How big is the UK space industry? It hauled in £14.8bn for 2016/2017 – report

With a mere 58 days remaining until Brexit, the UK government has published a cheerful insight into the "size and health" of Blighty's space industry. While the UK lacks domestic launch capability, it is responsible for many of the instruments and systems used in spacecraft and launchers. The report (PDF), which looked at the …

[John Mangan]

Not optimistic

At first I thought that MPs last night voted to send Mrs. May off to Europe in search of a unicorn then I realised that they had actually sent her off to find a unicorn that was "‘a more mauvy shade of pinky-russet.’ than the backstop . (With apologies to Douglas Adams).

Strap yourselves in boys and girls, we could experience some turbulence....and explode. (Sorry, Firefly)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not optimistic

You witnessed the government carefully maneuver into a position where the EU concede the Irish backstop (something that I suspect is actually a unicorn anyway - why would Ireland want to position itself in a way that stops RoRo freight to the UK/EU by effectively making two customs crossings. If it did go ahead I suspect either the UK would be sucked back into the EU (Irelands desire) or Ireland begin the process to leave the EU (whoops) within 5 years).

Now the Tories have a potential get out if an election is required (the EU asked for clarity on what we wanted and we gave it via a parliamentary majority while rejecting alternatives that Brussels may have preferred) and the EU have the ability to change their view on the Irish backstop as a "concession" and move the customs checks to the UK/EU border leaving things unchanged in Ireland. Long term this doesn't address the potential regulatory gap between Ireland and NI but then none of May's initial agreement did - only that it would be negotiated. What has been ruled out are the possibility of an election before a hard exit due to Labours failed confidence motion or the possibility of a second referendum (Grieve's and Coopers amendments) as the Tories/DUP are sort of back in control. I can only explain the gap between the Chequers plan and last nights vote as May desperately hoping something that the DUP had clearly rejected multiple times would fly. Somehow. Without bringing her plan crashing to the ground and her government with it. With perhaps a touch of Corbyn baiting thrown in to try and get Labour off the fence..

This, unfortunately, doesn't preclude the EU offering an "improved" deal that meets the stated conditions and a further Tory/DUP rebellion returning the stalemate although it would likely force an election and those responsible would struggle with re-election/remaining in power.

There is currently a ~4-way split where MP's want either remain/EEA/Canada++/hard exit where none of the groups form a majority. This explains the drawn out posturing for the last 6 or so months and you may or may not like the result of this...

[Roland6]

Re: Not optimistic

The laugh about the backstop is that it is a backstop. From this mornings dissection of yesterdays votes etc, the current draft of the agreement allows for alternative solutions if deemed to be viable, but just in case the alternative solutions are found to be unicorns, the EU will keep the current backstop...

What has been ruled out are the possibility of an election before a hard exit due to Labours failed confidence motion

There is a theory that Labour actually intended to confidence motion to fail, just to keep the pressure on May and the Conservatives - remember Brexit is a mess created by the Conservative party, so shouldn't they be the ones to clear their mess away...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not optimistic

@Roland6 "remember Brexit is a mess created by the Conservative party..."

As against Tony Bliar promising over several General Election campaigns to give us a Referendum and then somehow not quite actually keeping that promise?

Still, you are partially correct - Jezza has refused to get involved in negotiations so he (and the Labour party) can't be held responsible in any way for whatever happens.

Of course, when Project Fear fails and people wake up and realise the Eurocrats do NOT need to block medicines etc coming in as they have threatened to do, then we can enjoy the spectacle of Jezza and the Remoaners all trying to claim credit despite all the evidence to the contrary. Situation normal, really.

[John Mangan]

Re: Not optimistic

"Eurocrats do NOT need to block medicines etc coming in"

That's never been a claim, threat or prediction. The problem is that at the moment there is no process, people or capacity to manage traffic at freight terminals (in Britain) if there is no deal. That means lorries spending hours (or possibly days if you believe the most apocalyptic predictions) waiting for processing leading to shortages when customers don't get their goods. (Also ignoring that people could panic buy if there is a perception of any shortages).

That's why our government (no, not the EU) is paying non-existent ferry companies at inoperable freight terminals, buying specific capacity on passenger ferries and paving an unused airport in preparation for this SELF-IMPOSED fuck up.

If you're going to raise a straw man at least give it two legs to stand on!

[Alan Brown]

Re: Not optimistic

"Also ignoring that people could panic buy if there is a perception of any shortage"

And THIS is a lot harder than you might think.

A person is usually able to be reasoned with and can think for itself.

On the other hand, PEOPLE are panicky herd animals that are easily spooked.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Not optimistic

"There is a theory that Labour actually intended to confidence motion to fail, just to keep the pressure on May and the Conservatives - remember Brexit is a mess created by the Conservative party, so shouldn't they be the ones to clear their mess away..."

It's worth remembering that Brexit is not split down party lines, much as many would have us believe.

[phuzz]

Re: Not optimistic

The point of the backstop isn't about trade, it to avoid the situation of having an actual wall between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is a key part of the Good Friday peace agreement.

What's the worst that could happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not optimistic

"The point of the backstop isn't about trade, it to avoid the situation of having an actual wall between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland"

Regulatory alignment between the two is an economic issue more than a physical wall. If the British army couldn't maintain a hard border during the Troubles, what chance is there in the current environment?

Ireland has no desire to cutoff NI and alienate people who want a united Ireland or the road bridge to Europe that would impose significant economic self-harm and arguably the reason for Ireland remaining in the EU. The UK has no real requirement to enforce a border aside from what the EU requires of them and again a minimal border benefits UK customers purchasing Irish goods and significantly affects NI.

None of this matches the posturing in the media from Ireland, but it provides a convenient concession in the negotiations. Time will tell...

[Spazturtle]

Re: Not optimistic

Even in a no deal scenario the UK won't put up a hard boarder, there is no requirement to enforce your boarders. If anyone puts up a hard boarder then it will be Ireland after being forced to do so by the EU, and in that case Ireland would be the one is violation of the Good Friday agreement.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not optimistic

No, no, no, no! Look up WTO rules. I can't be bothered to repeat it again.

Idiot!

[Spazturtle]

Re: Not optimistic

WTO rules don't say you have to enforce your boarder, just look at all the other countries that have lax or no boarder security. You can travel though multiple south american countries without going though a boarder post for example.

[John Mangan]

Re: Not optimistic

WTO rules don't prevent you having specific deals with specific countries. They DO however prevent you having special rules with one partner without a corresponding trade deal without expanding it to all other WTO members.

So if you allow the EU the special access across the Northern Irish border without a deal in place with the EU then everyone else is entitled to the same thing. I've lost track of how many times I and others have written this and still the message doesn't sink in.

[Spazturtle]

Re: Not optimistic

"So if you allow the EU the special access across the Northern Irish border without a deal in place with the EU then everyone else is entitled to the same thing. I've lost track of how many times I and others have written this and still the message doesn't sink in."

We don't have to give the EU special access across the northern Irish border. We can say that they are required to pay customs and then just not put any customs posts there, that way we are compliant with WTO rules and there is no hard border.

WTO rules don't require you to enforce your borders, many countries can't afford to lock down their entire border, even the US doesn't secure the entirety of it's borders. Do you really think that countries like Brazil have their entire border secured and that nobody can get goods into the country without paying customs?

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

Re: Not optimistic

The point of the backstop isn't about trade, it to avoid the situation of having an actual wall between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is a key part of the Good Friday peace agreement.

I feel a little sorry for the govt , they are quite capable of fucking up the simplest of problems , and this one seems impossible.

Ireland as a whole (both bits) want to be both in the EU and out of it AND not have a border.

I just cant see it , its like trying to picture a 4 dimensional shape

[Alan Brown]

Re: Not optimistic

"Ireland as a whole (both bits) want to be both in the EU and out of it AND not have a border."

NI would always seceed from the UK and join the republic. Only 2 NI counties actually voted for Brexit. The rest wanted to stay in the EU and if push comes to shove they might choose to do so.

After all, the UK tried to hand NI off to the Irish Republic once before, but those counties decided at the time they didn't want to go.

[Tigra 07]

Technically all satellites and rockets are exported. That's the point of them.

[TRT]

Is there such a thing as "international airspace", in the same way as "international waters"? And can we fish for ducks in it?

[sawatts]

Space Ducks!

Everything sounds better if you put "Space" in front of it.

[Ken 16]

Space Brexit?

I'm not sure about that...

[Tigra 07]

Re: Space Brexit?

We're leaving the Solar System?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Space Brexit?

The last known specimens of Sane Governance Of The UK have been accelerating away from Earth rapidly and are due to pass Pollux at 0932 tomorrow morning.

[TRT]

Re: Space Brexit?

Hm. Space Johnson does have a certain ring to it...

[MAF]

Re: Space Brexit?

Yep - let's chuck it out of an airlock...

[Tigra 07]

Re: Sawatts

"Everything sounds better if you put "Space" in front of it."

Space Diahorrea? Space Hemorrhoids? Space Rabies? Space Ebola?

Nope, not cooler. Scarier... Icon because space headache obviously...

[W.S.Gosset]

Re: Sawatts

"Space Rabies" actually has a cool ring to it

[ToddRundgrensUtopia]

Re: Space Ducks!

Between your Ears

[Pete 2]

Baby steps

> Exports account for £5.5bn of that income

Although you'd think that with no domestic launch capability, All the product would be exported. Most of it in an upwards direction!

However, if the ultimate goal of BREXIT is to make trade deals, then the first and almost certainly the easiest would be with everything that isn't on Planet Earth. I mean, how hard would it be to get that one wrong? When all the negotiating team has to do is say "I'll take that silence as a 'yes', then".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Baby steps

>However, if the ultimate goal of BREXIT is to make trade deals, then the first and almost certainly the easiest would be with everything that isn't on Planet Earth. I mean, how hard would it be to get that one wrong? When all the negotiating team has to do is say "I'll take that silence as a 'yes', then".

Given the current level of negotiations from the UK, a deal would be agreed then the people who agreed it would vote against it.

[Ken 16]

Re: Baby steps

sorry, Mrs May advocated a hostile environment towards aliens.

[Gene Cash]

Thank ITAR

Lots of people pay extra for space things not touched by Americans and their onerous regulations.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Thank ITAR

Itar still applies to kit built in the UK and launched by 'foreign' sites- unless you want to be huawei-ed.

[lglethal]

Re: Thank ITAR

Ah no. ITAR only applies to American products, or any product containing any American products. That does mean if you have even one tiny resistor in a small electronic box on the side of your big huge rocket thats American, then you are stuck with ITAR. Thats why there is a massive push to make sure you dont have any ameriacn components whatsoever in your kit, at least if your looking to sell anywhere in the world except America...

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Thank ITAR

In practice though, even if you managed to avoid any US (or foreign subsidiary of US corp) software, hardware, OS etc - if you are in the satelite building game you probably rely on the US govt for other things.

So unless you want to do a total break from any western defence/aerospace business you will listen to their 'politely worded objections' to your exports.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Space Industry

So 90% of the UK's space industry is paying for satelite TV?

Same thing happened here when the local movie industry wanted tax breaks. The "arts" contributed some $Bn to the local economy - but only because they counted everyone's cable bill as "arts" income

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Space Industry

Is that like the way someone a few years ago announced that people in the UK were the most "artistic" in Europe because 15% of the population had gone to the theatre in the previous year compared to an average of 9% in the rest of Europe ... except someone pointed out that in the UK vast numbers of people go to a pantomime around Christmas (not exactly the "high art" that the original article was talking aout) and that if you discounted that then UK theatre attendance dropped to ~6% of population each year!

[Allan George Dyer]

Re: Space Industry

@AC - 'a pantomime around Christmas (not exactly the "high art"'

OH YES IT IS!

[Alan Brown]

Re: Space Industry

"someone a few years ago announced that people in the UK were the most "artistic" in Europe "

Back in the 1990s, someone tried to claim that 30% of the New Zealand population were regular churchgoers and therefore the country was a christian one (It's empatically secular)

The definition of "regular" was setting foot in a church for any reason more than 3 times per year, including using the social hall found in the back of many NZ ones, attending weddings, funerals, or "events" such as christmas/easter (a lot of people go along for the spectacle).

[Phil Endecott]

> Almost half of it is accounted for by Direct to Home broadcasting.

> Actual space manufacturing brought in £1.9bn

Are you saying that the headline number includes manufacturing satellite TV receiver dishes?

Or that it includes what people pay for their sky subscriptions?

Or just that it includes manufacturing TV broadcast satellites?

[Yet Another Hierachial Anonynmous Coward]

Sky Broadcasting

I also saw the headline figures - and thought they seemed very impressively high. Then I read the line about Satellite Broadcasting, and concluded the rest of the article/report was probably not worth the paper it is written on.

If some consultants/numpties need to include Sky TV as part of our space programme/R+D then they must be clueless idiots. Perhaps in 1988/89 when Satellite TV was cutting edge, and a lot of the R+D/manufacutring was in the UK (Marconi, Amstrad, Pace, MAC, et al), the technology aspect could be included as part of advanced space research. But now a satellite TV reciever is as common as muck, hardly cutting edge or advanced (ok, some pretty nifty software) and even Sky are slowly pushing everything towards online delivery. The satellite bit was only a means to an end in 1988 as the only way Murdoch and co could circumvent existing UK broadcast regulations to build their empire. That was 30 years ago. Pressing satellite TV dishs out of a sheet of steel is about as relevent to space as pressing parts of a bicycle in the same factory.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Sky Broadcasting

But 10% of households still have satelite TV, so 2.5M customers paying £50-100/month soon adds up.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Sky Broadcasting

it could be a lot higher. It's not efficient to broadcast terrestrially AND from space, but the UK still insists on having flea-power TV transmitters and all their attendant maintenance hassles.

[BristolBachelor]

...or Mobile industry

I've always said that it's only headline having to lump in SKY with the space industry.

If we do the same calculation for mobile, adding up all the expenditure on mobiles, infrastructure etc. and then everyone's mobile bill, and then all the business "facilitated" by mobile, we probably end up with something like the GDP.

Actually, the calculation for space will look bigger next year, because it will include all the money spent on customs (eg. Sky buying all that capacity, etc, so expect the report to show a growith due to B. :-)

[W.S.Gosset]

Cutting-edge tradition

> Actual space manufacturing brought in £1.9bn

Nearly 50% of the UK's earnings from the Royal Family!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cutting-edge tradition

Caroline Aherne (rip) was clearly a genius

[Potemkine!]

Thanks to the incompetence of UK rulers and the narrow-minded vision of a majority of UK voters, UK space industry is going to experience the same fate than Beagle 2.

Alternate reality cannot last forever, reality check is going to happen. I'm fully confident UK will blame EU for that.

[Big_Boomer]

Brex-shit

I am almost looking forward to the aftermath of Brexit. I'm going to enjoy saying "Told you so" and "You f***ing voted for it!" over and over for many many years. However, the redundancies will not be along leave/remain lines so many who voted remain will still get shafted. And before anyone starts in on the fact that they won and remoaners should shut up and live with it, go vote yourself a second brain cell!

[nichomach]

Re: Brex-shit

"My job's been exported to Singapore! And this chicken tastes of chlorine!"

"You won! Get over it!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Brex-shit

That's the taste of winning. Get used to it. /s

[phuzz]

Re: Brex-shit

"the redundancies will not be along leave/remain lines"

I does seem that a lot of the areas that voted more strongly to leave the EU are likely to come of somewhat worse in the event of actually leaving the EU.

For example there's Cornwall, which voted 56% to leave, and currently receives around £60M per year from the EU.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Brex-shit

I'm going to enjoy saying "Told you so" and "You f***ing voted for it!" over and over for many many years.

I'm starting to suspect you might not have very long to say it. IIRC the ECJ ruled that Brexit could be cancelled within the implementation period. Couple that with projections of empty supermarket shelves (even if it's panic buying responsible) and the fact that experience is a dear teacher but there are those who will learn by no other I wonder if the failure to mandate a no non-deal Brexit was a bit of sly thinking. Crash out, a few days of empty shelves and civil unrest and May gets sacked as party leader someone - Hammond? - steps in as PM to restore the backup as it were and Boris et al get the whip withdrawn. In fact Boris et al might have to be taken into protective custody.

If that's what happens you'll only have a few days to say "Told you so" and it won't help because everyone you say it to will tell you they voted remain.

[John Mangan]

Re: Brex-shit

@Doctor Syntax

I wish I could believe it could (or would) be turned around so easily but I expect, after the initial shortages, panic-buying, lorry queues, etc. that it will settle down and prices will rise, jobs will be lost and it will take 2-3 years for enough people to start putting two and two together. Then there will be the inevitable 'this all the EU's fault because' blather.

By this time Boris or 'friend' will be PM so there is no chance that it will be reversed. Jeremy appears (to me, YMMV) to be making Labour unelectable in the near-term. So, I think nearer a decade before there is any chance of re-joining. EU will want some kind of guarantee that this isn't going to be a yoyo process and we will rejoin with none of the rebates, opt-outs, etc that we currently have and our standing considerably reduced not just within Europe but around the world.

But I am feeling quite pessimistic at the moment. I prefer your version.

[werdsmith]

As a person working in the UK Space Industry I'm pleased to announce that my line management has already been transferred to Germany in anticipation and I am going to be enjoying several hours waiting for short flights once a month for an indefinite time.

Should our UK offices be closed or downscaled then I will be expected to be in Germany or France 10 days out of every month. As a family man I won't be doing that.

[JP_Veeam]

The UK and Ms May ought to give the EU the single finger salute to their proposal and start making trade agreements today with the other 160+ countries in the world today !!!!

Imagine if by the end of March they had new agreements with the US, China, Russia and Australia.

The EU people would flip out.

They cannot be kicked out for negotiating early, they are already leaving.

[John Brown (no body)]

"They cannot be kicked out for negotiating early, they are already leaving."

They've been negotiation about 40 for ages and none are anywhere near agreements. There will be no trade agreements in place on Brexit Day if we crash out.

[W.S.Gosset]

Eh?

> There will be no trade agreements in place on Brexit Day if we crash out.

Errr... yes there will. WTO.

"No Deal" is careful badging by remainers to make it sound like armageddon, whereas all it means is that UK won't have specialspecialjustforyou treatment.

And if THAT was a dealbreaker and an economy crusher, well, look at the carnage it's wreaked on places like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, America -- all have been destroyed by not having special treatment by the EU. I'm living in Australia and it's terrible that with no specialmates deal with the EU, we are absolutely unable to trade with any country including the EU. In fact, no country on the planet can trade if they're not in the EU, and the UK never traded with the EU before they joined. Also that's why you'll never see an Australian IN the UK or Europe, let alone work there, because without specialdeals it's impossible to travel anywhere or work anywhere.

Honestly, it's a wonder we can exist at all.

[John Mangan]

Re: Eh?

Oh come on! You have trade deals and you trade. you have processes in place for dealing with the daily flow of trade between your country and the rest of the world.

So does Britain BUT the majority of that is so-called frictionless trade with the EU. with 'no deal' that stops and our processing capacity becomes so grossly over-loaded that nothing moves. It also means that we haven't had the time to complete trade deals with other nations (since we are leaving the trade deals with those same countries that we currently have arranged via the EU).

Try comparing apples with apples rather than main battle tanks.

[Loud Speaker]

Re: Eh?

"No Deal" is careful badging by remainers to make it sound like armageddon, whereas all it means is that UK won't have food and drink.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Eh?

"Errr... yes there will. WTO."

Like the NI border backstop, WTO rules are so restrictive that there are only 2 countries actually working to them.They are there for when you don't have anything else - AND under WTO rules you aren't allowed to offer one country a special deal - if the UK needs to allow cabbages in from Europe and gives a special tariff for it, that means EVERYONE gets the same tariffs.

In the other direction, if the EU gives British made cars a zero tariff, then US/Japanese/Korean/Chinese cars all have to have zero tariffs too. This is _why_ the EU can't afford to make special deals for the UK outside of the Union.

This is why EVERYONE spends a lot of time negotiating trading arrangements - but they can never be worse than WTO rules and they can't give favoritism to any country - back in the days of Empire up to the point when the UK joined the EU, such rules didn't exist, so any dreams of special deals with former commonwealth trading partners has to be tempered with the reality of WTO rules forcing a level playing field.

[W.S.Gosset]

Re: Eh?

@ JohnMangan & loudspeaker:

If this is what you believe, then you've been lied to.

The UK has finalised trade deals for 164 countries (99.6% of global cross-border trade) for 2019.03 for all but (IIRC) 14 line-items in 19 countries, and even those are scheduled to be finalised by 2019.06, and those are only those unusual goods on which MaximumDiscount-Quotas have been set. For example, Australian cheddar cheese. Yes, I'm afraid post-Brexit, you in the UK won't be able to tuck into any less-than-full-tariff Aussie cheddar cheese for 3 months. But then, you haven't actually imported any since at least 2013 so this hopefully will not bring your society to its knees in flaming ruin, eating your own babies for warmth.

Again: W.T.O.

UK is a member, as is every EU country, as is the EU itself.

By virtue of achieving membership, the UK has trade-deals with all 160odd members. Nearly all of your time spent "earning" membership, IS the negotiation of exactly those trade deals.

There is absolutely nothing to stop any country & UK trading. Even with the 0.4% trade-volume with NO TRADE DEALs ARRRGGGHHH..ARRRMAGEDDON. For example, the EU traded with all the WTO countries for 12yrs despite technically having NO trade deals with them because their WTO membership was void/invalid. Non-EU countries are quite pragmatic -- they're willing to trade as if your standard global trade deal was in place, until it is.

Again, you are confusing SpecialMagicWonderTreatmentJustForYou with "trade deal".

.

Border time-delays:

EU trade is NOT the majority, it is slightly less than half; 47% if you're looking at Imports which is what all the Food!Medicine! panic seems to be about.

Re Imports: yes this slow-down will be a factor for the duration of re-resourcing the border, re-establishing what you used to have. Again, not armageddon as you are presenting it: just a process slow-down causing serious bottlenecking and queuing. But again, there's nothing requiring the UK to go full-throttle straight away. They could announce "Carry On While We Prep" and continue waving everyone through for say 6mths, then with the larger lorry parks and more inspection sites and more staff and so on, switch over then. Zero drama.

Re Exports: well this COULD be a problem. Because the EU has acted like a prick from the outset, deliberately finding any way to stuff the UK then being obstructive, and I don't expect this to change any time soon for the EU-bureaucracy or for France. Specifically, UK export goods getting stuffed round in EU Customs.

So the actual Brexit losers are potentially the food exporters getting perishables delayed too long in French customs.

Within a couple of weeks they'll just switch to Rotterdam, Esbjerg, etc. Maybe an opportunity for Husum etc. to become major ports again :)

.

@AlanBrown:

If your description were correct, then the EU could not trade the way it does, because it and all its members are members of the WTO. Likewise NAFTA=nono. Etc.