UK space comes to an 'understanding' with Australia as Brexit looms The UK and Australia have announced plans to become the best of buddies in the space field, including the UK’s current hot potato: satellite navigation. The memorandum of understanding, which was signed this week by Chief Executive of the UK Space Agency, Graham Turnock, and head of the fledgling Australian Space Agency (ASA …
It's not so much the shambles of the negotiations that is forcing us out of Galileo, it's our own insistence, when part of it, that non-EU countries should not be able to benefit from either the navigation system or the raw data from it. I'm sure the ASA would like to develop something, but with that level of funding it's hard to see them doing more than setting up a nice shiny office.
This post has been deleted by its author
"And May is a poor negotiator letting them get away with it."
Did you not understand what Mooseman wrote? That it was the UK - us - who insisted that non-EU countries should not have access to the encrypted data. Or do you not understand that Brexit means that the UK becomes a nonEU country?
Please enlighten us as to how you would negotiate us out of that one?
Galileo uses British technologies with a licence attached to our participation, if they kick us out then those licences are invalid. They can either shut down all existing satellites or renegotiate a new licence for those technologies. Should they refuse to do either then the UK would be well within it's right to shoot down those illegal satellites.
@Spazturtle
Galileo uses British technologies with a licence attached to our participation, if they kick us out then those licences are invalid. They can either shut down all existing satellites or renegotiate a new licence for those technologies. Should they refuse to do either then the UK would be well within it's right to shoot down those illegal satellites.
LOL.
Just make up some old bullshit to add to the discussion. Love it.
"Galileo uses British technologies with a licence attached to our participation, if they kick us out then those licences are invalid. They can either shut down all existing satellites or renegotiate a new licence for those technologies. Should they refuse to do either then the UK would be well within it's right to shoot down those illegal satellites."
Boy, are you stupid. Galileo uses EU technology, with an EU licence. When we were part of the project we had access rights, now we are leaving we are not part of the EU and thus have NO RIGHTS to it. This was a clause inserted into the licence at the insistence of the UK.
Shoot down satellites? Are you living in a James Bond world?
Like this:
Give us the E1bn you have publicly admitted that we have put into this project back or we'll see you in court and stop eyeing up British Overseas Territories for your ground stations ( of which you have no viable alternative. No France doesn't. ).
Alternatively if you actually want a GNS you can waive the rules for us.
"Give us the E1bn you have publicly admitted that we have put into this project back or we'll see you in court and stop eyeing up British Overseas Territories for your ground stations "
You still don't get it do you? Lets say you are investing in a swimming pool. You and your friends in the swimming club all put money into it. You insist that its not fair if anyone outside your club uses the pool you are building, so everyone agrees to that rule. You then leave the club, and demand that you should be able to either use the pool as you paid towards it, or should get your money back.
Do you understand it yet?
Ground stations? Well there are a couple in the Falklands and Ascension Islands. I think you'll find the rest are in sovereign territories that we have bugger all say over.
"When you move out of a flat, does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?"
Ah, more analogies. The EU is a collection of nations, it does not exist outside of its constituent countries. So if one of those nations leaves, the assets should be split according to the financial contribution. Indeed, it's more like a divorce than a landlord-tenant relationship. But, of course, both of these analogies are wrong. It is whatever the treaties and contracts say it is.
"When you move out of a flat, does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?"
Not a good comparison. You do get to keep your furniture when you leave, and you only pay rent up until the point you lived in the property, not for years after. A better comparison would be starting a business with friends and eventually cashing out - you get your share back at current value, unless you negotiate badly, but you are entitled to your fair share.
Better comparison but remember the 27 friends will determine your shares value not you. They will pay what they think its worth and in some cases that's zero. Of course if said business is in massive debt they may ask you to pay in before you leave especially if its a partnership rather than a limited liability company....
Within the limits of that analogy, wouldn't it be more like not being refunded for the new bathroom you fitted?
In the UK, a tenant doesn't get any recognition for improvements to a house or flat. Though a tenant might get charged for any alterations. And improving a place means means it's worth more, so expect the rent to rise. Even if you have a landlord who would naturally play fair, they'll have to have the strength to stand up to the agent who recommends the higher rent for the improvements.
I'd say more like 'the new bathroom you started to have fitted'.
You'd expect to enjoy your new bathroom if you stay in the house after it's completed, but lose any rights to it if you move out.
If you have a good relationship with your landlord you might get some sort of recompense for the work you've put in. Good luck if you've spent the last 40 years complaining about the house and how mean he is.
Good luck if you've spent the last 40 years complaining about the house and how mean he is
Yep, and sometimes you have to cut your losses & leave, even if it means sleeping on a friend's sofa for a bit while you get yourself together.
"I'd say more like 'the new bathroom you started to have fitted'.
You'd expect to enjoy your new bathroom if you stay in the house after it's completed, but lose any rights to it if you move out.
If you have a good relationship with your landlord you might get some sort of recompense for the work you've put in. Good luck if you've spent the last 40 years complaining about the house and how mean he is."
What a shit analogy, were were not the EU's tenant, we were part of the EU. The EU doesn't actually exist, it is made up of member states. If every single member left then the EU would cease to exist.
It is more like that we owned 3.5% of a house, now we want to sell our part of the house to the other 27 joint owners, and we want to include the money we spend on renovating the bathroom in the price.
"It is more like that we owned 3.5% of a house, now we want to sell our part of the house to the other 27 joint owners, and we want to include the money we spend on renovating the bathroom in the price"
This is probably the longest of these discussions i've seen where no one has bought up the "leaving a golf club" analogy. I have to say that i prefer this bathroom version. It adds variety.
"Within the limits of that analogy, wouldn't it be more like not being refunded for the new bathroom you fitted"
Yes, but the landlord also wants you to pay for upkeep and cleaning of the bathroom for a few years after you moved out, and you're not allowed access to the bathroom.
Per the "purpose of annexation, degree of annexation" Holland v Hodgson test, I don't think the law would give you the right to repayment for a bathroom you fitted as it's very hard to believe that a bathroom is a chattel and not part of the property.
Of course, in the case of Brexit the UK is taking part of the property with them, so possibly that's another analogy that's fallen apart upon closer inspection.
Either let us stay in or give us our money back and buy us out
When you move out of a flat, does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?
It's like some in the UK expect a credit note on the amount you contributed to paying off the mortgage the landlord used to buy the place in the first place.
"Either let us stay in or give us our money back and buy us out
When you move out of a flat, does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?"
As was already pointed out, including by me, that's a bad analogy. We're not asking for the flat back, just our furniture.
"When you move out of a flat, does the landlord refund you all the money you gave to pay the rent?"
It isn't 'rent' that we're paying as an EU member, its the utility bills. When you move out of a flat, you don't get your council tax or gas/power/water bills refunded.
However you do take any furniture with you that you bought while living in the flat ... and that is also the case with Brexit. When we leave the EU we don't have to pay back any of the vast amounts of money that the EU spent in the UK on projects and subsidies. The money we DO have to pay when we leave (referred to as the divorce bill) is budget contributions which we've already committed to, on which EU-wide spending has been planned around, including here in the UK.
May probably is a poor negotiator. But she's got a shit hand to play. That hand won't get any better if it's Boris holding the cards and threatening to flounce out unless he gets to have his cake and eat it. He'll get nothing except 27 boot prints on his fat arse and an economic blockade.
The Boris shitshow would last about a month before the UK starves, there will be mass protests, the pound will collapse and the UK would be begging the EU to let it back in.
Banging your fist on the table and talking tough is only going to work if the other side thinks you have the tools to actually carry through on your threats. Unfortunately nobody except the most deluded of brexit jingoists thinks the UK can last more than a few weeks of hard brexit before it's at the table begging for a single market / customs union deal. Would be far better to do it now, before the chaos, and before more Japanese and UK companies move operations permanently to mainland Europe.
@ NerryTutkins
"May probably is a poor negotiator. But she's got a shit hand to play"
I always wince when I hear we have a poor hand to play. Of the two sides we can get what we want unilaterally by just not participating in the project (aka leave). The EU is in a less envious position as they really dont want a net contributor to leave the fragile project. May is a poor negotiator but as she has been determined that she doesnt want to leave the EU it isnt a shock.
"The Boris shitshow would last about a month before the UK starves"
I would be amazed if we lasted that long under Boris.
"Banging your fist on the table and talking tough is only going to work if the other side thinks you have the tools to actually carry through on your threats"
This is a fair comment against May except its not the tools but the will that is lacking. But this also explains why leave is not swooning to change their minds, the EU threats followed by desperate begging to remain just look pathetic.
"Unfortunately nobody except the most deluded of brexit jingoists thinks the UK can last more than a few weeks of hard brexit before it's at the table begging for a single market / customs union deal."
I am not sure how you bring jingoists to this, there were plenty in remain as well as some in leave. But why would we be begging in a few weeks, even the dire predictions of Carney and Osborne have to predict 30 years ahead to pretend there is a downside. Reports on hard brexit assuming we must apply either the highest tariffs or what we do while in the EU are deluded but as that would be self sabotage (think Osborne's punishment budget level of stupidity) why would we do that?
"Would be far better to do it now, before the chaos"
Too late. The EU is in multiple self inflicted crises, the chaos is already there. Everything is going to be the end of the EU and Eurozone according to its presidents and leaders of member countries. They are finally talking of reforming the EU after all this time because it has finally penetrated their little bubble that the project is in a dire state. Cant blame the UK for wanting some distance from that wreck.
"I always wince when I hear we have a poor hand to play."
So do I for the simple reason we have no hand. On the most minuscule of majorities on an advisory referendum HMG has decided unconditionally that we leave. No feasibility study. No planning (you may remember that a citizen had to go to court* to even get them to realise that they needed Parliamentary consent). That, as far as I can see, amounts not no hand.
*Sadly mistimed. If she'd held her hand until now it could have thrown a real spanner in the works to discover that the invocation of Article 50 didn't meet the constitutional requirement.
@ Doctor Syntax
"So do I for the simple reason we have no hand."
Wow. So my reasoned comment explaining how we have a great hand and pointing out the difference in position has been responded to with the none answer of 'we have no hand'. Sorry but reason and explanation is worth more than repeating rubbish.
"On the most minuscule of majorities on an advisory referendum HMG has decided unconditionally that we leave"
2 general elections and 1 referendum to have the vote, get the result and confirm the result. Which for some reason but a minority somehow things that should be undemocratically overthrown because they dont like it. Erm, no.
"No feasibility study. No planning"
Both are actions of the government. Now why would the government not do that? Say for example Cameron considering leave as a possibility when he offered the choice? Or May who handed over art50 in her own time? How are your Scotsmen doing?
"That, as far as I can see, amounts not no hand."
So your argument that we have no hand is because we have remainers in government trying desperately to remain in the EU which we the people have with certainty voted out of. Funny I think you might just be describing why leave voters are not so impressed!
"Project Fear."
From within the EU by the very supporters of the EU about the EU! You should warn me of the mental gymnastics required to reach your conclusions. I have to limber up.
My understanding, based on the reports I have seen in the Press, was that, going into the Brexit referendum, the British public were assured that leaving the European Union would not have significant economic consequences for the British people, because an agreement would be easily reached so that Britain, like Denmark, would remain in a customs union with Europe. As this has not happened - and, indeed, British Prime Minister Theresa May is now on record as stating she would find a continued customs union unacceptable, as beyond her "red line" - Brexit at this point would not be what many of the voters authorised, and so another referendum, to determine if the majority of British citizens in fact want to leave the European Union under the actual circumstances that exit would entail is entirely reasonable.
"On the most minuscule of majorities on an advisory referendum HMG has decided unconditionally that we leave"
A simple majority where 1.2m more people voted to leave than to stay, hardly "miniscule". It's called the democratic will of the people. You might not like it. I might not like it. But ignoring it would not have been an option for whichever government was in place at the time.
"On the most minuscule of majorities on an advisory referendum HMG has decided unconditionally that we leave"
A simple majority where 1.2m more people voted to leave than to stay, hardly "miniscule". It's called the democratic will of the people. You might not like it. I might not like it. But ignoring it would not have been an option for whichever government was in place at the time.
The Referendum was never billed as an Ultimate decision, merely an advisory. I have my suspicions a fair few votes were so called protest votes, and not on the actual question, which was vague.
There was never any mention of leaving the ECHR, and might even have been mention that leave did not include this, yet it got included after the fact.
The Referendum was never billed as an Ultimate decision, merely an advisory.
What is the point in having a referendum if you're then going to ignore the result? That would be both undemocratic and a waste of taxpayers' money If all you want is advice, you run an opinion poll, not a referendum.
"What is the point in having a referendum if you're then going to ignore the result?"
The debate isn't about leaving the EU now. It's about whether the government will do a sensible deal and stay in the single market and customs union, or not.
What I think most remain leaning people object to is that during the campaign, the 'leave' camp insisted there was no prospect of losing access to the single market, or having customs controls and the economic damage it would do, as well as all the other promises about immigration and 'taking back control'.
And yet now that it's perfectly obvious the UK govt cannot deliver everything the leave side promised (even with Boris angrily thumping the table and acting all manly), the septuagenarian Tory voters are throwing the economic benefits of the single market under the bus, in order to ensure we don't have to agree common rules on hair dryers and banana bendiness with the French and Germans, or have to hear Polish spoken on the bus.
I think most remainers, even despite the obvious Putin interference via Aaron Banks, would accept leaving the EU, if the result was the Swiss or Norway style option promised, and not the Albania option that the 'leave' side said at the time was remainer scaremongering.
What is the point of a referendum if some chancers are going to fabricate a pretend mandate to chop our own feet off?
Are you referring to the chancers who accept election votes, none of which have been more decisive than the Brexit referendum for the past 100 years or so?
"There was never any mention of leaving the ECHR, and might even have been mention that leave did not include this, yet it got included after the fact."
I do hope we never leave the ECHR, we helped set it up, to leave would be proof of the erosion of human rights in the UK.
I do hope we never leave the ECHR, we helped set it up, to leave would be proof of the erosion of human rights in the UK.
Pray for a miracle. Sometimes I think leaving the ECHR is the whole reason for Brexit, apart from whatever get rich quick scheme ERG have planned to line their own pockets. Sponsored by the Police State wannabe Facists at the Home Office.
>The only people who have ever suggested that might be on the table are the remainers, as part of Project Fear. I've seen leavers suggest leaving the ECJ, not the same thing at all.
Mrs May was for it (http://www.theweek.co.uk/72028/european-convention-of-human-rights-the-pros-and-cons-of-leaving), and it is something they keep trying to put in the manifesto - although you could argue that would make our position safe as they haven't done anything in the last manifesto.
Chris Grayling was definitely in favour and wrote a paper about it before the 2015 election, as was Lord Foulkes (two former justice ministers and at least one home secretary) and the majority of the ERG, including famous Remainer Rees-Mogg.
Sometimes I think leaving the ECHR is the whole reason for Brexit,
The only people who have ever suggested that might be on the table are the remainers, as part of Project Fear. I've seen leavers suggest leaving the ECJ, not the same thing at all.
Nope, May mentioned her inclinations while still in the Remain camp during the referendum (guess she was as sure as everyone else that the vote would fall in remain). It was reported she was heard stating a preference to leaving the ECHR and staying in the Union (proly as the ECHR was a thorn in her side as Home Sec).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum
Theresa May has bowed to EU pressure to keep the UK in the European Convention on Human Rights, in another move that will inflame the Tory right.
The Brexit white paper pledges that the government is “committed” to staying in the treaty – after Brussels said pulling out would jeopardise a future security deal.
But previous to that, before she realised doing so would make any security data sharing with EU impossible, her line was very different....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-white-paper-eu-european-convention-on-human-rights-tory-mps-a8444386.html
The only Fear should be what these clowns in Westminster intend to do next while they sleepwalk the country into 1984.
"I have my suspicions a fair few votes were so called protest votes, and not on the actual question, which was vague"
I have suspicions that a fair few people who voted remain have no idea what the EU even is or does. See the reporting during the protests after the vote where many youngsters didn't know what the EU was, does, or even what they were voting to remain in. One dopey cow even got on camera to claim we had to stay in the EU or the UK Gov wouldn't keep paying for us to go abroad to the EU *headslap*.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
