ESA salutes Galileo satellite system meeting aviation standards
It's all in the software
Science
30 Jan 2024 | 12
TL;DR
We're fucked.
UK.gov finally adds Galileo and Copernicus to the Brexit divorce bill
Nestled among the mass publication of no-deal guidance yesterday was the UK government's vision for the future of the Brit satellite and space programmes if the country falls out of the EU with no pact in March. The guidance is, unsurprisingly, grim. Galileo Billed as the EU's answer to the USA's GPS system, and aimed at …
-
-
-
Friday 14th September 2018 10:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: TL;DR
If you are one of the 99% who's job has nothing to do with the space industry, then who cares?
The other people who work in industries who support the space industry, the people who run businesses where space industry employees spend their wages, the government department that takes taxation from the space industry and its employees, people who benefit from that taxation.
But, yeah...apart from them, who cares?
-
Friday 14th September 2018 10:50 GMT Pen-y-gors
Re: TL;DR
@AC (should really have been Troll icon, but I'll bite...)
Effect on the UK economy: insignificantly small and unmeasurable.
Unless you are one of the 158,000+ job losses already announced, and we still haven't left! And then of course there is the drop in government tax income as GDP falls steadily for a decade or more.
Interesting list at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTIPx0lI6pb-3Tn-3D6uNJNyKcCd-A8uPMxViagyJAR9T87ZmnSdAEPCzp5ljlNYoUNdxJiJqQdBm7b/pubhtml
-
Friday 14th September 2018 11:13 GMT hammarbtyp
Re: TL;DR
"Only if you work in a tiny specialisted field.
If you are one of the 99% who's job has nothing to do with the space industry, then who cares?
Effect on the UK economy: insignificantly small and unmeasurable."
Unmeasurable maybe, insignificant definitely not.
Space science is one of those flagships industries which governments spend a lot of money trying to attract. Not only on do they directly employ people in high margin industries and indirectly through suppliers, but spin off industries and expertise gained are immeasurable important, especially in developed economies.
In fact it is so important the government have already committed £100 mill of UK tax funds, just to see if they can justify spending £4-5 bill to keep the industry going.
On the other hand, maybe the British economy will be based in the future on tax havens, zero hour contracts warehouses, strawberry picking. So maybe on that basis your right, it doesn't matter at all
-
Friday 14th September 2018 18:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: TL;DR
Unmeasurable maybe, insignificant definitely not.
Space science is one of those flagships industries which governments spend a lot of money trying to attract. Not only on do they directly employ people in high margin industries and indirectly through suppliers, but spin off industries and expertise gained are immeasurable important, especially in developed economies.
In fact it is so important the government have already committed £100 mill of UK tax funds, just to see if they can justify spending £4-5 bill to keep the industry going.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typically governments are absolutely horrible at picking wise investments, and tend to go for glitz and glamour over real returns. It's all about spinning stuff for the next election.
It is not uncommon for governments to spend ten or twenty times as much on 'flagship' programs than goes back into the economy in a useful way.
A smart government would back basic research in broad general areas, and let the more targeted, 'practical' investments come from private industry.
The Large Hadron Collider is a good project. The more 'applied' and specific a program becomes the less likely it is to be beneficial.
The costs and damage of the Ontario 'Green Energy' program, which was supposed to create a profitable world class energy industry exporting to everyone in the world (sound like a familiar theme you've heard elsewhere?) has cost the economy tens of billions so far, and the damage is still mounting.
-
-
-
Saturday 15th September 2018 00:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Specialisted (sic) field
"So you're saying only 1% of people have jobs that depend in some way on satellite communications and GPS? Please cite a source for that figure."
Way less than 1% rely on the government funded programs such a Galileo
GPS doesn't stop working after brexit.
Galileo isn't actually needed, it's a vanity project.
The only downside is the tiny amount of economic activity promoted by the government/EU funded programs. But they are so small as to mean nothing in terms of the economic future of this country.
-
Monday 17th September 2018 15:45 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Specialisted (sic) field
"Galileo isn't actually needed, it's a vanity project."
Galileo is not a vanity project. It is a geopolitical/military necessity for an independent superpower - which is what the EU is evolving into.
The 'we can do it too, so there! UK GNSS' announced by the UK politicians is a vanity project, of little use to a second tier power, and definitely not worth the money.
-
-
Friday 14th September 2018 20:19 GMT Paul Stimpson
Re: TL;DR
Yeah. What has the space industry and the technology that trickled down from it into wider use ever done for us? It's not like people have benefited from technology like the microprocessor, inertial navigation, priority-based task scheduling, satellites, earth observation, GPS, insulation materials, scratch resistant lenses, CAT scans, LEDs, water purification systems, memory foam...
-
Saturday 15th September 2018 09:58 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: TL;DR
"If you are one of the 99% who's job has nothing to do with the space industry, then who cares?"
And if you work in one of the other 99% who work in some other sector that is equally at risk then who cares when that too goes down the drain.
Effect on the UK economy: of your particular employer - insignificantly small and unmeasurable.
-
-
Friday 14th September 2018 10:27 GMT Thought About IT
Re: TL;DR
The only possible way to get unfucked is to hold a second referendum with the option to stay in the EU. Maybe adding to the 800,000 who've already signed this petition to hold one will help.
-
-
Friday 14th September 2018 10:40 GMT Warm Braw
Re: TL;DR
demanding more votes until the "correct" result is returned is unreasonable
By that logic, we might as well not have elections at all and stick with the government we've got for ever more. Mind you, given that both the present government and opposition are essentially so riven by internal divisions as to be completely ineffective, I can see the merit in your proposition.
-
Friday 14th September 2018 14:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: TL;DR
>By that logic, we might as well not have elections at all and stick with the government we've got for ever more.
Add unelected to that and you have the very reason why we have Brexit and Trump. When democracy is too important to leave to the people the wheels will always come off.
-
-
Friday 14th September 2018 10:41 GMT Thought About IT
Re: TL;DR
The level of ignorance about the effects of leaving the EU at the time of the last referendum - not least among the most extreme Brexiteers in the government - casts a long shadow over the proceedings. Holding a referendum on the terms of the negotiated agreement versus the status quo, now that people are much better informed, would be good for democracy.
-
Friday 14th September 2018 10:54 GMT Pen-y-gors
Re: TL;DR
@Thought about IT
The level of ignorance about the effects of leaving the EU at the time of the last referendum - not least among the most extreme Brexiteers in the government - casts a long shadow over the proceedings.
The level of ignorance about the effects of leaving the EU
at the time of the last referendumeven now - not least among the most extreme Brexiteers in the government - casts a long shadow over the proceedings.FTFY
-
Friday 14th September 2018 11:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: TL;DR
"The level of ignorance about the effects of leaving the EU at the time of the last referendum - not least among the most extreme Brexiteers in the government - casts a long shadow over the proceedings. Holding a referendum on the terms of the negotiated agreement versus the status quo, now that people are much better informed, would be good for democracy."
People aren't better informed now, though are they?
All we hear is scaremongering from the media and silly stories about Boris and Theresa.
They ignore all the positive news. Things like manufacturing and tourism are already booming before Brexit has even happened.
-
Friday 14th September 2018 14:40 GMT Rich 11
Re: TL;DR
Things like manufacturing and tourism are already booming before Brexit has even happened.
Are they booming because of the Brexit vote or in spite of it? What about the strong run of good summer weather helping tourism? Or are you going to claim that the Brexit vote causing the pound to lose value was a really good thing, in which case you should be demanding we really fuck up the economy because it'll be good for tourism and exports. Oh, wait, you are....
-
Friday 14th September 2018 15:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: TL;DR
The fall in value of the pound is indeed a good thing.
Something the media have never understood.
How something going down can be a good thing.
They are just simplistic idiots.
They think when the value of a company goes up, it is good news for the company, and when it goes down it is bad news for the company. Neither are true.
-
-
Friday 14th September 2018 19:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: TL;DR
>This is true if only you sell more than you buy using USD.
And that is wrong. Just wrong. Fall in value is not just the USD gaining, it is a fall with respect to the rest of the world. So you can trade with Canada in Euro or USD, it does not matter.
What matters is that the cost of the work to add value to the raw materials become cheaper and thus more competitive. And that gains more jobs, improves employment etc.
-
-
Saturday 15th September 2018 10:59 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: TL;DR
"The fall in value of the pound is indeed a good thing.
Something the media have never understood."
ITYF that the media understand very well that the value of the pound is based on a reasoned estimate of the prospects of the British economy (that is, in the absence of fiddling with interest rates to try to buoy it up). If it falls it's because the rest of the world doesn't rate our prospects. Tell me why I should be pleased that the majority opinion is that we'll come out of this badly.
-
-
-
Friday 14th September 2018 18:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: TL;DR
They ignore all the positive news. Things like manufacturing and tourism are already booming before Brexit has even happened.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a few things wrong with your failed analysis...
1. Brexit hasn't happened yet. All the hard regulatory and pragmatic problems have not yet started.
2. Lots of people have a glibly optimistic belief that the UK couldn't actually be stupid enough to go through with it.
3. Some manufacturing and tourism are getting a boost from the fact that the GBP is tanking. Other manufacturers are losing business as doubts grow about their ability to deliver timely, reliable, and affordable goods and services after Brexit. As the deadline approaches, the pound is likely to continue to decline, costs are likely to increase, and the numbers of firms hurt rather than helped is likely to increase.
-
Saturday 15th September 2018 10:21 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: TL;DR
"Things like manufacturing and tourism are already booming before Brexit has even happened."
What's pushing those at the moment is that the pound has dropped. The strength of a currency depends on the markets' judgement about the prospects of an economy. So the general view is that the economy will falter once the trade barriers go up. What trade barriers? Those between us and the greater part of our former home market.
We/re not ignoring your "good news", we're simply seeing it for what it is.
-
-
Saturday 15th September 2018 04:07 GMT Yes Me
good for democracy?
You know what would be really good for democracy? The House of Commons doing its job (as the legislature in a representative democracy) by voting for the good of the country, not for the good of certain political parties. That would fix Brexit in a heartbeat, now that the facts are in.
-
Saturday 15th September 2018 05:26 GMT Frenchie Lad
Re: TL;DR
The UK should be voting afresh until the UK attains the "right" result that would be the preferred EU choice, The EU has already used this approach with Eire when it was told to jump a second time but somehow the UK doesn't want to jump in the right direction and all the EU treaties barely paid lip service to the unthinkable idea that anyone would leave.
Currently it looks as if Brexit is the first of several exits (Hungary?) to avoid a Geman controlled super-state. Mercifully the Germans don't have a viable army at the moment so the Sudentland is safe for the moment. The EU are however making progress having found a modern Chamberlain aka Macron. He clearly understands German needs less so France's.
-
Saturday 15th September 2018 10:05 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: TL;DR
"Holding a referendum on the terms of the negotiated agreement versus the status quo, now that people are much better informed, would be good for democracy."
And if that fails there will be demand for another referendum when reality strikes but by then it will be too late.
Experience is a dear teacher but there are those who will learn at no other.
-
Saturday 15th September 2018 10:54 GMT John Smith 19
"Experience is a dear teacher but there are those who will learn at no other."
Correct.
If you were arrested, taken to a police station and handed a blank sheet of paper with "Confession" at the top and asked to sign it at the bottom who in their right minds would do so?
Yet that is exactly what Leave voters did.
Now they are reading their "confession" and it turns out they don't like what (they) did.
Leave voters. However Brexit turns out, this is what you asked for. You gave a blank sheet of paper to a bunch of delusional f**kwits and chancers on the promise of what exactly?
-
-
-
-
Friday 14th September 2018 11:46 GMT Flocke Kroes
Re: Neverendum
Before the referendum, Brexits thought they would lose by a small amount. They set up a petition to repeat the referendum until their was a 60/40 majority in either direction. When the results were announced Bremainers jumped on the petition and took it to 4,150,262 signatures.
-
Friday 14th September 2018 12:26 GMT Jason Bloomberg
Re: Neverendum
Before the referendum, Brexits thought they would lose by a small amount. They set up a petition to repeat the referendum until their was a 60/40 majority in either direction.
Which seems quite sensible and legitimate to me. It doesn't matter which way the vote goes only that there is a substantial majority in favour one way or the other. Until then it's not settled. And it's never settled for eternity - It's an inalienable right to change one's mind, take into account changes, new information and evidence.
It's how democracy works. We keep voting for governments and representatives, and when we find one which suits the majority they keep getting re-elected. When things change we vote for someone else.
There is nothing wrong with keeping on voting to come to a consensus. It is how it has always been. It's only hypocritical brexiteers having claimed victory who have now decided it's one vote and that's it, that re-voting is somehow undemocratic.
I expect they would also say the right to appeal a court conviction is also wrong; once convicted that's it. Tough shit if convicted on the back of lies and false claims.
-
Friday 14th September 2018 12:48 GMT EvilDrSmith
Re: Neverendum
The difference is that we vote for our representatives to parliament, on the strict basis that they fill that role for a period not exceeding 5 years. When we then have the next general election, we are not 'changing our mind'; once we vote for our MP, that result is fixed and permanent, and is not, and cannot be, over turned, because some people don't like the result / think it may be harmful.
We (the nation) voted in a free and fair referendum, which was not just authorised but instructed to occur by act of parliament. We voted to leave the EU: the exact details of what this meant were indeed unclear (other than it meant leaving the single market, leaving the common external tariff area / customs union, and ending the general jurisdiction of the ECJ, all points that were absolutely clear during the referendum). Parliament voted to enact that result, and duly started the process for leaving the EU. It would be an over-turning of democracy to stop that process: the instruction to leave the EU has been given and so should be carried out.
Once we have left the EU, then anybody is of course entirely free to make the case to then reverse that decision, just as once your duly elected MP takes his seat in parliament, you are entirely free to start campaigning, for or against him/her, for the next election.
Of course, given that the only previous time the people of the UK were consulted on membership of the EEC/EC/EU was 1975, which was a referendum won by the remain campaign, it might be viewed as hypocritical for supporters of remain to insist on another referendum in less than 40 years from 2016.
-
Friday 14th September 2018 14:01 GMT Geekpride
Re: Neverendum
@EvilDrSmith: The referendum was by no means free and fair. The Electoral Commission has now proved that Leave committed "serious breaches of the laws put in place by Parliament to ensure fairness and transparency at elections and referendums." (https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/vote-leave-fined-and-referred-to-the-police-for-breaking-electoral-law)
If you think the result should stand, you support criminals cheating to win votes, not democracy.
-
Friday 14th September 2018 14:13 GMT EvilDrSmith
Re: Neverendum
You missed out that the breach of the law committed by the leave campaign was because they took advice from the Electoral Commission, who stated that what they were going to do (in general terms) was legal, when, in fact, it was not. And that the Electoral Commission then attempted to cover up their own part in this to the High Court.
From the High Court ruling:
Conclusion
94. For the reasons given, we conclude that the Electoral Commission has misinterpreted the definition of “referendum expenses” in section 111(2) of PPERA. The source of its error is a mistaken assumption that an individual or body which makes a donation to a permitted participant cannot thereby incur referendum expenses. As a result of this error, the Electoral Commission has interpreted the definition in a way that is inconsistent with both the language and the purpose of the legislation.
So the Electoral Commission have found the leave campaign guilty of serious crimes, but the High Court has found the Electoral Commission (in effect) misled the leave campaign, causing that breach of the law.
There have also been numerous accusations of breaches of the rules by the remain campaign which the Electoral Commission has failed to investigate (not investigated and found to be unsubstantiated, but failed to investigate).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
