the direction matters plenty but that is what I consider necessary to lead. Would probably remove a lot of the uncertainty too.
"So basically, by "walking away" you are implicitly accepting the EU are right to exclude the UK from the Galileo project, because that is what the rules - as amended by the UK - say..."
Absolutely. A no deal hard brexit is just that, neither side is entitled to anything. I cant say I care about the galileo project anyway as its just another willy wagging vanity project (a millennium dome. unnecessary, expensive but a political achievement). Obviously negotiating mutually beneficial deals would be better but if the EU isnt willing then what is there to negotiate?
"Well, given those who voted Leave didn't expect to 'win' the referendum, it is notable how to many (ie. those who express a public opinion) the bogeyman EU has grown in size and maleficence."
I am not sure the EU has grown much in size and maleficence, just a continued commentary of their ongoing incompetence and their tantrums. The bogeyman is more reserved for the constant attempts to undermine or dead-stop progress, which to us is getting out of the EU. We didnt expect to win the rigged vote and for me it just demonstrates the extent that people really dont want to be in the EU that we won after all that. Leave didnt have the position of authority to abuse to directly, 100% shamelessly and with no attempt to hide it threaten the population to vote their way. And support for the EU was less than 50% or as some people like to call it 'statistical noise'.
@Vimes: "It's a mistake to portray leave voters as stupid in my opinion, especially when the government itself didn't know initially what leaving would entail."
Insert the word "all" and I'd agree.
Before the referendum I engaged with over 1000 people about Brexit on social media and news media comment pages. Of those, 956 engaged with 2 or more responses to my questions. 37 of those were "it's just how I feel" type answers, and 9 had serious arguments that actually made me think.
All of the rest were absolute, utter, irredeemable morons. Now it's quite possible that 99% of remainers are also morons. But they were voting for the status quo, which is a slightly different thing.
Way back when I was a lad, people who had no real knowledge or understanding or interest in politics used to say so. Now it seems that a lot of those same people have unaccountably strong opinions. Here's a typical exchange:
Brexiteer: "Why do Remainers treat me like an idiot? Show me some respect and you'll see I have good reasons, I've done a lot of research"
Me: "Ok, give me your one best reason for voting Leave"
Brexiteer: "Well, there's so many, but probably the most important one for me is the status of the Commissioner. He's like a godlike figure: he's not elected, he can't be censured by the commission, and what he says goes"
Me: "Errm, he is elected, he can be censured, and he doesn't really have much executive power"
Brexiteer: "You see, you're just dismissing my arguments out of hand"
Me: "Not really, I'm just pointing out that, after "all that research" and the opportunity to give me your very best reason for voting Leave, you've just said three things that a few seconds of internet search would confirm to be false"
Brexiteer: "Well, I still stand by my original position"
This is what you get when you can't make the issues interesting enough for a proper debate. Years of paring everything down to The Soundbite have worked to reduce the already tiny voter attention span to almost nil.
I'm afraid this particular war is lost.
However, a smart government might plan for the future by re-introducing mandatory civics classes in schools. How can people -wherever they were born and whatever their ethnic descent - be expected to participate in a system of government if they do not know how it works?
A simple teaching of how the government gets to BE the government might be the first order of business.
"It's a mistake to portray leave voters as stupid in my opinion, especially when the government itself didn't know initially what leaving would entail"
I'm sorry, but every single Leave voter I know is ignorant of economics, geography, and British political history. Not stupid but ignorant.
We supposedly have a system of representative democracy. This means that, unlike the Appenzellers, we appoint people who are more intelligent and informed than the average voter to go and learn all this stuff and apply it on our behalf. Then Cameron and the Conservatives go batshit insane and, in order to try and increase their vote share by getting rid of a loony right wing party that appeals to the bloody-minded, hold a referendum in a country with no real history of referendums and in which public opinion is manipulated by oligarchs. The result is inevitable, but the end is that many of our elected representatives dare not vote with their opinions for fear of the personal consequences (another right wing fruitcake is currently on trial having admitted to planning to kill another woman Labour MP).
The repeated failure of governments to deal with the lies of the media (and the unhealthy relationship between mostly Conservative MPs and journalists) may have caused the problem, but British anti-intellectualism, bloody mindedness and ignorance has made it much worse.
"I'm sorry, but every single Leave voter I know is ignorant of economics, geography, and British political history. Not stupid but ignorant."
Ok, that's your opinion.
But before the EU and the EEC (the UK joined the EEC in 1973, NOT the EU), the UK survived for over 1000 years. That's more than a millennium, trading with countries all over the globe. Why can't that level of trade be achieved again? Or does the last 45 years overrule all other history, to the point where the sky will fall and seas will boil when the UK formally leaves?
As for economics, I (personally) have a distaste for pointless waste - something that the EU is particularly good at. An excellent example of this is the EU having to move itself from Brussels to Strasbourg (and back) once a month at a cost of (somewhere between) £90 and £300 million per year. Nobody actually knows the true costs.
Geography. The UK is leaving the EU - NOT Europe. For the UK to leave Europe, there would have to be some serious changes to the European tectonic plate combined with some (worryingly rapid) continental drift. The UK will still trade with the EU - even if it is under WTO instead of a "special" trade agreement. Look at the German auto industry, which is already under pressure due to Trump's new import tariffs. They won't (and don't) want to lose the UK market.
The areas of the country that voted to leave had just as many Labour voters as Tory - see here: http://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/oxford-and-brexit/brexit-analysis/mapping-brexit-vote
Tony Blair twice promised a vote on leaving the EU. It was part of the Labour manifesto. Gordon Brown just ignored it. At least Camron did actually do what he promised.
MP's should NOT vote with their personal opinions. They are elected to represent their constituencies opinions, not their own. If an MP's constituency voted to leave, then it is the MP's duty to represent that. If they decide to vote the way the feel (instead of the way the vote went), then they are not representing their voters are they?
As the UK has voted to leave the EU, arguments for and against "Brexit" are mute - we just have to get on with it.
>But before the EU and the EEC (the UK joined the EEC in 1973, NOT the EU), the UK survived for over 1000 years.
Cool, its 2801 already! Have we got flying cars yet?
Pedant alert - the United Kingdom was formed by the union of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801. (England and Scotland united in 1707 and Wales was conquered in the middle ages).
>MP's should NOT vote with their personal opinions. They are elected to represent their constituencies opinions, not their own. If an MP's constituency voted to leave, then it is the MP's duty to represent that. If they decide to vote the way the feel (instead of the way the vote went), then they are not representing their voters are they?
Sorry, but that is absolute bollocks. The job of an MP is to represent their constituency and vote in the best way for their constituents. Sure, they have to take account of the opinions of their constituents (and this is done at election time), but they are well paid to study the facts and take the appropriate decision when it comes to any vote. If your MP votes in a way you don't like, vote them out at the next election.
As an example, should the Remain supporting, Labour MP for Alyn and Deeside, an area with ~55% Leave voters, support Brexit in Parliament in the knowledge that it might well lead to the closure of the Airbus factory in Broughton with the loss of ~6,000 jobs in his constituency, of should he vote against it knowing that his constituents want it?
If he supports Brexit, and his constituency is economically devastated he will be kicked at the next election for supporting it. If he votes against Brexit, then he might be kicked out at the next election for going against the will of the people.
(Apply the same to Sunderland, City of London, Maidenhead and Windsor, etc, etc).
Hobson's choice?
So the elected representative of any given area doesn't have to actually represent the will of the voters who elected him/her? And actual representation of the voters is bollocks? Wow! No wonder British people are totally disillusioned with their politicians if they only represent their own personal views.
You said yourself in your example - Brexit might lead to the closure of the factory in Broughton. Might. It hasn't happened yet.
"So the elected representative of any given area doesn't have to actually represent the will of the voters who elected him/her? And actual representation of the voters is bollocks? Wow! No wonder British people are totally disillusioned with their politicians if they only represent their own personal views."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like most words in English 'representative' has multiple definitions:
-------------------
Definition of representative: (Mirriam-Webster; other dictionaries similar or identical)
1 : serving to represent
2 a : standing or acting for another especially through delegated authority
b : of, based on, or constituting a government in which the many are represented by persons chosen from among them usually by election
3 : serving as a typical or characteristic example - eg - a representative moviegoer
------------------
You are using definition 3, in a somewhat inappropriate context, unless you assume the population in a given voting district is sufficiently homogeneous that a single person could be typical of them all.
In discussions of political systems, the normal definition is 2a - a person is given authority make decisions and act on behalf of the largest group of voters (somehow defined, or some other selection group).
In any first past the post system with more than two significant parties, elected representatives almost invariably receive fewer than half the votes - they are elected by a plurality*, not a majority. None the less, they are expected to represent the interests of everyone in their riding. Different groups in the riding may disagree on how to do that, but most people want broad benefits for everyone, not 'privilege me and be damned with everyone else'.
There are a number of reasons for representative rather than direct democracy, including the practical difficulties of the latter, delay, costs, the difficulty of meaningful discussions in groups the size of the whole electorate, and lack of expertise, time, and support resources for analysis on the part of the general population.
We want our government to represent us (definition 2a), not to be representative of us (definition 3).
We expect our professional representatives (politicians) to have above median skills, knowledge, contacts, time, research material, and focus on issues. We want them to be better than one random person plucked off the street and put in charge. That's why we elect them, why we have policies and platforms, why we go to or read transcripts of candidate' debates.
Making them robotic parrots of an 'opinion' expressed by a minority of the population and supposedly completely encompassed by a one time decision based on a few words of variable honesty, clarity, and meaning and answered in a binary manner will, more often than not, fail to serve the interests of the population as a whole.
Real life questions and even more, their answers, are longer and more complicated than can be answered by a 'yes' or 'no' to a brief sentence.
===================================================
* This is not necessarily bad.
While first past the post is not perfect, neither is any other voting system. Indeed, in political environments with more than two significant parties, proportional systems are usually less democratic.
The math is complex, and I can't reproduce the calculations and explanation from memory, but studies of voting in multiparty parliaments show that proportional systems tend to transfer power and control from the two largest parties to smaller, less broadly supported parties.
Consider, for example, the disproportionate per MP influence wielded by the DUP.
In most proportional systems with more than two parties, no party has a majority, pretty much forever.
MP's should NOT vote with their personal opinions. They are elected to represent their constituencies opinions, not their own. If an MP's constituency voted to leave, then it is the MP's duty to represent that. If they decide to vote the way the feel (instead of the way the vote went), then they are not representing their voters are they?
So if an area voted to stay, their MP should vote stay in the commons. I can assure that's not what the spineless golf-club-bar-propping Tory backwoodsman in my massively remain constituency is doing.
No it's not.
He engaged with them. They quoted "facts" which were simply wrong. When told they were wrong they fell back on their "opinion."
If ignorance is "Lacking knowledge" (look it up) then their ignorance (people he's talked to, not every Leave voter) is a fact.
Can you not tell the difference between ignorance, stupidity, facts and opinions?
That would make you a pretty typical Leave voter.
I'm glad but not surprised that someone got in pretty quickly with the fact the UK is much younger than 1000 years.
I would just like to make the point that prior to the Union, the constituent countries spent a great deal of time waging wars on each other. That is a pasttime that was engaged in by many European nations prior to the EC, too.
The 'EU brings stability and peace' line can be overdone but it is an important point.
"It's a mistake to portray leave voters as stupid in my opinion, especially when the government itself didn't know initially what leaving would entail."
-----------------
I don't see why any of them didn't see this coming. As an outside observer, the consequences, overall, were immediately clear when the idea first came up.
I just didn't think that the people living there would be so oblivious to the obvious effects of leaving the EU, so I was quite surprised that the leave vote edged out the remain vote by a tiny margin.
That the government that had shot themselves in the foot by holding the referendum as 'advisory' without clear indications of the results of either decision, and without rules about what margin would indicate the wishes of a majority of the population then went on to treat the result as 'mandatory' says to me that internal party politics played a more important role than national interest.
Anyone with a knowledge of sampling theory knows that a self-selected group (in this case, the ones that voted in the referendum) are more likely than not to differ from the whole population which you are sampling. That's why the gold standard for accurate estimation is a sufficiently large and truly random sample.
The difference in the stay and go votes is so small that it is almost as likely that a greater part of the population wanted to remain as not.
Any referendum proposing this kind of cataclysmic and impactful change should have a minimum of somewhere between 60 and 75% votes for change to consider change approved, either fixed or inversely scaled somehow to the percent of the population actually voting, with a hard minimum well in excess of 50%+1 to approve change.
The rules for leaving the EU, which make just changing your mind after giving notice difficult or impossible, argue for a rather high threshold before any precipitous action.
Again, this whole thing seems motivated from the start by national and party political advantage for particular leaders and would-be leaders, rather than analysis of the issue and the public good.
Rule one for a public referendum or vote - do not count on the people doing what you want and expect. Be prepared for a different result, and be sure you can live with it. Don't hold it to burnish your reputation with a particular interest group and assume that it will have no other effect.
> So when when voting for BREXIT which part of the EXIT the voters didn't get?
All of it, in some cases, judging by TV interviews on the street the day after the referendum. Yes, people voted against David Cameron (in case you've forgotten, he was the toff who lived at 10 Downing St before Mayhem). But many of them didn't know what they were voting for, or thought it didn't matter because (a) it was only advisory and (b) they thought Remain would win anyway.
Big mistake, of course, but as events have shown even that female toff who said "Brexit means Brexit" didn't know, and still doesn't know, what "Brexit" really means. Well, it means things like being kicked out of Galileo, installing a hard border in Ireland, leaving Euratom with no way to buy spare parts for nuclear power stations, hundreds of lorries parked up on the M2 and M20, Scottish UDI, Irish reunification, collapse of international trade and so on. Enjoy!
>So when when voting for BREXIT which part of the EXIT the voters didn't get?
That they would only get the Brexit that certain influential and unelected sections of the Tory party wanted. The Referendum wasn't about the people getting a say but giving the Tory party carte blanc to pursue its own hobby horses...
"shooting itself in the foot "
maybe they held up a mirror for him when they heard that line....
Uk also want to stay in the EU for Aviation Authority otherwise they have to setup their own one and get approval for safety etc to be allowed land in some countries (US main one)
Boris didn't put this on the Bus....
Yep! Its all part of living in an alternate reality.
But when Davis shoots himself in the foot he is sure it will hurt the EU more than it hurts him. Just like the extra billion € divided by 27 is going to hurt them more than the 13 billion € will hurt us even if we manage to find 2 or more other countries to share the pain.
So you say. I voted leave, and I didn't delude myself for one moment that there would be difficulties, costs, and problems, so this doesn't change my view.
The only pity is the spineless and incompetent tossers we have "negotiating" on our side. There's levers to pull to put pressure on the EU, but the bumbling cowards of Westminster appear to be unwilling to use them, or ignorant of them. If the members of the cabinet were on fire, I'd certainly piss on them, but only after making sure they were sufficiently well alight that they'd keep going.
Speak for yourself. I have seen a number of people angry that they were conned into voting leave when they wanted to see more money for the NHS. Then of course you have others that voted for the sunlit uplands and the 'easiest trade deals in history' that the likes of Davis and Fox have been continually promising until they collectively tried to rewrite history and claim that nobody said it would be easy.
The problem for them is that they did. Repeatedly. And the wonderful thing is that their words aren't readily forgotten, especially when we have the internet and archived articles to go back to.
How many people were conned by all those promises and fake fear regarding Turkey I wonder? Less than 4% of the leave vote? Because that's all it would have taken to change the outcome.
"The wonderful thing is that their words aren't readily forgotten, especially when we have the internet and archived articles to go back to."
Until about ten years ago that wasn't the case, in terms of how many people knew how to find that information and also because "reputation management companies" were starting to bury it.
Thankfully the search engines have developed a resistance to that kind of manipulation, just as they developed resistances to other forms of manipulation.
Politicians (and most civil servants) haven't caught on yet that they can't rely on whatever they said being forgotten 6 weeks later. Everyone is a journalist now and everyone is able to pull up archived data rather than just a few determined loonies.
> Politicians (and most civil servants) haven't caught on yet that they can't rely on whatever they said being forgotten 6 weeks later. Everyone is a journalist now and everyone is able to pull up archived data rather than just a few determined loonies.
A while ago I recall that the Tories deleted their entire archive of speeches off their site, going so far as to get the Internet Archive to delete their versions. However, they forgot that the British Library also has its own (UK-only) version of the Internet Archive - which I pointed out to the Graun journos at the time.
There's levers to pull to put pressure on the EU,
And what are those? Curious minds want to know.
What exactly is the lever an economy whose only "unique product" are snake oil financial machinations can apply to the most diverse and presently largest common market?
Shall we threaten them with a lever involving car production? Agriculture? Aviation industry? Chemical industry? Plastics industry? Textiles? Biotech?
Short of threatening to nuke simultaneously Brussels and Strasbourg I do not see exactly what UK can use a lever.
Short of threatening to nuke simultaneously Brussels and Strasbourg I do not see exactly what UK can use a lever.
Given how unpopular the regular migration from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again is, we only have to threaten to nuke one of these cities to gain considerable support from the other,..
I would really appreciate some responses to this, positive or negative.
As someone who has lived out of the UK, the UK does seem to have a very self-centred view of how good it is in industry.
The main unique industries I see in the UK are Rolls-Royce for jet engines, bespoke high end car makers like Jaguar LandRover, Aston Martin. And Formula One.
Yup, I acknowledge that the bespoke car makers are foreign owned, but they still operate in the UK.
We also have world renowned universities and research centres.
But for other industries? Mass car manufacturing is an assembly job which can be moved to any country. Computer manufacturing has been gutted, with Silicon Glen in Scotland being a shadow of its former self.
>Computer manufacturing has been gutted, with Silicon Glen in Scotland being a shadow of its former self.
Even at it's height, Silicon Glen was a shadow of the M3/M4 tech corridors... But I suspect that even now it is bigger than Silicon roundabout...
PS. I'm not knocking Silicon Glen and the efforts made to establish it, just that the UK government's track record in successfully investing in the UK isn't that good...
According to the OEC, the UK is the 10th largest exporter in the World, but only 21st by population. I'd say that the UK is "punching above its weight".
The UK not only exports to the EU, but imports as well. Ultimately, if Brussels wants to risk losing a huge amount of jobs and commerce within the EU (by ceasing trading with the UK), then that's not going to make them very many friends is it?
How do you think the Spanish (who have a huge market growing fruit/vegetable produce for the UK) are going to react when those business close because Brussels screwed up negotiations? Spain is a basket case already - putting thousands of Spaniards out of work just to be bloody minded to the UK will be disastrous for the [Spanish] economy.
The German auto industry is already lobbying Merkel to get a good deal - they don't want to lose the UK market (especially as Trump has just imposed large import tariffs on them).
The UK's trading relationship with the rest of the EU is not a one-way street. So, yes, there is a lever.
>The German auto industry is already lobbying Merkel to get a good deal - they don't want to lose the UK market (especially as Trump has just imposed large import tariffs on them).
The Chinese market for German cars is increasing faster than the UK market for new cars is decreasing. Volkswagen will sell roughly 2x as many cars in China in 2018 as the UK will register new cars in the same year. Now,the UK market might be important, but less so on a global scale, About 40% of new car Volkswagen sales are now in China.
"According to the OEC, the UK is the 10th largest exporter in the World, but only 21st by population. I'd say that the UK is "punching above its weight"."
Quoting a number or two in isolation may seem to bolster a flawed argument, but is close to meaningless.
If we look at a list of per capita exports, the metric you chose to use, we find the following countries AHEAD of the UK, with the first twenty-five producing double the UK value for per capita exports:
San Marino, Lichenstein, Singapore, Hong Kong, Qatar, Switzerland, UAE, Kuwait, Norway, Netherlands, Brunei, Luxembourg, Belgium, Iceland, Monaco, Equatorial Guinea, Sweden, Denmark, Puerto Rico, Germany, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Oman, Bahrain, Slovakia, Finland, Saudi Arabia, Aruba, Slovenia, Canada, Taiwan, Czech Republic, Australia, South Korea, Estonia, Malta, Trinidad and Tobago, Lithuania, Hungary, France, New Zealand, Libya. Israel, Italy, Malaysia, American Samoa
Then comes the United Kingdom in 47th spot, just ahead of Greenland, Spain, and Gabon.
Other versions of the list were similar, with the UK hovering just above 50th in the world by this measure. They might just squeak into the top quartile if you can get enough remote Pacific micro-nations on the list.
I expect that the UK 'punching above its weight' in economic terms is yet another of their local cultural memes that is not supported in the real world.
The only pity is the spineless and incompetent tossers we have "negotiating" on our side.
These incompetent tossers are some of those who advocated leaving in the first place. If you think they're incompetent why did you take their advice when you voted? If you think you or anyone else could do better remember beggars can't be choosers and we (or at least you) are the supplicants in this.
Not at all. This is the great misconception in Blighty,; It's the EU that needs a deal.
I personally would stare the EU out on Brexit. To take a simple example, France can't afford to take back its citizens as they already have a dire unemployment situation particularly with the millennials. Would you believe that at he "pole emploi" (French of where you sign up for the dole) actively encourages the unemployed to go to the UK.
As for NI, I'm totally in favour of no border and telling the EU to propose a solution. Instead these UK negotiators are doing the job of solving EU issues. For the UK a no-border is obligatory for all the good reasons, if the EU doesn't like it then they should dream up some sort of solution.
The EU specialises in dreaming up solutions. Did you know that according to the EU (suggested by the French, could it have been anybody else) snails are classed as fish! Hows that for thinking out of the box!
I suspect the response to the UK telling the EU to come up with a solution to the Irish border problem would be along the lines of "It was your referendum, your decision to leave and your decision to start the clock ticking before you had even the first idea of what you wanted beyond 'Brexit means Brexit.' We've been clear from the start about what the EU will and won't accept so bugger off and clean up your own fucking mess. And in the meantime, we hope you have enough parking space for all those lorries while they wait for their customs inspections."
"...German cars..."
Well, I see two possible scenarios:
- Soft Brexit: Things keep going as usual regarding tariffs and imports, with the -non trivial- difference that the UK has no saying in the EU laws and normatives. Germans continue selling cars to the UK.
- Hard Brexit: By itself, it guarantees that a good part of the UK economy vanishes or migrates to some EU country, together with most of the well off UK citizens and residents that can buy German cars.
So... you'll have to look for a different lever.
I am disgusted that we haven't started building the Irish border yet, or the new customs systems. I originally wrote "astonished", but then I remembered this is politicians we're talking about.
When we handed in our notice, we had 2 years till we exit the EU. We knew that. We knew that a deal might not happen, and we might have a hard no-deal Brexit. So we should have had plans in place, and started implementing it where needed, so we were ready - e.g. Irish border, new customs systems, recruiting customs & immigration people, etc. If a deal happens, then when it's signed and ratified by everyone _then_ we could cancel / change those projects.
Now we have no plans and cannot possibly be ready for a hard no-deal Brexit, it would be an absolute disaster for us. The rest of Europe doesn't care, it's mostly not their problem. This means Europe has a great negotiating position, and we have a really weak one. It also means if European politicians decide not to deal for their own home-country political reasons, we're screwed.
And yes, I know that building a hard border in Northern Ireland would piss off the Irish (ex?-)terrorists, but one of the major planks of Brexit was ending free movement of people between the UK and EU so of course that means a hard border between Northern Ireland and ROI.
@ Fruit and Nutcase
"What if the UK were to LEASE Northern Ireland to the Republic for say 99 years"
Not sure that would work. The current NI gov want out of the EU. Also I am not sure you could make such a deal with the republic since the EU speaks for the republic so the deal would have to be with the EU. And since the EU has barely moved from another existential crisis (Italy) there would have to be a clause for if/when the EU dissolved intentionally or crashed out disorganised.
>Not sure that would work. The current NI gov want out of the EU.
There is no current NI government. The power sharing arrangement collapsed (last year?) after the Cash for Ash scandal. But if/when it reassembles it will probably be against Brexit as the majority of the parties were and - only the DUP was heavily pro-Brexit and they do not have the majority of seats - The DUP have 27, the same as Sinn Fein, but less than Sinn Fein (27), the SDLP (12 seats) and the Alliance Party (8 seats) combined who are against Brexit. That discounts the UUP (10 seats), who were Remain, but support the referendum result and the minor parties.
I suspect the response to the UK telling the EU to come up with a solution to the Irish border problem would be along the lines of "It was your referendum, your decision to leave and your decision to start the clock ticking before you had even the first idea of what you wanted beyond 'Brexit means Brexit.'
I think you'll find that we could quite easily state the solution is "keep the border open as is" if we felt like it. It's their rules that say that cannot happen, not ours. Therefore they need to come up with a solution, we've already got one.
"Did you know that according to the EU (suggested by the French, could it have been anybody else) snails are classed as fish! Hows that for thinking out of the box!"
I'm sure scallops, shrimp, crabs and prawns are also classified as fish. Zoologically they're not. In culinary terms they're shellfish, of course. I believe that in some English restaurants snails are referred to as "wallfish" - and why not, we couldn't use some foreign word like "escargot" could we?
"France can't afford to take back its citizens"
And the UK can afford to take back it's citizens (many of whom are retirees)?
"Would you believe that at he "pole emploi" [...] actively encourages the unemployed to go to the UK."
No, I wouldn't. And given the reputation that the UK is getting regarding how foreigners are treated, the "advice" (if any is given) is likely to be the opposite. Crack open a copy of Ouest-France once in a while or watch the téléjournal.
"For the UK a no-border is obligatory"
For the EU, a barrier between the EU and the non EU is also obligatory, not to mention the lack of any sort of border would make it an easy place for all this uncontrolled immigration that people fear so much. So in essence it's two opposing immovable points of view and since it's the UK who had the brilliant idea of Brexit, it has to be their responsibility to come up with solutions rather than passing the buck and passing the blame like they've been doing for decades.
> For the EU, a barrier between the EU and the non EU is also obligatory
That would make the RoI/NI border an EU issue then, not a UK one. The EU really is playing RoI like fiddle here. RoI really has to choose between the EU and the Good Friday agreement.
Of course, the DUP are the biggest fools here. They're refusing to allow NI to potentially become very prosperous due to a fear of non-existent papists.
@ Doctor Syntax
"And negotiations between the EU and the UK make it a UK one."
The UK doesnt want one so somehow its the UK's problem. Thats just dumb. The EU wants one so its the UK's problem. I am sorry but I thought you were better than that. No just no for every weak argument and mental gymnastics effort to claim this is our problem that is the worst.
That would make the RoI/NI border an EU issue then
The RoI/NI border is an RoI/NI problem, hence and RoI/UK problem. The UK has decided to leave the EU, and they knew that there is an external border to the EU which is controlled. The UK was a party to the Good Friday agreement, and is now reneging on it's commitments in that by leaving the EU (and EEA/EFTA etc) and forcing there to be an external EU border between RoI and NI, so it's the UK's responsibility to find a way to resolve this.
The EU didn't kick us out, we chose to leave, and must accept all the consequences of that.
@ Dr. Mouse
"The UK was a party to the Good Friday agreement, and is now reneging on it's commitments in that by leaving the EU"
I might be wrong but doesnt the Good Friday Agreement mention the EU's existence in passing? If the EU wants to break the agreement that is up to them but leaving the EU is not breaking the agreement.
"and forcing there to be an external EU border between RoI and NI"
And that is the EU's problem. Ireland doesnt want a border. UK doesnt want a border. If the EU wants one they can do it. Not our problem.
"Secondly, if there is no hard border between NI and RoI, there is no hard border between UK and EU (as there is no hard border between RoI and EU, and none between NI and the rest of the UK). Isn't that one of the main things which leavers wanted?"
Are you telling us what we wanted or interpreting the worst you can think of or what?
Btw can you use a single comment to reply instead of multiple for the same thread. It wouldnt be fair for us to spam the boards.
@codejunky
So in your scenario we are better off after a few years. And then you ask how that is good for anyone? I think I will refer you to what you just said and hey presto we are better off out.
No, in my scenario we are worse off for AT LEAST a few years. If this has affected our growth during this time, which it will, then the repercussions last at least until our growth offsets the reduction in growth over those few years. Any improvements after that, which I again stress may or may not happen, are playing catch up. If the improvements you predict don't happen (or take even longer to happen), we are worse off for even longer.
"and forcing there to be an external EU border between RoI and NI"And that is the EU's problem. Ireland doesnt want a border. UK doesnt want a border. If the EU wants one they can do it. Not our problem.
Ireland wants to remain a part of the EU, and the EU has rules to control it's external border. This has never been an issue, because the UK was part of the EU. However, now the UK want's to leave the EU, so the external border becomes one between NI and RoI. How is it not our problem? We are causing it! The EU doesn't want a border between the UK and the rest of the EU, but we are insisting on it and then saying "Except that bit, we don't want one there, we never meant that bit" (a common theme throughout Brexit negotiation so far).
Are you telling us what we wanted or interpreting the worst you can think of or what?
I'm not telling you what you think, nor interpretting the worst I can. I am following a logical path:
- A main part of the campaign to leave was removing freedom of movement.
- Freedom of movement exists between NI and the rest of the UK.
- Freedom of movement exists between RoI and the rest of the EU.
- Therefore if freedom of movement exists between RoI and NI, it exists between UK and EU.
Btw can you use a single comment to reply instead of multiple for the same thread. It wouldnt be fair for us to spam the boards.
I was replying to individual comments, of which there are a lot. You could have done the same, but decided to reply to each of the comments I made separately...
@ Dr. Mouse
"If this has affected our growth during this time, which it will, then the repercussions last at least until our growth offsets the reduction in growth over those few years."
Even the pessimistic views showed continued growth. They had reduced growth than if we remained but there were pessimistic outlooks by remain.
"Ireland wants to remain a part of the EU, and the EU has rules to control it's external border."
So by that statement it is not ROI nor UK that is the problem. I dont care if you want to blame Ireland or the EU but it isnt our problem. We aint arguing for a border, we are arguing against.
"The EU doesn't want a border between the UK and the rest of the EU"
If that was even half true the EU wouldnt be insisting on a border. You counter your own claims by claiming the EU doesnt want a border because the UK doesnt want one yet some idiot is arguing for one. It aint us.
"- A main part of the campaign to leave was removing freedom of movement.
- Freedom of movement exists between NI and the rest of the UK.
- Freedom of movement exists between RoI and the rest of the EU.
- Therefore if freedom of movement exists between RoI and NI, it exists between UK and EU."
Controlling our own borders is different to freedom of movement (restricted for the 'approved' countries of the EU). Agreeing to a slightly different agreement for Ireland is pretty easy. Our negotiators have already suggested options, the EU is being stupid and your defending them.
"I was replying to individual comments, of which there are a lot."
I get that no worries. I try to consolidate into single comments (per commenter) only because some moaning gits complain I post so many comments.
No you RW (Recall Wrong) - they are classified as shellfish because they are molluscs. The only references you will find to them being 'fish for quotas' is in an article by Boris Johnson replayed in a 'friend of a friend of a man I met in the pub told me so it must be true' manner by UKIP and a few other random right wing parties. And if it were true - how would that work? 'Blooming Spanish coming over here with their industrial lettuce leaves hoovering up snails that rightfully belong in my garden'?
"I personally would stare the EU out on Brexit"
Yep, just what happened with the Galileo project, and the EU said "fine, we'll take the hit and move on"
But, by all means, keep doing it again and again and again, it couldn't possibly have the same result again and again and again, could it?
". Did you know that according to the EU (suggested by the French, could it have been anybody else) snails are classed as fish! Hows that for thinking out of the box!"
Uh. no.
The EU should think up a solution to a problem specific to the UK that we have created? Really.
And no, the French unemployed are not actively encouraged to go to the UK. Stop repeating silly myths the leave loons dream up.
So you are one of the sheep who swallowed Boris's japey anti EU stories live? Snails are molluscs, clams are molluscs, so in a hierarchical categorisation of foods you would put snails, as molluscs, under the category 'shellfish'. In another amazing story, it turns out that large hair animals that defacate in woods are classed as mammals! Crazy European linguistic pedants!
Downvote for talking shit. And I've been to manpower (pole emploi) recently, and it most certainly was not encouraged to do anything but take some local courses to better align my professional qualifications with the market here.
I think if France was forced to take back their citizens, they'd get back younger well educated professionals who have the get up and go to go chase their dream abroad, and in return Blighty would get back all the dodgy expat fly by night builders, shysters, retired people and other people who've been living there for years but not bothered to register themselves correctly. Pretty sure I know how those checks and balances would account out financially.
There are a lot of expat Brits abroad already feeling pretty let down by the inaction and abandonment by the UK but hey, we're used to our country of origin wiping its feet on us at every chance and throwing spanners in the works where they can (and I KNOW the issues and mechanisms I am thinking of here from long term experience) without being one last use to leavers as some bargaining chip to be deployed, after all, if it goes wrong they were dirty ex-patriots (think about even that name for a bit) anyway right?
As for NI, I'm totally in favour of no border and telling the EU to propose a solution. Instead these UK negotiators are doing the job of solving EU issues. For the UK a no-border is obligatory for all the good reasons, if the EU doesn't like it then they should dream up some sort of solution.
Firstly, one of the main themes of the Leave campaign was control of our borders. So, having "no border" between NI violates that. It would also allow free movement of people from the EU to the UK, as there would be no border between the EU and Eire, none between Eire and NI, and none between NI and UK.
Secondly, do there already is a border, and will continue to be a border, no matter what happens. It's all about how "hard" that border is: It's currently virtually non-existent for all practical purposes.
Thirdly, we don't have autonomous control over our border with another country: They have a say too. While ever Ireland is in the EU, the EU has a say. They are not going to let people and goods flow freely from a third country with different standards into an EU country (from which they can flow freely to the rest of the EU). Nor are they going to compromise their security by allowing people to move freely (as mentioned in the first point, it would effectively allow free movement from UK->NI->Ireland->EU).
Finally, on to your point about the French unemployed, this will end anyway. Ending free movement is one of the govt's red lines. Unless we back down from that one (e.g. remain within the EEA/EFTA) that's not even on the table.
I still don't understand why people think the EU needs a deal more than the UK does. We are a small country. We may punch above our weight, but we are still tiny compared to the EU. In terms of the value of trade as a proportion of the total value of the economy (or per head of population), we need a deal far more than they do. We will suffer far more damage than the EU without a deal, and we don't have any serious other deals on the table yet. Even those in the pipeline have shown that other countries are quite willing to press for very good terms in their favour as they know how much we need to have sone form of trade deal.
@ Dr. Mouse
"Firstly, one of the main themes of the Leave campaign was control of our borders. So, having "no border" between NI violates that."
I dont understand how people can get this simple concept so wrong. Control of our borders means our own choice over the border. If we dont want one that is 100% consistent with control as is anything else as long as we decide.
"It's all about how "hard" that border is"
Aka the EU's problem. Ireland (both sides) dont want a border. The UK wants frictionless trade so doesnt want a border. Oh wow thats simple then. Its the EU's problem if they want a border.
"Firstly, one of the main themes of the Leave campaign was control of our borders. So, having "no border" between NI violates that."I dont understand how people can get this simple concept so wrong. Control of our borders means our own choice over the border.
For one, we don't have a border with Ireland (when we leave). We have a border with the EU (as the trading block maintains it's external border as one). If you would like to have no border with the EU, we can always remain inside the EEA/EFTA/EU...
Secondly, if there is no hard border between NI and RoI, there is no hard border between UK and EU (as there is no hard border between RoI and EU, and none between NI and the rest of the UK). Isn't that one of the main things which leavers wanted?
Dammit man there you go again with your facts and your carefully thought out chain of logical arguments.
But Brexitieers are "Taking Back Control." (C Linton Kwesi Crosby 2017)
That's what Boris told them in the debate (repeatedly).
So it must be true.
You can do what you want at your own border, and the person on the other side can do what they want to. So you can have no checks at Dover - the French can check every entering lorry in a process that takes 24 hours per truck. Good luck with that. Think of a fence between two gardens. You may not have built it, you might not want it, but if your neighbour put it up on their land you are still going to get a sore nose if you try and walk through it.
Though actually in your no-deal-WTO nirvana, you can't discriminate between countries. So if you want WTO trade terms, free movement from Ireland means free movement from Botswana, in trade terms.
* I personally would stare the EU out on Brexit *
Go for it. Leaving has fucked-over half the country. Leavers fucking themselves over will at least give remoaners something to smile about.
I think it is brilliant what the UK has done - best thing ever(tm) which could happen for the EU.
> There's levers to pull to put pressure on the EU, but the bumbling cowards of Westminster appear to be unwilling to use them, or ignorant of them
Ah yes - those mythical levers to pull, and the magical negotiating positions that would actually secure full access to the Rainbows and Unicorns. A poor outcome for Brexit won't be because it is a hiding to nothing, but entirely because it has been subverted and undermined by the resentful or incompetent.
Unfortunately, like every single Brexit supporting observation here and elsewhere, there is absolutely no attempt to outline what these levers and negotiating strategies are, and any request for details is met with incredulity that someone might seek to undermine the great message by having the temerity to ask what it actually is.
Go on - give it a try - something concrete - you know you want to.
"The only pity is the spineless and incompetent tossers we have "negotiating" on our side. "
As you voted leave, you're responsible for these folk negotiating for the UK. Who did you expect to handle the negotiations on behalf of Parliament and the government?
It also strikes me that any difficulties negotiating with "Brexit means Brexit" EU folk are going to be overshadowed completely by negotiating with the "America First" US president. Or "India First" Indian prime minister. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
The only pity is the spineless and incompetent tossers we have "negotiating" on our side.
I have written here many times BEFORE the referendum that you will not get to pick and choose, nor negotiate anything ... why ? The EU does not need the UK, the UK needs the EU!
There is no such thing as a negotiation, there are treaties and laws in place, the EU has said AGAIN, AGAIN, AND AGAIN, that British government is living in fantasy land, the UK has ABSOLUTELY NO LEG TO STAND ON, the EU will not make a special deal with the UK, it has already taken over our financial sector (cf passporting rights have been denied, so is already happening as I type), it will take our aircraft industry, or what is left of it, elsewhere, I heard Spain were eager ... we shall see ...
[...]
UK: We do not want single market.
EU: Thank you so much for your financial sector, that was quite a treat!
UK: You're welcome, BTW, we want no customs union, either!
EU: Well, tough, that ... now, where's your industry, please ? Thanks!
I had already outlined this time and time again prior to the vote and the leavers were all "You do not know what you are talking about, we'll make a deal!!"
I appear to have been right all along, for once :D
PS: I was disenfranchised so could not vote ... if that matters ...
@ Adelio
"When you have one (smallish) country negoiating against 27 who did you think were going to wun?"
That is a very 'zero sum' view of negotiating. It is also a very unproductive way of looking at negotiation which is pretty harmful. Unfortunately it does seem the negotiations may be being carried out that way.
The bottom line is simple, to leave the EU we stop participating. That means no money, freedom to do as we please regarding borders (think Ireland) and no need to abide by the EU rules/regs/whatnots. And of course the EU stops its things with the UK (galileo for example). Who wins in that situation?
Surely the situation would be improved where the UK gets a trade deal and the EU gets contributions to its funding. We dont want a border in Ireland but if the EU has the will to make one then who benefits? Surely it would be better for both sides to come to an arrangement. Surely both sides would benefit from a deal on security for sharing some information.
I am a leave voter and I see a hard brexit as a positive for the UK in the long run. But that doesnt mean it couldnt be a hell of a lot better and I would think it a good thing to try and improve on it. But if the EU is unwilling or want to play a zero sum game then I am happy with hard brexit. I am more irritated by May insisting negotiation must continue when the EU refuses to negotiate and the constant attempts to hobble brexit while whining brexit isnt going well.
@ Bogle
"As others have already commented (a few times) this is less of a negotiation than an implementaion of the existing rules. Many of which, including the ones now excluding the UK from Galileo, were written by the UK."
I have also said meh I dont care if we are 'kicked out' of Galileo. But I responded to a comment which seemed to think negotiation was about one side wining and one losing. I was pointing out mutual gain is surely better. An unpopular view maybe in tribal warfare but in civilisation often the outcome we all want.
I was pointing out mutual gain is surely better.
You forget that EU members, rightly or wrongly, believe they benefit greatly from EU membership. Giving a good deal to the UK could quite easily cause other members to re-evalute that belief and seek a similar deal, which would hurt the remaining members. It could lead to the collapse of the EU, with pain to all involved.
Also remember that any new deal must be ratified by ALL the remaining member countries. Therefore, if even one believes that the deal will hurt them, they can stop it. The only way to be sure of a deal is for it to look profitable to all countries in the EU.
So while, viewed simplistically, a deal could be done which is beneficial to both the EU and the UK (compared to no deal), it would also need to be seen as significantly less beneficial than EU membership to discourage others from leaving AND would need to benefit (or at least not harm) each individual member country of the EU... Which all starts to sound a lot more difficult than just "mutual gain".
@ Dr. Mouse
"Giving a good deal to the UK could quite easily cause other members to re-evalute"
Probably. The EU is in again existential crisis while being in multiple self inflicted crises and one of their net contributors and while small punches above its weight in the world members is choosing to leave. And I expect you are right (and I believe it too) that the EU is in fear for its survival in these negotiations. We are in fear of a bad deal (trapped in the EU) and a hard brexit would be a step up.
"Also remember that any new deal must be ratified by ALL the remaining member countries."
This problem is one of the reasons the EU doesnt work. Personally I think it needs to federalise or revert to the common market. As it is the EU seems incapable of a rational or competent decision as it requires too many decision makers and a unanimous decision. The good news for leave is that the EU failing to make a deal gives us a hard brexit even if it would be better for both sides if the EU was more capable.
"it would also need to be seen as significantly less beneficial than EU membership to discourage others from leaving "
The mutual gain bit is easy, we both gain from mutual cooperation. But it would be down to EU spin to make the UK's position outside the EU worse than being in, regardless of any deal. I am not really a fan of the 'who has the better hand' arguments as it is often used with zero sum prospects in mind. But simply the EU has nothing on us. They cannot stop us leaving and they already recognise being out would give us a competitive advantage.
The good news for leave is that the EU failing to make a deal gives us a hard brexit
I don't understand how anyone can think this is a good thing. In the short term AT LEAST this is likely to be damaging to the UK: We would leave with no trade deals with RoW, isolated on WTO terms. All the external deals we already have are through the EU, so they would cease, and negotiating new ones would not happen over night (they typically take years). So at least the first few years would kill our export market.
Then you get the fact that the rest of the world can see this and knows how desperate we will be to form new agreements, and they will take liberties with terms. We have already seen this with, for example, India: They would want vastly increased numbers of visas for their people to come to the UK for any trade deal. America have shown that they won't allow trade deals which would rule out their inferior food markets, and would want a serious slice of our NHS pie. The same goes for everyone else: They would be like vultures circling.
Then there's all the other bits of the EU (or satelite organisation) which are currently vital to the countries operation, like Euratom. Setting up our own versions of these will not happen overnight, nor will they be internationally recognised overnight.
Hard Brexit is likely to damage us severely in the first few years, and any improvements (which may or may not happen) will start to build after that. How is that good for anyone?
@ Dr. Mouse
"In the short term AT LEAST this is likely to be damaging to the UK"
The argument that leave is bad in the short term wipes out any arguments that remain is for the next generations. A short adjustment while being a positive for the country is a good thing, and better than a massive destructive and prolonged damage to the UK later.
"Then you get the fact that the rest of the world can see this and knows how desperate we will be to form new agreements, and they will take liberties with terms."
Fear the foreigner? Instead of being boned by the EU you fear we may get boned by foreigners? All those mean people out there. Why so desperate? I dont think we will be so why do you think we will be?
"America have shown that they won't allow trade deals which would rule out their inferior food markets"
Oh no the poisonous US chicken? The one approved as safe by the European food standards? We are doomed.
"Setting up our own versions of these will not happen overnight, nor will they be internationally recognised overnight."
Oh no. How will we function without the EU. The EU only existing for 25 years and so far being a joke. As you have probably gathered at no point so far am I worried or concerned or breaking a sweat.
"Hard Brexit is likely to damage us severely in the first few years, and any improvements (which may or may not happen) will start to build after that. How is that good for anyone?"
So in your scenario we are better off after a few years. And then you ask how that is good for anyone? I think I will refer you to what you just said and hey presto we are better off out.
@ Bogle
"This ain't a negotiation. It was never going to be a negotiation, and it certainly isn't going to be one however much you cry foul."
I think you have me confused with someone else. I am not crying foul. I am quite happy with no negotiation if the end is nothing less than a hard brexit.
"That is a very 'zero sum' view of negotiating. It is also a very unproductive way of looking at negotiation which is pretty harmful. Unfortunately it does seem the negotiations may be being carried out that way."
In other words, it's the reality. We've always said that. You didn't believe it. You can see it happening. You still don't believe it. Why?
"freedom to do as we please regarding borders (think Ireland)"
Indeed, think Ireland. Think also of a separate but associated matter: the Good Friday Agreement. And if you wish to wind back to pre-Common Market/EU days you then need to reconstruct the previous arrangement which allowed free movement of citizens between Ireland and the UK.
@ Doctor Syntax
"In other words, it's the reality. We've always said that. You didn't believe it. You can see it happening. You still don't believe it. Why?"
Why do you think I dont believe it? I identified it seems to be the way the negotiations are being conducted. And as I point out it is unproductive. I have commented on it plenty with the EU 'demands' and people not seeming to realise that hard brexit can be conducted without the EU's permission and is a positive step. A negotiated mutually beneficial trade deal would be better but we cant force the EU to be constructive.
"Indeed, think Ireland."
I have. And the answer is its the EU's problem. Ireland (both parts) dont want a border. The UK doesnt want a border. So its the EU's problem if they do.
"I identified it seems to be the way the negotiations are being conducted. And as I point out it is unproductive."
If you recognised the reality that negotiations would be unproductive why did you support Leave?
"The UK doesnt want a border. So its the EU's problem if they do."
The UK's position is that it doesn't want to be in the EU. That means that there will be a border between the UK and the EU because that's what borders are: demarcations between one political entity and another. The RoI is part of the EU. So inevitably there will be a border between the RoI and the UK. NI is in the UK so that means that the border is between the RoI and NI. But the UK has commitments arising out of the Good Friday Agreement. Resolving the nature of the border that must necessarily exist between the UK and EU arising from Brexit and those commitments is inescapably a problem for the UK; it may be a problem for others but it isn't one that the UK can duck.
@ Doctor Syntax
"If you recognised the reality that negotiations would be unproductive why did you support Leave?"
Read my comment ffs. Hard brexit is a positive in my opinion and requires no agreement nor consent from the EU, it is ours to have. If the EU was willing to have constructive negotiation then we could both benefit but if not we still get brexit. I supported leave because I believe it the right thing to do. At what point is that complicated for you?
"That means that there will be a border between the UK and the EU because that's what borders are: demarcations between one political entity and another."
Ohhh. So no hard border just a line on the map? Nothing to be a problem then, thats solved. Why is the EU crying about it then?
"I have. And the answer is its the EU's problem. Ireland (both parts) dont want a border. The UK doesnt want a border. So its the EU's problem if they do."
Not correct. At least if you want a peaceful NI in the UK.
IF the sectarian conflict recurs, it will be mostly fought in NI and the rest of the UK. That makes the border the UK's problem, no matter who puts it in. SI won't like it either, but they are less likely to have bombs going off in their cities.
I imagine the UK doesn't want to lose NI, either... and forcing NI and SI to become unitary I will not necessarily end the violence, just whose police get shot at in the former NI... and that still might not stop bombing in the rest of the UK by those who want to free NI from I.
@AC
"IF the sectarian conflict recurs, it will be mostly fought in NI and the rest of the UK. That makes the border the UK's problem, no matter who puts it in."
Hang on, are you calling the Irish idiots? As I keep pointing out we dont want a border and the Irish dont but the EU does. So if the EU makes a border you think the Irish are too stupid to realise it is not the UK who can change anything? I give them more credit than that.
> As I keep pointing out we dont want a border and the Irish dont but the EU does.
The fact that the EU (negotiators) are stating that a border would be required does not equate to the EU stating that they want a border.
In a distopian future, Portugal votes to leave the EU (just because). The UK government, only a few short years after rejoining the EU and encouraged by patriotically feverish headlines from The Mail and The Sun about keeping close ties with our dear, departing Portuguese friends, is immediately lobbying hard encouraging EU member states to make a special exception for Portugal to maintain an open border with Spain. This in support of the deep cultural links the two countries have and the importance of Portugal maintaining all its trading benefits with the EU even once Portugal is outside the EU.
Nobody really wants a border with Portugal and it would be churlish to create a disadvantage for Portugal just for leaving. So we change the EU rules to give Portugal a special status that no other country in the world has, and everyone can agree to that, can't they? After all, everyone got right behind the idea of making such special exceptions for the UK over Ireland.
(Subtitute 'border with Ireland' for 'participate fully in Galileo' to get back on topic.)
@ Rob D.
"The fact that the EU (negotiators) are stating that a border would be required does not equate to the EU stating that they want a border."
That is a step closer than a lot of replies I get. A border has 2 sides. If the UK/NI doesnt want a border we dont make one. If the EU/ROI dont want one they dont make one. If instead of desperately clinging to something to negotiate about the EU agrees to effectively no border in Ireland then the problem is solved. The one wanting the border is the one demanding it, holding out for it, unwilling to not have one. It truly is that simple that the EU want a border and so it is their problem.
"So we change the EU rules to give Portugal a special status that no other country in the world has, and everyone can agree to that, can't they?"
Actually the EU can. They can choose not to and thats up to them but so be it. There is also the good friday agreement which our lack of desire for a border meets the criteria of the agreement (from my understanding of it) and imposing a border would be problematic. So if the EU wants a border it is the one imposing it and it would be the ROI going along with it who would be violating it (technically). Solutions have been proposed by the UK but the EU want a harder border so nuff said.
"(Subtitute 'border with Ireland' for 'participate fully in Galileo' to get back on topic.)"
Very different issues. As the EU's vanity project and technically theirs it is not our problem to build and pay for their toy for them to play with. I dont know if this is their level headed thought that brought this about or their temper tantrum (similar to the TLD tantrum). But I dont really care nor do I want to be represented by such a childish political entity. Hell they are in trade war with the US after pointing out it is protectionism and bad to do!
@codejunky
"Solutions have been proposed by the UK but the EU want a harder border so nuff said."
The solutions I have seen so far have either been rejected by Hard Brexiteers or Loyalist parties in NI (e.g. NI remaining in CU, moving the border to between NI/RUK) or depend on coming up with some magical new technology/systems in a very short space of time. In short, there have been no realistic solutions put forward. I think we can be pretty sure that there are some clever people involved on all sides trying to come up with a solution, and none have been found (or at least publicised) which would be acceptable to all involved. It will be interesting to see whether any does emerge...
You also forget that the EU, just as the UK, wants to have control over it's borders. If there is an "open" border between RoI and NI, the EU lose that control (as, incidentally, does the UK). To maintain proper control of the border, they would need a harder border between RoI and the rest of the EU (as they would be dependant on whatever customs, migration controls and standards the UK chose to implement, not those of their own policies).
We keep arguing round in circles, and we're obviously not going to agree here. I cannot see how the Irish border is not a problem of the UK's making for the UK to solve, and I also can't see how you would disagree. I'm pretty sure the same can be said of you in reverse. None of your arguments have made sense to me, and if mine haven't made sense to you so far then there's little point continuing the argument.
@codejunky
Just one final point by way of an example.
Let us say that Wales wanted to establish a deal with, say, Canada. They wanted people and goods to move freely between Wales and Canada, with no border checks, and relying on "technological solutions" to ensure all standards were met. Canada wanted that, too, but only with Wales not the rest of the UK.
What do you think the UK government's response would be?
@ Dr. Mouse
"The solutions I have seen so far have either been rejected by Hard Brexiteers or Loyalist parties in NI"
Really? Like what? I know the negotiators made a number of suggestions and the EU rejected them then suggest they annex Ireland.
"or depend on coming up with some magical new technology/systems in a very short space of time."
Magic technology the EU is already considering implementing elsewhere in the EU.
"In short, there have been no realistic solutions put forward."
Since this is the EU's problem that is very disturbing. That would suggest that the EU, who's existence is predicated on being able to establish trade and improve relations in the world, is incapable of its task.
"We keep arguing round in circles, and we're obviously not going to agree here. I cannot see how the Irish border is not a problem of the UK's making for the UK to solve, and I also can't see how you would disagree."
You do seem to have identified the problem. How can the EU's border control be the UK's problem? Just as the EU has no say over UK controlled borders once we leave. So if our side decide no border that is it, our side implements no border. That doesnt dictate what the EU does but their border is their problem.
Interestingly apparently the smart people on both sides cant agree on what a hard border is-
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/when-is-a-hard-border-not-a-hard-border/
How can the EU's border control be the UK's problem?
We are asking them to create an exception to their rules which doesn't exist anywhere else, and providing no realistic way in which it could be implemented while still keeping control of their own borders, migration, standards etc, and not discriminating against the rest of their population (part of the treaties and rules in place). Do you really think that the other 26 countries (who all have to agree) would be happy with and accept that one particular country in the group gets to put special rules in place which disadvantage their own citizens?
I can say "I want a car which produces 300BHP, does 100mpg, and costs £10,000 new. The car dealer down the road wants one to sell to me, too." Is it the manufacturer's problem to try to build one? Is the manufacturer being difficult or unfair when he tells me it's impossible?
@ Dr. Mouse
"We are asking them to create an exception to their rules which doesn't exist anywhere else"
So the EU is incapable of trade deals? Unable to implement technology already in existence? Unable to continue with its usual ignoring of smuggling?-
"Of course, there is smuggling at present, since excise duties differ between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Since the existing smuggling has not necessitated customs infrastructure, a future with free-trade would also not need to do so."- https://briefingsforbrexit.com/where-are-we-on-the-irish-border/
"Do you really think that the other 26 countries (who all have to agree) would be happy with and accept that one particular country in the group gets to put special rules in place which disadvantage their own citizens?"
That must be the first time you have acknowledged (at least to my memory) that brexit is an advantage. And i would agree that Ireland in total would benefit from the protectionism and subsidy of the EU and the freedom from EU regulation of being out.
So the EU is incapable of trade deals?
Of course not. However, they take years to agree and it's what we are currently working towards. We are also asking for a form of freedom of movement between RoI and NI, but not the rest of Europe. That's a lot more than a trade deal.
"Do you really think that the other 26 countries (who all have to agree) would be happy with and accept that one particular country in the group gets to put special rules in place which disadvantage their own citizens?"That must be the first time you have acknowledged (at least to my memory) that brexit is an advantage.
No, actually I didn't. I was talking of the other 26 vs RoI. If RoI has a different deal to the rest of Europe, including free movement to the UK and free trade with the UK, how happy are the other 26 nations in the EU going to be about that discrimination against their companies and their citizens? Why should Irish citizens get a better deal, and Irish companies be able to undercut their prices?
The trading block trades and negotiates as a block. What is available to one is available to all. So, if we want free trade and free movement with Ireland while it remains a member of the EU, we would have to accept the same terms with the rest of the EU (unless they make a very big, very public exception to their rules AND convince all of the other 26 nations within the block to agree).
Remember, though, that the EU has already offered a solution to the Irish border problem which we can do while respecting the outcome of the referendum: Remain a member of the EEA/EFTA/Customs Union. We would still leave the EU, as stated on the ballot, but the Irish border problem would be solved (as would the matter of a free trade agreement, rights of EU nationals in the UK, rights of UK nationals in the EU, and pretty much every other stumbling block in the negotiations). That "we" reject the only solution available within the existing framework make's it our problem to find an solution acceptable to the 27 other nations in this negotiation.
@ Dr. Mouse
"However, they take years to agree and it's what we are currently working towards. We are also asking for a form of freedom of movement between RoI and NI, but not the rest of Europe. That's a lot more than a trade deal."
Not really. The EU had the middle east move through it on their way to Germany which was an actual crisis and increased pressure on other crisis in the process. An FTA with a country that already meets standards and requirements should be so simple the EU has nothing but a poor excuse not to be able to solve it quickly. As for a form of freedom of movement, they already have it and apparently smuggle already because of duties which the EU feels no need to tackle.
"If RoI has a different deal to the rest of Europe, including free movement to the UK and free trade with the UK, how happy are the other 26 nations in the EU going to be about that discrimination against their companies and their citizens? Why should Irish citizens get a better deal, and Irish companies be able to undercut their prices?"
That is an acknowledgement of the advantage of brexit. Its a better deal because they can deal with the UK free of the EU.
"So, if we want free trade and free movement with Ireland while it remains a member of the EU, we would have to accept the same terms with the rest of the EU"
Ok. Is anyone having any problem with that? N Ireland being in the UK but an FTA allowing both parts of Ireland to cooperate as they do now. Other members being able to travel to ROI and play hopscotch with the same border. The usual enforcements being made against criminals with intelligence of their actions but generally letting people live their lives.
"Remember, though, that the EU has already offered a solution to the Irish border problem which we can do while respecting the outcome of the referendum: Remain a member of the EEA/EFTA/Customs Union."
Well if the offers are so generous then the ROI can leave the EU and this isnt a problem. The UK is (will be on brexit) sovereign, the ROI less so (EU).
"That "we" reject the only solution available within the existing framework make's it our problem to find an solution acceptable to the 27 other nations in this negotiation."
Ha, balls and twaddle. As proven by my mirrored proposal that the ROI can leave the EU. So obviously not the only solution. More have been tabled, rejected by the EU and shockingly now back on the table now the EU is interested in solving it. There are options beyond the EU annexing Ireland or trapping the UK in the EU (in whatever name). The EU may not like them but they want a border, it is their problem not ours. We have already decided no border on our side.
It's obvious that we aren't going to agree, so I will just leave one final comment then stop looking back here:
If we are in the EU, there is no problem because there is effectively no border.
If we were both outside the EU, then there would be no problem because Ireland would be free to strike it's own deals.
However, Ireland wants to remain a member of the EU and, in doing so, accepts that such deals are handled by the EU and all members jointly. We want to leave the EU, and must accept that (through rules which we helped create) such deals are handled by the EU.
With Ireland in the EU, it is likely that it will be a matter of having the same border and trade arrangements between NI and RoI as exists between UK and the rest of the EU. How those border arrangements look will be a result of the trade negotiations.
@ Dr_N
"Don't Panic codejunky. Brexit means:no more brown folk."
I seriously hope you are wrong and dont get your version of brexit or I will lose a few friends. Especially if it includes removing people from all over the world. I assume you are trying to claim that the complete and recognised screw up Merkel made cannot be commented on without being racist? I hoped such SJW stupidity had gone the way of Blairs/Browns government.
Once again we can discuss borders as a sensible subject. Paying little heed to those who cannot grasp the subject
"Hang on, are you calling the Irish idiots? As I keep pointing out we dont want a border and the Irish dont but the EU does. So if the EU makes a border you think the Irish are too stupid to realise it is not the UK who can change anything? I give them more credit than that."
Of course the UK can fix things. All they have to do is align their regulations and standards with the EU, accept the ECJ and similar institutions as the 'final court', remain in the EEA, accept the four freedoms, pay its share for participation in EU projects, accept that logical regulations and policy may prohibit some activities (participation in EU defence fund and security related aspects of Galileo) and maybe one or two other little things I have missed.
It might be easier to stay in the EU.
The problem is that the UK is still asking for all the benefits of membership, plus extra privileges that EU members do not have, without the obligations. Until this fantasy goes away, solutions to some problems are unlikely - and no one but the UK can fix the fantasy.
@AC
"Of course the UK can fix things. All they have to do is align their regulations and standards with the EU"
So not leave the EU because the EU want an Irish border if we do? Thats pretty stupid. What other grovelling behaviour should we have to the EU? Your comment does prove however that the EU has taken away our sovereignty. Otherwise we would be free to be a sovereign country and the EU might be competent enough to make a trade deal at least over Ireland.
"The problem is that the UK is still asking for all the benefits of membership, plus extra privileges that EU members do not have, without the obligations"
Interestingly that is one of the remain arguments, to remain so we dont lose our extra privileges. I do point out they could vote for a party who will rejoin the EU but then we will have to accept the whole project with no opt outs. It doesnt seem popular amongst the remainers, yet they tell us the EU is good to be in.
@ strum
"And we'll be free to make our own trade deals - each of which will include its own set of rules/regs/whatnots, along with a dispute-settling mechanism that is out of our control."
Now thats just a lack of understanding. To trade does not require we apply those standards at home. Whatever we export must meet the importers regs. We do not have to apply those rules here. So no leaving the EU to trade with the world is not the same as trading in the EU and being shackled by their rules.
"The notion that we can decide the nature of a two-sided border is just another of the unicorns the Brexiteers are farming."
That is another lack of understanding. A 2 sided border has (gonna shock you) 2 sides. We decide we dont want a border, we dont make one. Not our problem. If the EU wants one they can make one. The UK doesnt want a border, the EU does, its their problem not ours. No matter how many unicorns the EU want.
@ H in The Hague
"Brilliant - now manufacturers potentially need even more, different standards to adhere to. That's going to make manufacturing so much more efficient."
Are you somehow claiming we dont trade with other countries outside the EU because we dont abide by all the various and conflicting rules for all the various countries? We do not need to apply the importing countries standards to our own country. If that was true then countries would not be able to trade.
@Codejunky re: "We do not need to apply the importing countries standards to our own country"
To some extent I agree with you that there has been some overstatement of the upcoming problems which are more to do with divergence and specifically two types of divergence:
1. Between product standards for UK customers and for Single Market customers.
2. Administration and logistics associated with imports/exports
Of the two, I'm more concerned about the added complexity of administration and logistics, because potentially UK exports to the Single Market will no longer go through the "Members Only" channel, likewise UK exports to the RoW will no longer go through the "Imports from the EU Single Market" channel...
Others will be concerned about product divergence, for example I can see T.May demanding security backdoors, whereas the Single Market demanding the absence of backdoors, likewise our exports to the RoW will (potentially) no longer be able to simply apply the standards agreed for products from the Single Market but will use the standards agreed individually with each country...
The devil is definitely going to be in the detail, which will in turn depend on just what gets agreed and with "Brexit meaning Brexit" we will probably only know whats been agreed at the last minute...
@ Roland6
That is a very well reasoned comment and I agree the EU will likely end up treated as any other country in the world. It would be nice if we could organise a trade deal of some sort and for them to accept a no border or practically no border option for Ireland but it doesnt seem like they are currently willing. But none of these issues are any different than trading with the world vs the EU currently.
If a business wants to export anywhere it must meet the standards of the importing country. That doesnt change in or out of the EU, but we wont have to have the EU's standards imposed on our country. People who do not export to the EU will not have to comply with the EU just as they dont need to comply with anyone else they dont export to.
"Are you somehow claiming we dont trade with other countries outside the EU because we dont abide by all the various and conflicting rules for all the various countries? We do not need to apply the importing countries standards to our own country. If that was true then countries would not be able to trade."
Reading a fair bit on standards over the years, it is my impression that many countries accept EU or US standards because they are quite high, particularly with respect to consumer safety, and because they trust the EU and US to enforce those standards. Since the EU and US are very large markets, people expect manufacturers to do their best to meet them, rather than lose access. At that point, goods can be accepted as 'very probably safe' without investing time and money in checks and testing.
@ strum
"Just another fugue from reality. No business can survive by producing goods to several different standards. An exporting business will now have to meet all relevant standards - not just CE."
I am not sure what you two are arguing. Is it the idea that nobody trades with each other because we all have different standards (except in the EU where we are all similarly restricted)? You do realise that exports must meet the importing countries standards not the exporters. The tighter our rules the less we can export because by the other countries standards they can make less restricted items.
To try and explain better. If the EU has rules limiting the power of the vacuum cleaner to a barely functional level and other countries can use ones that work that means the EU can probably export, if anyone wants a barely functional item. But the other countries could still export to the EU their less powerful models while at home having what they actually want.
"The UK doesnt want a border, the EU does, its their problem not ours."
Guess what happens when those "commie-pinko bureaucrats" in Brussels notice that the costs of maintaining a humongous border with the UK are not covered by the profits made through Commerce with the UK.
A soft border+hard Brexit would turn most of the UK's economy into smuggling operations, moving any goods into Europe. I don't think the EU will allow it, but even if they do (damn highly improbable thing imo), perhaps you should carefully consider the implications of most of your country's economy consisting of smuggling operations.
Imagine that instead of the UK it was Spain that had voted to leave the EU. Your country would do exactly what the rest of the EU countries are doing now to the UK and most people that in the Real World voted Brexit would probably be applauding with hands and ears!
I pray to the FSM that this shit doesn't happen in my country.
@ Mephistro
"A soft border+hard Brexit would turn most of the UK's economy into smuggling operations, moving any goods into Europe."
And what used to happen with the border? Smuggling. Hard to stop too since there isnt a land border but an artificial line. Interestingly since the EU have accepted the UK would have a competitive advantage for leaving I expect Ireland would be very prosperous for having the protectionist subsidy of the EU for being in and the freedom from EU bureaucracy being out. But you are right that the EU cannot have a protectionist bubble with a hole. Again their problem.
The UK would not be bothering to leave in the first place.
Since it's going to be a ballsachingly massive PITA.
So I think Davies pinning his faith on applying that argument to the EU downgrading UK access to "Guest" login status was wishful thinking at best.
Bit like every other part of the UK's Brexit "Negotiations"
What's the UK going to do? Threaten to Nuke Brussels?
Really?
What's the UK going to do? Threaten to Nuke Brussels?
Why would we want to? Galileo was a vanity project designed primarily to feather French pockets, and given that the EU (and UK) military are so weak there's no military justification. Most of the UK's military applications will run off GPS anyway because of the weapons being US made. The very selective uses for civilian precision location don't currently merit the cost and complexity of Galileo.
Which begs the question: why bother making such a song and dance about being denied access in the first place?
Because it is the harbinger of things to come. One of the biggest arguments May and Davis are waving about is that if Eu does not give UK what it wants it will suffer from reduced security cooperation.
Well this is the clearest demonstration on where can UK stuff its security cooperation and exactly how this house of cards will unfold from now on.
Which begs the question: why bother making such a song and dance about being denied access in the first place?
Here's the thing you apparently do not yet understand about politicians: there's a reason they do something and then there's the bullshit they feed you as an explanation of why they're doing it.
Being denied access to military-grade positioning is what they're telling you. The real reason is that the UK will no longer get juicy contracts to work on the thing. It turns out that if they tell you (and more importantly, the Europeans) that they're greedy fucks too stupid to realize the consequence of their actions and please give us special treatment to which we're not entitled then they'll get laughed at (and maybe even voted out come the next elections). They figured if they fobbed it off as a military thing (we have bigger and better weapons so you need to give us access so we can defend you) that might give them a foot in the door (BTW, we'll only defend you if we also get those juicy Galileo contracts).
I have no great love of the EU. It is, at its heart, an unelected civil-servant-ocracy (there's probably a word for that but I don't know it), so on principle I dislike it. It comes out with some good legislation and some bloody stupid legislation (harmonizing electrical supply voltages and electrical equipment to operate at that nominal harmonized voltage was fucking stupid).
However, having been a part of it for 45 years we are going to be worse off by leaving than by staying in (Galileo is the tip of a fucking big iceberg). This isn't going to end well. But I'm not very worried by it because I reckon I'll be dead before it gets really bad (I don't think it will take a long time to get really bad, that estimate is down to my life-expectancy).
"The real reason is that the UK will no longer get juicy contracts to work on the thing. "
Yup and that's due to rules that the UK rammed through on behalf of the USA to keep China out of Gallileo.
You're right about Gallileo contracts being the tip of the iceberg. A _LOT_ of contracts have been ripped up and that started with any potential/under negotiation ones being ripped up the morning after the referendum.
karma is such a bitch.
I'm starting to see why in Chinese the UK is referred to as America's "Running dog."
Y'know, the kind that even though it's been kicked a few times, starved and whacked over the head with an iron bar by its master, still comes up and rubs itself against them, hoping for some show of love and affection.
Truly a "special" relationship.
"why bother making such a song and dance about being denied access in the first place?"
For the same reason that tthe EU is collectively heaving a sigh of relief that Britain's no longer involved: We can't go leaking sensitive shit to the USA anymore and as such our usefulness is majorly limited.
What? You thought the special relationship was because they liked us? You should look up Thomas Jefferson's speech where he promised to destroy the UK as an economic power - something the USA effectively did with lend-lease as the coup-de-grace.
The EU stopped thinking about the USA as a close ally a while back. Threatening to blow Gallileo satellites out of orbit if they didn't shut down when the US demanded it underscored that point, as did the screaming temper tantrums that forced China out of the consortium and got the UK to force through the "No non-EU members" rule as a proxy troll to keep them out.
If you think those premature maser failures weren't industrial sabotage then you should think again.
something does not compute cowardly anon:
Assuming Brits voted for Brexit primarily to take their destiny into their own hands you can't with one and the same breath decry the EU's desire to be independent of the US when it comes to a vital tech like global navigation systems. More simply put: if Brexit is a matter of sovereignty then so is Galileo – to say that it is not is wilfully misleading.
And then you saying that sure it's all grand because the Brits can piggyback on the US system is dumb because that means moving from being an equal partner to a subordinate one. Why Brits should be happier living under Uncle Sam's shadow rather than standing shoulder-to-shoulder with their European neighbour is beyond me. As we have recently had confirmed the EU are a far more reliable political entity than the US.
"As we have recently had confirmed the EU are a far more reliable political entity than the US."
And thanks to these nuppits we in the UK have proved we aren't which is going to serve Fox & co really, really well when they try to negotiate all these wonderful trade deals.
What gets me is the continued failure of our politicians to grasp the idea that people on the continent can quite easily read our papers too and can see how the likes of Johnson, Gove, Fox and Davis play to the gallery at home just so they can jump through the tabloid hoops.
Yet somehow our MPs are still continually surprised by the angry reaction of the EU when it comes to making promises in Brussels only to break them shortly afterwards just to keep the likes of Paul Dacre happy.
It's quite amazing that the people who go on about 'sovereignty' and 'taking back control' seem to have no problem being a member of NATO, where the Supreme Commander in Europe is always an American as a matter of policy.
So handing over command of our own armed forces and the defence of our homeland to a foreigner is absolutely fine. But sitting around a table with the French and Germans to agree common rules on hairdryers is a humiliating subjugation of our once great nation from which economic ruin is a worthwhile price to escape from.
This post has been deleted by its author
On Brexit day the UK can decommission their Galileo ground stations in UK territories unilaterally, after all if the EU doesn't want us to be a part of it, then we withdraw. And since we have put a lot of money into it and now they won't let us use it, a full refund (with interest) would be well in order.
And the EU can set up new ground stations relatively easily - they will be happy and eager to get a greater share of the work. There will be no full refund because the contractors will be paid for the work done, according to the contracts signed.
@Hans 1 Re: a full refund (with interest) would be well in order. Hm, right!
Absolutely! :)
You are overlooking human nature, whilst it wasn't that long ago that hard-Brexiteers were refusing to pay the "divorce bill" because "we owe the EU nothing" and should "just walk away", because they saw no value in the UK-EU relationship. However, now the 'junk' is being sorted, they are beginning to realise that the 'junk' has value and so now are loudly demanding their share...
There are 38 other ground stations that are not on UK territories and they are highly redundant. Additionally, the ground stations in the Falklands and Ascension are not 'ours', they are owned and operated by GSA and the UK is still enough of a rules-based country that our government can't shut down private enterprises without having a legal case to do so. "They won't let us play, it's not fair!" doesn't usually go down very well with a High Court judge.
This post has been deleted by its author
Didn't the UK have a hand in writing the rules that said that non-EU states shouldn't be given this level of access? And that's precisely what we'll be after Brexit: a non-EU state. No amount of negotiation or fanciful plans will change that.
Now the EU is being vindictive because it's following rules that we helped lay down? Seriously?
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
"We paid our share for the development etc., - if we don't get that back then we should be allowed to decode the PRS signal."
You may thing we should but that's just your personal view. The reality is that unless the contracts were written that way that can't happen.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
>A clean slate approach worked from WTO is probably more efficient.
FYI, whilst the UK and the EU are members of the WTO, only the EU28 has a WTO 'slate', currently post-Brexit both the EU27 and UK will have clean WTO 'slates' - the one thing ALL the other members of the WTO are agreed on is that the EU27 and UK can't simply take the EU28 slate...
" A clean slate approach worked from WTO is probably more efficient."
So, 10+ years to get a standard third party agreement that can be approved by all 27 EU members, a number of which will have their own special requirements that will be easier to get from a desperate country with unfavourable trade terms with the entire world..
The EU can give access to the secure code to non eu, but will not give the keys to non eu military as they are a security risk with different goals. So not trustworthy in the long run.
Are we given access to the us scrambling/descrambling technology? I dont think so.. and we do want they want us to do..
Basically we have decided to get divorced, and now we are complaining that our ex would not give us the keys to the house in the beach.
"Basically we have decided to get divorced, and now we are complaining that our ex would not give us the keys to the house in the beach."
And of course, we came to the marriage pretty abjectly penniless in the first place and have been an abusive partner the entire time, even when the partner was patching up our sick economy.
Because Brexit = Brexit, it doesn't mean "leave but keep all the advantages that we have when we're part of the EU". The majority voted, this is what they voted for, for us to leave the EU and the EU institutions because some guy with a foreign sounding name (Farage and the like) come over here and do jobs for minimum wage that lazy twats over here refuse to do because it's hard work.
If that is what we would've wanted, then that's what we would've negotiated when the Galileo project rules were written. But we didn't. WE were the ones saying "NO non-EU state should have PRS". We insisted on it. Now the EU is applying *exactly* that rule and you don't like it and say "But NATO states should perhaps have it"? Bollocks.
Suck it up, princess.
This post has been deleted by its author
I think the EU is a good idea, but as shown by Angela Merkel's response to David Cameron (no to temp stop on immigration),
At the heart of that is the biggest lie. The part of immigration that everyone hated - the ability to live (partially) on benefits, and to get things like NHS treatment - were never part of EU rules. Cameron never needed Merkel's permission to fix perverse UK rules that had (still have) the side-effect of giving unpopular benefits to EU citizens in the UK.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
>Did Cameron not ask to implement s temporary halt to immigration into the UK ? and Angela Merkel refused ?<
I don't believe he did, no. But did YOU know (most leaver's don't seem to) that EU rules specifically state that any EU migrant can be expelled from a country if they don't have a job sfter 3 months? The UK just chose not to impose that rule. And that would surely have removed the complaint that 'they come over here for benefits and housing', wouldn't it?
Nick, so true.
Just go and live in any EU country. You have freedom of movement after all.
After three months you can be thrown back out of you do not have a job or proof that you can support yourself. But the UK press conveniently forgot that one in the hysteria about immigrants.
The UK press also convenienty conflate people from outwith the EU with people from the EU.
This post has been deleted by its author
"and we all are subject to the same threats as the EU countries"
Funny how all this "better in it together" was a bad thing during the referendum when the populace wanted to "take back control", but now that the dust is settling and it's becoming clear what the consequences are, suddenly "better in it together" is more like a desperate plea.
There's actually a fairly easy fix for all of this - call off Brexit. But, wait, can you see Dacre and Rees-Mogg accepting that?
This post has been deleted by its author
"the UK should therefore NOT pay the EU for future commitments - because hey, we are now not in it together."
You keep repeating this mantra despite everyone pointing out the basic flaw. Galileo has a specific caveat (written at our insistence) that no non-EU country can use it or the signals from it. On the other hand, the UK has committed to paying in to existing EU projects for the next few years, hence the "divorce bill".
This post has been deleted by its author
"Pure and simple vindictiveness."
No. Pure and simple logic. You'll likely agree that there's no guarantee that any country external to the EU will keep its political/military interests aligned with those of the EU in the future, and even if they did, giving them the set of "system's keys" would compromise Galileo's security in many unacceptable ways.
This post has been deleted by its author
"The EU need to accept that we are leaving and rebalance their accounts to accept the reduction in funding, due to funding from the UK being withdrawn".
They will, that has been agreed upon in that first part. Asking for more time to leave having all the old advantages will not be "on the house", not that you asked for that, (not that I claim I understand your sentence fully).
The EU will not prevent the UK from leaving, only the British can, and I think they should, for reasons they have to grasp all by themselves, many have.
This post has been deleted by its author
Hi Shadmeister.
I wrote this regarding that 10 days ago:
"Re: Well, duh
"Which one of them is going to take up the UK position in the financial world? Or pay the UK share of the budget?".
Don't worry, it will be a combination of the size of the budget, the amount payed out to some countries* and perhaps a slight increase for the ten who pay in more than they receive. Some business will leave the UK for the EU and be helpful in that respect. The UK is less than 15% of the EU.
Things will be solved as before, what would be the choice.
*thinking of Poland and Hungary who are on a dangerous traction since some time and might end up with much less support."
What is there to add, perhaps that the EU is a 20 trillion "business" and one trillion is 1000 billions. One billion here or there is really just pocket money.
You might perhaps wonder why a guy like me who is not British, if a member of the club, bothers to explain his opinion about Brexit or not Brexit.
Let me explain it like this. If I had a son who publicly wanked at a bus stop I would express my kind opinion about it firmly. If on the other hand (oh well) it was somebody "foreign" I would most likely sneer and look the other way. I hope this helps.
No other European country has, like Britain, since the thirties, undressed, exposing a rather weak education standard and a rather defunct political system. What else is there to say.
This post has been deleted by its author
There's a word for people that promote and intentionally follow a course of action they know will cause harm to their country. It's one that the likes of the daily mail is rather fond of using when it suits them: traitor.
"But, wait, can you see Dacre and Rees-Mogg accepting that?"
Dacre and Rees-Mogg are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of being able to throw out the inconveniences of things like the European Declaration of human rights (penned by British and American lawyers and not part of the EU's purview anyway)
The factor that "once out, going back in will involve all those special deals that we currently have won't be on the table anymore"hasn't sprung to mind, nor that in order to trade with the EU we're going to have to abide by their rules anyway.
This post has been deleted by its author
So basically it's still undefined. Anything not tested in court is essentially little more than an opinion however informed it may or may not be. There are other opinions too. Even your own link says so. See the following article as an example:
https://www.ft.com/content/72252768-47de-11e8-8ae9-4b5ddcca99b3
On one hand you're accusing the EU of being vindictive merely by plainly following the rules *WE LAID DOWN*. On the other you suggest we should bend the rules as far as possible - maybe even beyond breaking point - purely to serve our own selfish interests and make a point.
And yet you still think the EU are the ones trying to be vindictive? Really?
It's also entirely possible that the EU will come up with projects or organisations in the future that the UK will want to join. What do you think the likelihood is of this happening will be if we've proven ourselves to be unreliable in the past?
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
We HAVE paid for it, so we should be able to USE it.
I agree, who we're gonna call ?
They have the say, we don't, sad and unfair all we want, they do not want other nations to follow suit so will milk us to the bone, in a sense they have no choice, either ... Whose fault ? Ours, sadly ...
This post has been deleted by its author
>Or, the UK could start its own consortium with non EU countries who are part of NATO or the commonwealth.
Well given over the decades the UK has become increasingly dependent upon US weapons systems, for various reasons. I suspect as soon as the UK seriously tries to start a consortium, the US will intervene. So I suggest the only viable way forward will be for the UK to convince the US to join the UK's consortium and for the UK solution to be adopted by NATO. If you can wrap the whole thing up so that it puts "America first" and thus protects US jobs and gives the person in the Whitehouse overall control, it might be a goer...
> Just last week the UK minister in charge of Brexit, David Davis,
Maybe this is just my colonial Canadian ears being un-used to the kinds of names that preppy tories have over on your side of the pond, but god, even the very names of the people involved with Brexit sound dumb.
Can't wait to know your reaction to Jacob Rees-Mogg if you think that's bad.
TL;DR Arch-Brexiteer millionaire MP who is currently moving his hedge fund to Ireland to make sure his Brexit impacts are minimised.
Nothing to do with PRS AFAIK but would not be at all surprised to discover he has some shareholdings impacted by the Galileo decision.
> Just last week the UK minister in charge of Brexit, David Davis,
Maybe this is just my colonial Canadian ears being un-used to the kinds of names that preppy tories have over on your side of the pond, but god, even the very names of the people involved with Brexit sound dumb.
Yeah, it was OK when he was a guitarist in The Kinks.
Maybe they should all go and live in Punkeydoodles Corners, Ontario.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Punkeydoodles+Corners,+Wilmot,+ON+N3A+3E5,+Canada/@43.353579,-80.7526876,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x882c01466c4a4653:0x693d01d69bf0504e!8m2!3d43.3535497!4d-80.7351351
According to brexitters, the EU is a shit show about to fall apart, and yet 27 member states can unanimously agree things like this within a few minutes regarding their brexit position.
Meanwhile the UK can't even agree itself on what its position is, and they spend days carefully drafting compromises in the vaguest possible terms so as to not actually have to decide between one position or another, and keep everyone thinking their preferred plan is still in play. Worst of all, the official opposition condemns the government's handling of brexit, then insists that it would instead negotiate for full access to the single market and customs union to avoid a hard border, while definitely not accepting freedom of movement. FFS, have they not been paying attention the last two years while the government have been pushing this very same policy, with no possibility of success.
Worst of all, the official opposition condemns the government's handling of brexit, then insists that it would instead negotiate for full access to the single market and customs union to avoid a hard border, while definitely not accepting freedom of movement.
If you had ever listened to Corbin you would have heard him say repeatedly that even if we are part of A customs union rather than THE customs union that he want full freedom of movement to continue.
Unlike Farage who has gotten himself a German passport, and Nigel Lawson who has applied for his French "Carte de Sejour" both so that they can leave the sinking ship.
The EU is not at all coherent- examples abound probably the worst is that over immigration: Germany invites and southern Europe assumes (wanted to use another word but we need to be PC).
The Germans lost the war and are now winning economically - the UK is well to avoid the coming fate of France and Greece has already been taken over and on the cheap! The rest will will follow. The new members in the Balkans are just cannon fodder for Angela.
"The Germans lost the war and are now winning economically - the UK is well to avoid the coming fate of France and Greece has already been taken over and on the cheap! The rest will will follow. The new members in the Balkans are just cannon fodder for Angela"
This is hilarious. Keep going, I've nearly got brexit bingo.
So far you've had -
ridiculous claims about classification of fish
French unemployed being sent to the uk
the germans lost the war and are taking over by economic means
All you're missing is "they need us more than we need them!"
According to brexitters, the EU is a shit show about to fall apart, and yet 27 member states can unanimously agree things like this within a few minutes regarding their brexit position.
Getting 27 members to agree not to a allow a soon to be ex-member of the club access to a facility is hardly a groundbreaking diplomatic achievement.
Solving skyrocketing debt-to-GDP ratios and a surge in support for anti-EU populist parties right across the continent are much bigger existential challenges.
Whilst I agree we've been royally hoisted on our own petards a more mischievous part of me kinda wishes that one of 2 things happen.
1. The ESA decision turns out to be illegal under the byzantine EU procurement rules.
2. We knock a new constellation up in double quick time for half the price without the need to fund the ESA pork barrel, with some help from Elons cut price rocket business.*
* Yes in my magical fairyland the UK doesnt do pork barrel politics *cough* BAE *cough*
I've concluded that this forum is being used to spread anti-Brexit opinions without basis in reason. The same appears to be the case with the attempt in the wider media to link Brexit with Russia using political actors. This may be to discourage other EU members from leaving or to manufacture a false narrative for reversing Brexit.
Galileo is a minor issue in perspective, but regaining the political independence to control our borders will significantly benefit the lives of the majority of ordinary British people, if implemented effectively.
I remain ignorant - of a practical application for why we need high precision (sub-1 metre) satellite positioning. It's claimed our military or emergency services need it, but why? (Seriously)
Without a reason, high precision Galileo is no loss, nor is there much to gain by creating yet another satellite positioning system. The costs to the taxpayer of the Brexit transition are significant, therefore non-essential costs such as this should be avoided.
The lesson to be learned from this is that in any future international co-operation, lawyers must clearly set out guarantees to continued participation in a project from the outset. Allowing another partner to join a project at a later date, then change the terms to exclude an an existing partner is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
The fact is political union is not required for international co-operation. In reality we and the rest of the world can "have our cake and eat it" but a cabal who want to centralise political power globally are determined to deny us this. They attempt to convince us with false arguments that it's not possible. If we were to hypothetically create another satellite positioning system with non-EU partners, must we surrender to a new political union to achieve this?
PS. Rather than downvote, please reply with facts and reasoning.
"Allowing another partner to join a project at a later date, then change the terms to exclude an an existing partner is NOT ACCEPTABLE."
I'm not sure who this other partner joining at a later date and changing the terms is but it's quite clear who's responsible for excluding the UK. It's the UK. We (by a small percentage of those who voted) decided to leave.
We voted to leave the EU, not ESA or Galileo or access to high precision Galileo.
Britain is a founder member of the Galileo project, the EU is not.
The EU later joined Galileo and changed the participation requirements so only EU members can have access to high precision positioning. Why did lawyers representing the original participants accept this?
If lawyers failed to guarantee participant's rights, could another international organisation join ESA, claim control over a project like Galileo then bar access to the EU or another member if they left said international organisation?
@YARR
Britain is a founder member of the Galileo project, the EU is not.
The EU later joined Galileo and changed the participation requirements so only EU members can have access to high precision positioning. Why did lawyers representing the original participants accept this?
Good questions, I suspect you need to ask the UK government why it and its lawyers agreed the to EU's demmands...
"The EU later joined Galileo and changed the participation requirements so only EU members can have access to high precision positioning. Why did lawyers representing the original participants accept this?"
May I suggest the UK fire a nuke at the nefarious country which was responsible for this change? It would only require a very short-range rocket.
I appreciate the constructive replies. High precision Galileo is accurate to ~10cm while the standard precision is about ~1 metre. So what new applications does this precision offer? What current applications are improved?
1. Cruise missiles / Precision-guided munition
- Guided weapons will destroy everything within 10's of metres, so targetting more accurately than 1 meter makes negligible difference.
- Mobile targets require weapons with localised target tracking
2. Avoiding collateral damage - eg schools being blown up rather than the nearby military target
- 1 metre precision is sufficient to avoid this.
3. Surveying
- building surveyors need much greater precision than 10cm, so conventional survey equipment must still be used.
- surveying natural geography could benefit - but isn't worth investing £billions
4. Transport system & autonomous vehicles.
- 1 metre accuracy is sufficient for route planning
- high precision positioning cannot replace the need for lidar / camera sensors to respond to surroundings
5. mapping minefields and paths through them
- 10 cm is better than 1m, but is it sufficient to guarantee avoiding mines without the use of other sensors?
6. "Power of a state / country is measured against their capability (and resolve), and without precision gps, UK's already lost."
- It's up to every state to decide their own priorities. I disagree that higher precision GPS (below 1m) offers much advantage. Ownership of a satellite positioning system does not guarantee access. Dependence on satellite positioning should be avoided.
> "people who disagree with me are even allowed to express their opinions"
I don't advocate censorship, but respected opinions should be founded on accurate information and reasoning.
no, you don't need a sub-metre precision to nuke Saddam (or Bernier). But you might need that precision, and more, to lob a round of low-yield guided ammo at window No 3, rather than No 4, or let semi-smart ammo navigate without bumping into obstacles. Power of a state / country is measured against their capability (and resolve), and without precision gps, UK's already lost.
"I rather thought 1metre positioning was needed if you are aiming a cruise missile at Saddams underground bunker. "
Navstar GPS has been adequate for that for some time.
You need far better accuracy than 1 metre if you're going to have self-driving cars trundling around.
"You need far better accuracy than 1 metre if you're going to have self-driving cars trundling around."
Wrong.
The accuracy needed for autonomous vehicles just needs to know where you are and what lane you are in. If lane centers are 3 m apart, then 1 m accuracy will do that quite nicely.
The precision lane-keeping, vehicle avoidance, etc, uses radar, lidar, vision systems, and sonar. That's why these cars often want painted line markers.
My GPS is quite reliable - much more so than my previous unit - at determining which lane with an accuracy that is never claimed to be better than 3 or 4 meters.
"You need far better accuracy than 1 metre if you're going to have self-driving cars trundling around."
Wrong.
Perhaps, not entirely wrong. IF you had sub 1m accuracy, I suspect some will want to do away with the other systems and naturally with positional accuracy such cars wouldn't need white lines etc.
Yes I know its daft - as I write this I see allsorts of problems, but since we are living in the age of stupid and politicians have blind faith in AI and self-driving technology...
"I rather thought 1metre positioning was needed if you are aiming a cruise missile at Saddams underground bunker. Or some such."
For that accuracy the obvious military uses are PGMs aimed at armoured vehicles, radars, gun emplacements, etc.
Another military use would be mapping minefields and paths through them for both sides, and the lcoation of each mine, for the side emplacing them and probably clearing them later.
If you move to nukes, gas, and thermobaric weapons you don't need to be that accurate, but if you are striking hardened targets with precision ballistic missiles, you do need a GNSS that other people will not turn off when you launch.
"I've concluded that this forum is being used to spread anti-Brexit opinions"
Yep, I've also noticed that people who disagree with me are even allowed to express their opinions.
What has the workd come to?!! How can they possibly think they are entitled to freedom of speech?!!!!!
Mark my words, this is conspiracy most foul.
>I remain ignorant - of a practical application for why we need high precision (sub-1 metre) satellite positioning. It's claimed our military or emergency services need it, but why?
Surveying (Although that doesn't need to be real time.)
Transport system & autonomous vehicles.
Two areas that the UK would do well to invest in.
Both infrastructure and vehicles. (And the underlying technology too.)
Piggybacking off US largess for such a fundemental foundation of future systems would be a dumb move.
"I've concluded that this forum is being used to spread anti-Brexit opinions "
It's a forum, you numpty. You and a couple of others are spreading pro brexit opinions. So that's ok but nobody is allowed to hold the opposing point of view? Standard leave mentality right there - "anything that contradicts what we say is treachery/hysterical nonsense/blah blah blah"
As has been pointed out several times, Galileo was specifically blocked from non EU countries. Like GB will be. Have our cake and eat it? Are you still buying into that fairy story? We have separated ourselves and alienated ourselves from the single biggest trading bloc in the world. According to the leave mouthpieces negotiating new trade deals will be the simplest, easiest thing in the world. I don't see anyone queuing up to make trade deals.
>I remain ignorant - of a practical application for why we need high precision (sub-1 metre) satellite positioning. It's claimed our military or emergency services need it, but why? (Seriously)<
Because if you don't have that accuracy, you end up with much more collateral damage - eg schools being blown up rather than the nearby military target. And, even if you ignore the moral aspects of that, in this age of full-coverage journalism of such attacks it would be a PR disaster
"Because if you don't have that accuracy, you end up with much more collateral damage - eg schools being blown up rather than the nearby military target"
Not really.
If you look at the blast/fragment radius of an artillery shell, SDB (small diameter bomb) or an ASM, there is no real benefit to an accuracy less than 10m, as the danger radius is 10 times that or more. Explosive weapon effects do not magically stop at a shrot distance from the center,
I have a recollection of people asking why the EU was wasting billions on replicating something that essentially already exists in GPS (and GLONASS). Indeed, I seem to recollect it cited as an example of EU profligacy.
Does anyone recollect exactly who was saying that? Are any of them the same people who are now upset about getting booted out, or even those saying we should go it along?
I don't recall exactly, but I am pretty sure that they are the same people.
The UK also pushed very hard for the rules that explicitly exclude non-EU countries from building any part of Galileo.
So the Government knew, and the EU have simply decided that they are going to follow the rules that the UK wrote and agreed upon back when Galileo was first being funded.
Oh, and the EU can grant non-EU states access to the high-precision signal - on a time-limited basis and at their discretion, and can withdraw it whenever they feel like.
The difference is that EU members get it automatically, all the time.
That's what "taking back control" means. Their project, their rules. Leaving a club means you no longer get to use the bar whenever you like.
"The UK also pushed very hard for the rules that explicitly exclude non-EU countries from building any part of Galileo."
It did, on behalf of the USA, in order to remove China from the consortium and prevent them getting access to high-accuracy positioning data.
The Chinese response was to dust off Beidou and update it. With an economy larger than the USA and not spending silly money on its military, China can afford to do such things (China's spending less on its _intrastructire_ projects such as high speed rail) than the US military budget and unlike military spending, infrastructure spending has tangible results at the end of the day.
Errr no.
There is quite some disagreement over Brexit in thereg and their commentards.
But there can be little discussion about this particular issue: we (as in the UK) demanded that non EU countries had to be barred from providing the essential works for the project, and that is not illogical.
Now we leave, and as we are no longer part of the EU, of course we got out of the project. Quite obvious.
I think we should get reimboursed, at least partly reimbursed, but who knows if we would get that or not... we have almost no leverage on the EU, and they have a lot on us.
As for our negotiating team.. well, they warned us about this, but we chose not to listen to experts, we were tired of "so called experts". Now we blame them when we dont have leverage, exactly as predicted.
you see, we kept moaning about rules, and imposing plenty of rules on the EU "or we leave", and they kept accepting as it was in their best interest to have us in the EU. Now that we have left, well, the damage is going to happen, so they no longer care much about us.
What do we offer them? banking and insurance, and associated services. Hardly anything that they cannot replicate.. and they can take it away from us with things like Tolbin tax.
"What do we offer them? banking and insurance, and associated services. Hardly anything that they cannot replicate.. and they can take it away from us with things like Tolbin tax."
They don't need to replicate it and they don't need to impose taxes either.
In case noone's noticed, the City has been preparing itself to shuffle off to the mainland since the referendum. In the sake way that there are rules saying "No non-EU members get access to PRS", there are also requirements for financial institutions handing european money to be within the EU.
The song and dance about Gallileo is a distraction from things with far greater economic impact that are going on.
Ring - Ring - Where you miss-sold a GPS system?If so you could be owed billions. It's easy to claim and our trained operators (in Mumbai) are waiting for your call.
[All calls will be recorded, but we will deny we ever said what you said we said. Rees, Farage and Whinge Plc are independent Financial advisers incorporated in the Cayman Islands)]
"Fine, can we have our money back and what about all the UK technology with, can we not just pull any licence deal or simply refuse to supply parts ?"
That might be reasonable if you repay the value of the contracts you got in return for your contributions.
I suspect that you are better off not backing out of your financial obligations... you might well be paying the EU for leaving Galileo, rather than just leaving.
Of course, if the UK did try to retroactively wriggle out of your obligations and it cost it a few hundred million extra euros, to many impartial observers that would seem like self inflicted justice.
The useful idiots were given a chance to stick two fingers up at the establishment by disaster capitalists hoping for a fire sale in the UK combined with another group desperate to put their wealth out of the reach of forthcoming EU scrutiny on tax avoidance.
Chuck in a little encouragement from "foreign" chaos and confusion agents playing their own international strategy and....
Here we are.
The useful idiots didn't care about satellite projects, car manufacturing or whatever. As one said on TV when the issue of the effect on GDP if we left the EU was brought up..... "its not MY GDP".
Its the democratic equivalent of a dirty protest. They did indeed sh1t in their own hands and clap.
"Don't you anything actually useful to say other than spout bile and rage?"
Standard leave response - any criticism of the glorious sunlit uplands future of Britain is denounced as bile and rage.
Rage? don't get me started you self-centred troll. Give me ONE thing that will be better after brexit bites. ONE. If you mention immigration I will laugh at you. Sovereignty that we never lost but are in the process of killing off? I'll point and laugh. Trade deals? We already have trade deals across the world - more than 50% of our trade actually.
Go on, give me a giggle.
That long ago that individual road pricing was being mooted as the only way to pay for Galileo (the project has struggled for funding over the years and doesn't have a particularly good commercial use case) . Without the high precision military access hopefully the need for road pricing will now be dropped forever.
Yey Brexit :)
This discussion thread is riddled with bitterness, factless commentary and doomsday predictions. Both the EU and UK will suffer from this tit-for-tat nastiness.
There is much to improve in the EU. Erosion of democracy, known to all members, is my greatest concern. Politicians are embarrassing themselves on both sides with current behaviors. It needs reform, which this sorry Brexit situation may facilitate.
Meanwhile, both sides need to grow up, stop punching each other and work out how to resolve the Brexit problem via mutual compromise. Democracy must not be a casualty. The UK will leave. Lets stop bickering and get on with it - both sides.
@Disgruntled - the "erosion of democracy" is the most interesting aspect of brexit. 'Cos various proposals to improve EU democratic accountability have been made over the years, but have always been blocked by UK governments of both colours.
The Sir Humphrey master plan was to stay in until it was so poisoned someone else could be relied on to take that role. It remains to be seen what happens without us: will east/west and north/south tensions over issues like immigration scupper any future proposals without the need for a UK veto?
"Meanwhile, both sides need to grow up, stop punching each other and work out how to resolve the Brexit problem via mutual compromise"
The only side needing to grow up is the bunch of bickering fantasists in the UK. Why is it in the interests of the EU to make this easy for us? Democracy is already a casualty - the British government is trying to give itself the final say on brexit without allowing parliament - sovereignty and all that, remember? - any say other than bad deal or no deal. It's also trying to give itself the power to amend existing laws without consulting parliament (EU withdrawal bill)
EU democary is fine - the EU commission members are appointed by the elected governments of the member states. They don't pass any laws but merely propose them. The MEPs that we vote for do that. If you think the EU commission is unelected and should go, then I assume you want to vote for the members of our cabinet as well? Did you get the chance to vote for Gove and Johnson's positions in the cabinet? No? Wow, how undemocratic.
To be fair, Davis is actually the more acceptable face of brexit. He's not Kim JongSon nor rival arch-toffoon Rees Mogg; he's not "no more experts" Gollum, he's not dotard flat-earther Lawson, and above all he's not any of the altogether more shadowy figures behind them. He even has a track record that includes making a stand for liberty.
If there's any potential for good news in the whole mess, it's probably him.
But he won't survive Brexit.
An old line from "Bad boys" comes to mind.
"The politics of the situation demand someone has to go down."
And since May and Davies are (allegedly) in the driving seat they will get it right in the neck* from the likes of Johnson, Gove and Rees-Mogg.
*What you might call "A Stab in the Dark," although not to be confused with the TV show of that name.
As far as I am concerned I dont see the big problem with 'being kicked off' the EU's vanity project. Why would we want to pay for and build their toy so they can enjoy it? I am very interested to know why the gov would want to build yet another one, we dont need to be willy waving.
Another amusing development I read about this morning (msn so I dont count it as credible yet) is the EU putting together some kind of security fund to only be spent in the EU for technological developments for war. If it is true it is a good job we got out before paying for another gravy boat.
And of course the EU is now in a trade war with the US. We should be pushing to leave asap and demanding the gov just gets on with the hard brexit (the EU could always decide to do a trade deal if they want but lets not hang on for them to get common sense). In one breath it sounds like the EU understands 'tariffs are protectionist' and then they prove clueless as they then retaliate.
I am interested to see how the EU gets around the islands problem. Simply we can just charge them rent to the benefit of those islands.
>Another amusing development I read about this morning (msn so I dont count it as credible yet) is the EU putting together some kind of security fund to only be spent in the EU for technological developments for war. If it is true it is a good job we got out before paying for another gravy boat.<
As a member state we had the ability to veto any development such as the one you mention. So it wouldn't be an issue.
>And of course the EU is now in a trade war with the US. We should be pushing to leave asap and demanding the gov just gets on with the hard brexit (the EU could always decide to do a trade deal if they want but lets not hang on for them to get common sense). In one breath it sounds like the EU understands 'tariffs are protectionist' and then they prove clueless as they then retaliate.<
You do realise that the US's aggressive new tariffs apply to the UK too? And would do whether we were in or out of the EU? But outside the EU we'll have a lot less ability to fight back.
@ Mark Dempster
"As a member state we had the ability to veto any development such as the one you mention. So it wouldn't be an issue."
I find it interesting that people want to remain in the EU, just not actually be in the EU proper. If it is something they want why should we be standing in their way? Just as their desire to federalise and such.
"You do realise that the US's aggressive new tariffs apply to the UK too? And would do whether we were in or out of the EU? But outside the EU we'll have a lot less ability to fight back."
Fight back? As the EU was smart enough to identify, the US was acting in a protectionist way. That makes the people of the country poorer. It is a charge against the people in the country who apply the tariffs. So Trump points a gun at his foot, pulls the trigger and says 'aha!! take that!'. The EU in their idiocy then 'fight back' as you call it by making people in the EU poorer! 'Aha!! Take that!'. Just as they would have with Chinese steel if the UK didnt stop them.
Doing stupid because others are doing stupid is not fighting back. It is stupid!
I'm sorry. I tried hard but I cannot make sense of a single point you made in that post.
The Remainer point seems to have constructed some sort of straw man grouping everyone who is against Brexit into one convenient bag of "yes, but".
The Trump point fails to account for that man just saying shit. He will never acknowledge he has made a mistake, and his supporters will swallow everything he says even when it is directly affecting them adversely in a day-to-day way. You say that tariffs will harm America, he will say they Made America Great Again and there will be a landslide in the next election (assuming we have one) despite rampant economy woes.
Own satellite system now. If the concern is military use ... do you really want the EU calling the shots in a a time of crisis ?
The EU will be harder hit than the UK since we made 90% of the hardware and software. We can get other customers and we can build our own. Or is thereg also doing an indy/telegraph where all brexit is bad innit and we have to point out every thing not in our favour. This is an opportunity for us to build our own system who we don't need to ask permission to use and we know 100% that we will be in charge of it if the shit hits the fan.
>Own satellite system now. If the concern is military use ... do you really want the EU calling the shots in a a time of crisis ?<
As a member of the EU they wouldn't be able to deny us use of it at any time. As a non-member then we won't be able to use it at all, according to the rules WE insisted on. And we currently use the US GPS system - which they can, and likely would, lock us out of if it suited them.
>The EU will be harder hit than the UK since we made 90% of the hardware and software. We can get other customers and we can build our own. Or is thereg also doing an indy/telegraph where all brexit is bad innit and we have to point out every thing not in our favour. This is an opportunity for us to build our own system who we don't need to ask permission to use and we know 100% that we will be in charge of it if the shit hits the fan.<
I really don't think you understand the costs involved. And why on earth would you allow access to it for countries you don't have a military alliance with?
So we are going to take our ball and storm off to find other people who we can play with. But not the USA, they have GPS, not the EU: Galileo, not Russia, not India, not China. And probably not anyone else in NATO - why would they trust the UK more than they trust the EU/USA? So who do we know with loads of spare dosh and no friends? Oh wait, what about all those Nigerian millionaires who keep mailing us....?
"The EU will be harder hit than the UK since we made 90% of the hardware and software. "
Uh huh. Which is why the makers and coders have been bought up or recruited off to Europe.
The UK is claiming ownership of something which is mostly being done by private outfits, under contract and the terms are no different to losing your deposit if you walk away from a house sale.
This post has been deleted by its author
Surely to goodness we should be having a second vote on what deal we end up with. The way this has been negotiated is a shambles from start to finish. The Tory party only seem to be interested in clinging to power by appeasing their internal factions rather than having any coherent plan. The DUP deal makes any sort of sensible compromise over Northern Ireland impossible. IF they had any morals they'd call another election to end this ridiculous coalition - but they don't.
As for remaining - the issue always has been the levels of immigration. Up to 100,000 is ok, but 330,000/yr ? That's the equivalent of adding a city about the size of Cardiff every year while we have a housing crisis that has priced a generation out of owning their own homes, and reduced them to nothing more than life long serfs. It simply isn't sustainable. Had Merkel given Cameron a half decent deal this mess would have been avoided. As it stands its now a disaster in the making thanks to incompetent Tory dithering, and EU intransigence. The failure of the EU to come up with any sensible compromise on immigration has devastated some Eastern block countries like Bulgaria that are set to loose half their population - and particularly the young who are leaving in droves. This might not matter in a block with common language and culture like the US - but in the EU it is bound to cause severe imbalances that in the end will result in extremist governments being elected. This is neither good for the UK or anyone else. We've seen German refusals to bail out the euro result in dumping German bank debt on the Greeks thereby destroying their economy, the Germans still refuse to pay back debt prior to the Marshall plan (which after unification they were supposed to do), and the Germans refuse to allow any limitation to the principle of free migration within the EU. Its not just Britain that's responsible for this mess - the German political elite are just as bad. If they really care about the rest of the EU then they should find a compromise - or they might end up regretting setting up similar economic conditions in southern EU states that are precisely the same as those that gave the far right in Germany power in the 1930's. Have they learnt nothing from history at all ?
> Had Merkel given Cameron a half decent deal this mess would have been avoided.
Germany has more immigrants than the UK, more annual immigration than the UK and a greater proportion of the population born outside the country than the UK *and* less of the problems previous UK governments have made for themselves.
"while we have a housing crisis that has priced a generation out of owning their own homes, and reduced them to nothing more than life long serfs."
If you think that immigration has had more than about 2% influence on that then you're deluded.
The size of the average UK household has gone from 5-6 in the 1950s down to 1-2 now.
That's a tripling of requirements without even needing a population increase and whilst the government knew this was coming in the 1970s when all the pensioner flats it built were immediately occupied by DINKIES, it collectively stuck its fingers in its ears and chanted "neh neh neh, can't hear you" when faced with mounting evidence of lack of housing and accelerating north-south internal urban drift (the internal population movement from north to south is a hell of a lot larger than any foriegn migration and there's housing going effectively for free in many areas up north as a result)
Sucessive governments have been deliberately selling off housing to buy votes and profit from forced sales when the buyers found they couldn't cope, or flat out inertia whilst in the meantime rampant NIMBYism has prevented sorely needed expansions taking place. The Greenbelt isn't a cities' green lung, it's a way for bankers to put a moat between themselves and the hoi-polloi.
"What the UK government will be most upset about is that the fact it will be no longer be allowed access to the highly secure military-grade signal Public Regulated Service (PRS), a huge blow that will put the UK, and its military, far behind other Western nations when it comes to using the latest global technologies."
For some reason I keep using that title when articles on Galileo crop up. The UK and it's military will not be left behind anything. As apparently needs pointing out every time, the PRS is identical in function to the commercial service which is available to anyone regardless of whether they're in the EU or not. The only difference is that the PRS is guaranteed to keep operating during emergencies while the commercial service can be switched off. Unless the UK goes to war with the EU (and Brexit hasn't quite gone that far yet), there is no reason for the EU to disable the UK's access to the regular commercial signal. Obviously the military would prefer the extra guarantee, but in practical terms it's not actually going to make any difference.
The reality is simply that it's all about money. The UK wants the contracts for building the things. Importantly, failing to get the contracts now will likely mean losing a lot of companies and expertise to Europe and so failing to get more contracts (not just EU ones) in the future as well. The UK has done pretty well at building up our satellite industry, and there's been a lot of talk (which may or may not be considered realistic) about developing much more local space-related stuff including launch systems and even manned missions. Seeing a significant portion of that industry up roots and move somewhere else would be a serious blow to those ambitions.
So no, the UK government is certainly not "most upset" about losing access to the PRS signal, they don't give the slightest shit about it. It's just a handy thing to point at and shout about national security rather than admit it's actually about money and thinking that having our own rockets will make them look good.
"The UK has done pretty well at building up our satellite industry"
That's bollocks too.
The UK satellite industry has done pretty well at creating and growing itself DESPITE constant attempts by the UK government to sabotage it.
And I say that as someone who's been working in the UK space industry for the last couple of decades.
And I say that as someone who's been working in the UK space industry for the last couple of decades.
That was also my impression, having spent most of the '90s working at ESA. Good UK companies existed, UK government programmes existed, but if there was ever an intersection between the two, it eluded me.
Did people really thing EU exit would go well?
Anyway, it is pretty silly to block us from Galileo as there are other consequences.
1) They will have to refund our contribution.
2) We can turn off their UK developed encryption.
Even though I disagree with leaving, I think the EU are playing this wrong with Galileo. The UK could easily scupper it.
Anyway since it was developed here I am sure we could just use it without EU permission.
The accuracy of the GPS signal depends upon a network of global ground relay stations that feeds the satellite signals back to Europe.
Guess what? That crucial network of global relay stations are all situated in British sovereign overseas territories.
Britain firmly has its hand on the weakest link of Galileo and could, should it so wish, set the entire project back by many years.
Why do we only hear one side of this argument, as though the Europeans held all the winning cards?
Oh yes,
That would be Ground Mission Segment in Fucino Italy, and the Ground Control Segment in Germany, or perhaps the TTC stations in Sweden and French Guiana (hint... French...)?
Or the Galileo ground stations in Svarlbard, Jan Mayen, Canada(or a French island off Canada), Azores, Belgium,Reunion, Noumea, Kergulen, Antarctica, Wallis (I'd never heard of it, but French again) or Papete.? That leaves Ascension and the Falklands. And I bet
So actually, objectively and definitively UKIP parroting rubbish.
So 1 bn Euro down the swanny and nothing to show, sounds like a standard UK.gov project.
Despite the fact that UK based companies and institutions own a lot of the IP in the constelation and developed much of the hardware, and according to Airbus (Its Surrey Satellite Technology subsidiary makes the payload for the current generation of Galileo satellites and ground services are managed by Airbus in Portsmouth,) being essential to the project.
Despite its posturing the UK military alongside France are still the most effective in europe, and the shock troops for NATO operations. the idea behind Galileo was to make the European military not dependant on GPS or GLONASS or soon to be unvield Chinese alternative, Allowing the US/Russia/China to go off and prioritise their system outside the North atlantic theatre and have little to no effect on the Europeans.
having paid approximatley 10% of the cost and done about 15% on the project, we have probably actually achieved some benefit from it.
I am not going to add to the brexit debate, FMPOV nothing has changed since the referendum, there were four courses of action, 49% voted for one and 51% voted for one of the other four, and were sold on the least damaging "Norway Option" so where this obsession with Hard Brexit, that has been proven detrimental to the UK, has come from I dont know.
Thank you so very much for giving me so many opportunities to down vote you.
Only the young can have such unwavering faith in so utterly a delusional course of action.
I note one of didn't even vote to Leave. Such depth of feeling as well !
I wonder if you'll remain in the UK and live through the consequences of the Brexit you so champion.
That is if you're even in the UK now.
@ John Smith 19
"Thank you so very much for giving me so many opportunities to down vote you."
Thank you for loyally following us on these boards, I cant speak for Shadmeister but to have such a devoted fan is quite flattering although I do wonder how many of those downvotes were followed by any reasoned comment from you.
"Only the young can have such unwavering faith in so utterly a delusional course of action."
I will take that as a complement, although isnt the claim that the young either didnt vote or voted remain?
"I wonder if you'll remain in the UK and live through the consequences of the Brexit you so champion.
That is if you're even in the UK now."
I certainly did vote to leave, I do live here and I have no intention of moving. Did you vote? And are you in the UK? And will you remain in the UK or will you move to the EU where you might be happier, except for all the opt outs?
Since the UK has no right to Galileo as a third country, a better tactic would have been to get on their knees, beg, grovel and generally make whining noises....
The UK has made way too many false statements and unfounded demands:
1) the UK was not central to the UK project. The Galileo projects were managed under a scheme called "juste retour". This scheme ensures that if the UK invests 1 bn euros in Galileo, then it has already received that exact same amount in Galileo contracts to UK companies, even if it is not a major integrator of ESA satellites (which it isn't) or developer of Galileo payloads (which it didn't). While France, Italy and Germany have all integrated the larger ESA satellites over the past decades, the UK has only now inaugurated a large integration facility in Harwell (which at this point may never be used). Having already received 1 bn in contracts, the threat of asking for money back is only going to get the UK kicked further out of the project.
2) the Uk's main role was the integration of Galileo payloads (developed by others). This is a relatively easy role to replace. Not only is the 3 year+1billion extra cost total nonsense, but because the UK only got those tasks under "juste retour", countries such as Spain will be able to do a better job at half the price.
3) This article mentions the UK working with AUS and NZ on an alternative GPS system. Does anyone realize how silly this sounds? Is the UK trying to gain the EUs sympathy by making them piss themselves with laughter?
Don't distress too much about this. Losing access to the high accuracy signal on Galileo means that the government's plans for road pricing (AKA spying on your every car journey) will be kicked into the long grass.
As for our contributions so far, and the future budgets we have agreed, if we don't get access to Galileo we should simply deduct our contribution from any leaving settlement.
The EU. The only project you can invest billions in, then when you leave, you still owe money!
> The EU. The only project you can invest billions in, then when you leave, you still owe money!
The differences between money you spent, money you have legally committed already, and money you have discussed spending but not committed to, shouldn't be that hard to understand.
Leaving the golf club doesn't immediately entitle you to a rebate on all the previous membership fees you've already paid (not even the remainder of this year's), or the generous contribution you already made to the ongoing building of the new car park which you haven't had the pleasure of parking your Jag on yet. But you probably don't need to honour a non-binding pledge to contribute to next year's planned bar rennovations.
As is so often the case with Brexit, there may be debate about exactly where the line is drawn, but the principle really isn't rocket science (except for Galileo, of course).
Is Galileo going to be a subscription service or something? I'm not seeing the point of it. There are already the American and Russian systems that can be used. The ESA website page "Why Europe Needs Galileo" states the reason as "If the signals were switched off or degraded tomorrow, many ship and aircraft crews would find it inconvenient and difficult to revert to traditional navigation methods." Seriously? Billions spent in case both the Americans and Russians should simultaneously go completely insane and switch off their satellites, causing the exact same issue for their own ships and aircraft. What a waste of money! Wouldn't low Earth orbit satellites for internet service make more sense? And won't Galileo be at least as open as the American system, so it could be used by anyone anyway?
Galileo has nothing to do with security and everything to do with road user charging so thankfully it will set the uk gov back in its quest to futher milk its favourite cash cow. I really cannot see how delays in the UK government's timeline for further shafting drivers can ever be a bad thing.
"So, to everyone who voted leave - happy now?"
Why would we be happy? We are still stuck in the EU. A 'transition' period seems to be the way we will be ignored for a bit longer and still more attempts to trap us in the EU continue. Try asking that question if we ever get out actually removing the country from the EU.
Indeed.
You are still awaiting the Rapture of Brexit.
The rest of us will see it as the warmup gusts of the colossal sh**storm that Brexit will be.
No wonder Rees Mogg's Hedge Fund has set up an Irish branch.
With financial services in the UK being 3x the income from actual manufacturing any increase in "friction" with EU business will screw up his earnings quit a bit.
Although with six children Maison Mogg will give up the dish washer* or one of the annual holidays before they give up the Nanny, although I've no idea where said Nanny comes from.
*Regularly voted the household appliance people didn't think they'd find indispensable, but do.
@ John Smith 19
"No wonder Rees Mogg's Hedge Fund has set up an Irish branch."
Pretty smart isnt it. He can get around the EU passporting limitation so easily. We were warned of this exodus with the EU trying to charm the banks and what they get is a branch to bypass their protectionist rules. Junker so had his little hopes up.
You really should ask yourself how you can have such certainty of doom and gloom. The worst predictions had the country growing just at a lesser pace.
Pretty smart isnt it. He can get around the EU passporting limitation so easily.
But he hasn't got around passporting; if he had, he wouldn't need an Irish operation...
You really should ask yourself how you can have such certainty of doom and gloom.
Not seen much good news yet, perhaps everyone is waiting until after 29-Mar-2019...
It would be interesting to see the levels of new foreign investment being made in each of the EU28 since the Referendum and compare it to the past few decades.
The worst predictions had the country growing just at a lesser pace.
Yes, this is a mixed blessing :)
I find it telling that the projections are constant with the claims made about immigration, namely, circa 300,000 net immigrants contribute 0.5 percent to GDP. So if you assume net immigration goes to zero or negative, then you get a reasonable approximation to the post-Brexit forecast. Given our environmental commitments and the need to become a more sustainable society, this isn't all bad; just that I don't see Westminster changing their focus from gross GDP to per captia GDP and actually implementing policies that such a reduction in economic activity enable...
@ Roland6
"But he hasn't got around passporting; if he had, he wouldn't need an Irish operation..."
So you cant get around passporting if we exclude the method of getting around passporting? Ok. Opening a branch isnt the wholesale exodus of the financial industry (as the EU hoped).
"Not seen much good news yet, perhaps everyone is waiting until after 29-Mar-2019..."
So the economy returning to normal on the back of a falling currency isnt good for you? Getting that core inflation back that we need and increasing base rates to unwind the stimulus from the last recession in preparation for the next, none of that is good to you? Full employment, wage increases isnt good to you? If you think its all bad news for the UK you must really have a low opinion of the increasing QE, high unemployment, years behind recovery position of the EU. Or did you not hear about that?
"It would be interesting to see the levels of new foreign investment being made in each of the EU28 since the Referendum and compare it to the past few decades."
And where do you guess the member leaving and in this negotiation period to be? Your prediction that stamping on your own foot will hurt does not impress me. I do question why you think that will somehow leave you unable to walk for the rest of your life (assuming a regular healthy person).
"I find it telling that the projections are constant with the claims made about immigration, namely, circa 300,000 net immigrants contribute 0.5 percent to GDP."
So the very worst predictions which still show us growing (and leave have laughed off) for the worst assumptions being made and you say that is in line with what? I lost track about there.
@codejunky - Remember the UK hasn't left yet and "the deal" is still rather opaque.
Yes some were forecasting hell and damnation immediately, personally, I expect things to start happening once we know the real form of the deal.
However, as was discussed a year plus back, I expect the UK to miss out on things rather than there being an exodus. So for example, City companies are setting up EU domicile operations in an EU27 country, rather than enlarging their London operations. We saw this in the 90's when IT companies set up in Ireland instead of the UK.
>So the economy returning to normal on the back of a falling currency isnt good for you?...
What I'm referring to is the lack of foreign confidence in the UK, ie. investment despite or because the UK is leaving. If T.May really wants to strengthen her negotiating position, having foreign investors publicly investing in the UK now would be helpful...
Hence my observation about inward investment into the EU28, I don't know what the situation actually is, but I expect the data is being collated (by the EU?). Given the lack of announcements, I suspect the UK has seen a reduction in inward investment. It would be nice to see some real data to see whether my impressions are correct or not.
>So the very worst predictions which still show us growing ... the worst assumptions being made and you say that is in line with what? I lost track about there.
I've noted that you have difficulty with things. Fundamentally, you take the 'if we had voted Remain' projection and compare it to the 'Leave' projection, the version I saw some months back the delta was about 0.5% ie. the contribution made by having circa 300,000 new residents every year...This in itself will deliver some benefit, freeing people up to work on new stuff rather than servicing the new intake.
So whilst I disagree with Brexit, some of the numbers do look favourable, the only question is whether TPTB/Westminster are able to seize the opportunity. I suggest that Westminster (and others) will focus on trying to recover the gross GDP figure, wheras I would refocus on the per capita GDP figure - an improving per capita GDP means you and I are doing better, an improving gross GDP figure means the government and those at the top of the pile (ie. company directors) are doing better.
@ Roland6
"It would be interesting to see the levels of new foreign investment being made in each of the EU28 since the Referendum and compare it to the past few decades."
It would seem to be pretty positive news!- http://www.continentaltelegraph.com/economy/the-uk-moves-into-the-wider-world/
