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 …
Just like they did the recession which they are still years behind in recovery?
The EU have negotiated an agreement with Japan and are just starting to negotiate one with NZ. When it comes to imports and exports at least, the UK will not be missed.
The UK meanwhile us hitting reset on trade agreements and 700+ other agreements and will have to start from scratch.
No-one pro-Brexit has managed explain how the UK can catch up to where was before. It'll take decades (probably the only thing JRM is right about) and you and I will probably be dead.
She has an impossible hand. She is literally trying to ensure free movement of people and goods across the Irish border while, at the same time, restricting the movement of people and goods across the border.
I would almost feel sorry for her if she wasn't the one continuing to maintain that there's a solution.
It's amazing how they argue that with computers and technology they can make the Irish border completely seamless and invisible such that it's virtually non-existent and definitely not carving Ireland in two.
And yet, when it is suggested that this completely and invisible border be moved to the middle of open sea, suddenly it becomes an impenetrable obstacle that is ripping the UK apart.
"She is literally trying to ensure free movement of people and goods across the Irish border while, at the same time, restricting the movement of people and goods across the border."
Well she shot herself in the foot there with the general election. She is now beholden to the N. Irish unionists for her majority in the commons. By far the more logical (if emotive/inflammatory for some people especially Irish unionists) would be to allow a re-united Ireland to stay in the EU and have UK revert to GB
a lot of leavers DON'T seem to grasp this fact. I'm fed up with the oh we should tell them to feck of brigade and the they need us more than we need them, errrrmmmmmm really. They sell us more than we sell them, etc, etc. There's 27 other countries you don't really want to pi$$ any of them off!
>Such a narrow view. There are over 180 other countries, but only 27 of them are in the EU.
Technically, 193 in the United Nations plus a handful not in the UN, so call it 200. Of those, we've fought wars, conquered or had territorial disputes with pretty much all of them at some point in the past.
May might (sorry!) be a poor negotiator, but given that her main negotiator for a good deal has been Borris-No-Deal, this would indicate she had poor judgement of choosing the best negotiator in the first place. Or, terrible thought, Boris-No-Deal was still the least worst negotiator she could have found...
remember the cousin's advice:
"speak softly and carry a big stick
Unfortunately, in this case, it's the EU side that's been implementing this policy (because they can). And it has been painful to watch UK's puffing and huffing when both sides know _exactly_ there's no ace up UK's sleeve. No ace, no stick, nothing. Other than the gentlemanly message from the highest echelons of British establishment: FUCK YOU, WE'RE NOT PAYIN' THAT BILL! And you're no better than Soviets anyway, so yes, fuck you!
But... no stick, so it's easy to guess what the EU side says quietly to that.
it's easy to guess what the EU side says quietly to that.
My money is on them saying (internally) "Forget negotiations, just stonewall, eventually they'll give up and stay". They're finally realising that isn't the case, and it hurts...
Do you understand how contracts work? You sign up for something, you commit to it and you pay the money in. If you then decide to pull out you can't expect all sides to just give you back your money etc. Unless it is in the contract which doesn't look to be the case.
If you signed a contract for a car, agreed to pay a loan to the finance company for ownership and continued use of that car. Then decided you didn't want the car agreement and left, they won't pay you back what you put in. And you will lose the car because you still signed up to pay the money for it.
The UK contributed to Galileo and as a result negotiated and received a share of the pork for R&D. Part of the contract we insisted on was that only EU members are allowed big lumps of Galileo pork. Until recently, Brits have done an excellent job of getting an unfair share of EU pork so most of the ~£350M/week came back.
Although I firmly believe our government lack the skills to negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag I do not blame them that much for this particular cock-up. Everyone in the UK is now is a lousy position to tender for long term EU projects and our share of the pork has already fallen.
Article 50 has always been particularly clear: any EU member that leaves gets fucked over by all the others on the way out. If any Brexit voter is any happy about this they can go to the bathroom, look in the mirror and rant at one of the people responsible.
"Brits have done an excellent job of getting an unfair share of EU pork so most of the ~£350M/week came back."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40860657
We are a net contributor to the EU budget. Plus, the majority of what we get back is agricultural subsidies and regional aid, neither things that the EU does very well.
Thanks for the link. If you read the report you will notice that the net contribution is calculated as (Money to the EU)-(Money back to the UK government). It misses out money back to the UK private sector (which exceeds money back to the UK government).
It also misses out EU citizens working over here and paying UK taxes. A big thank you to my Dutch NHS GP and all the Polish bus drivers (and their very welcome tobacco tax).
"Plus, the majority of what we get back is agricultural subsidies and regional aid".
That is a silly comment, the pork mentioned earlier is all about "that only EU members are allowed big lumps of Galileo pork", pork for British industry.
A lot of the money put into Galileo has ended up in Britain.
The pork comes from being a EU member. Ten other net contributing countries seem to understand it.
How so many Brits fell for the snake oil salesmen is still beyond me, (but then I look at your cabinet, and I listen to the Eton boys).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40860657
That does not include all the business you get from EU-land .... like e.g. Nissan in Sunderland selling 55% of the production to EU-land - which will grind to a halt on April 1st if nothing is done for all the parts that need to come in daily from EU-land, just in time, for production (long waits + 5% tariff) and the cars that need to go to EU-land. Carlos is very concerned and thinks about down-sizing despite the state aid (40m, iirc) and laughter he got back in 2016 when May tried to convince him to export to 3rd world countries instead of EU ... he had to remind May that there are Nissan factories across the globe and that transporting vehicles by sea is not economically realistic ... especially ones built in the UK with UK labour costs, compare to Indian labour costs ... she does not have an 'ff'ing clue.
I try, each time I reply here to give other examples ... Airbus, LCH, etc etc etc ?
I am at a point where I just think the deluded Brexiteers have ruined the country and we might as well leave them create havoc, I guess they will be the first to suffer, lets make them the only ones ... any remainers in the UK should move to Ireland or elsewhere, NOW, it is f-UK-ed, Jim!
"Until recently, Brits have done an excellent job of getting an unfair share of EU pork"
No...We're a net contributor. And Blair handed back a chunk of the rebate we get while the French still pull in massive subsidies for their farmers and veto any discussion of reform in this area. It's a protectionist racket where we're squeezed for more and more each year to give to economic basket cases as a bribe to join and make the EU even bigger, all the while "democratically" representing the people less and less.
I know we are a net contributor. I have never said otherwise. That is still consistent with getting an unfair share of EU pork which used to be true but is being eroded. What I massively object to is Brexits promising the gross ~£350M/week (16% of the NHS budget) when the net amount which could theoretically be available is a rounding error on the NHS budget. The signature benefit of Brexit has been a big lie from the start.
The next crap down on the list is to restrict freedom of travel. That hits both ways. You are contributing towards restrictions on my freedom of travel.
"We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act. The violent drug dealer who cannot be sent home because his daughter – for whom he pays no maintenance – lives here. The robber who cannot be removed because he has a girlfriend. The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had a pet cat."
"This is why I remain of the view that the Human Rights Act needs to go."
Do you really want to be stuck in the same country as cat-gate?
Cat gate was given credibility by a certain Theresa May to further her agenda. You should not believe everything (anything?) she says.
The cat example
It has been reported in several newspapers that a Bolivian man has been spared deportation on Article 8 grounds (right to respect for family life) because of his pet cat.
(for example, The Sun, 9 February 2011; Sunday Telegraph, 12 June 2011; Daily Mail, 17 June 2011)
The Home Secretary also referred to this case in her party conference speech in 2011, saying: “We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act…The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had pet a cat. This is why I remain of the view that the Human Rights Act needs to go.”2
In fact the immigration judge found that it would be disproportionate on Article 8 grounds to remove this claimant because he had a long-term relationship with a person settled in the UK and they had lived together for four years.3 The reference to the cat was one detail amongst many provided by the couple as evidence of the genuineness of their long-term relationship. The judge also relied on a former Home Office policy4 which said that if an individual lived in the UK with a settled spouse for two years or more without enforcement action being taken against them, they were entitled to leave to remain. The Home Office appealed but a senior immigration judge upheld the decision on the basis of the former Home Office policy.5 All other factors in the original determination, including ownership of the cat, were deemed “immaterial”.
"The next crap down on the list is to restrict freedom of travel. That hits both ways. You are contributing towards restrictions on my freedom of travel"
Really? You can't go to Europe anymore? Telling porkies are we?
Let's twist this. You're forcing me to remain in a United States of Europe that takes more of our GDP each year, foists more rules on us each year, and is slowly combining armies to achieve military dominion over members (another thing you lying remainers said wasn't happening during the referendum you cheated and lied in constantly).
Really? You can't go to Europe anymore? Telling porkies are we?
No deal means planes or trains grounded until agreement, it's in the government's own technical notes. After Brexit, it will be harder to live and work in Europe than it is now unless you're lucky enough to have Irish ancestry.
I won't dignify the rest of your post with a reply because it's bollocks.
"No deal means planes or trains grounded until agreement"
What planet do you come from where trains aren't on the ground?
Your other post consists of an angry rant accusing me of being angry - Something certain remainers have been ever since the referendum. I'm not angry, i'm dismayed that people like you are still fighting the inevitable with your lies and "alternative facts" 2 years on from your rigged referendum.
Lies and "alternative facts" - it's established fact that Banks was funded from Russia, one Leave group illegally funded the other, and Cambridge Analytica targeted swing voters.
The Remain campaign was guilty of an insipid campaign and forecasting the apocalypse in the immediate days after the referendum (then again the QE probably helped), but I really fail to see where lies are on the same scale as Leave's campaign.
But now, knowing what we now know two years later, it would not be anti-democratic to run the advisory referendum again.
"Lies and "alternative facts" - it's established fact that Banks was funded from Russia, one Leave group illegally funded the other, and Cambridge Analytica targeted swing voters.
The Remain campaign was guilty of an insipid campaign and forecasting the apocalypse in the immediate days after the referendum (then again the QE probably helped), but I really fail to see where lies are on the same scale as Leave's campaign.
I'd say threatening the country with a punishment budget if they voted leave is quite despicable, as is wheeling out world leaders and handing them statements to read out in favour of your side, as is spending more than the agreed amount to keep it fair right before the campaign started, as is lying that no other country would trade with us if we left, as is extending the deadline and encouraging more youngsters to vote just to prop up your side, lowering the age limit just for the vote because it favours your side. That's just what springs to mind, there were many more lies from remain.
Vote Leave should never have been fined. They followed to the letter the rules given by the Electoral Commission, who now admit they got the rules wrong - And they gave them a fine for doing as they were told. The head of the Electoral Commission should be out of a job for that and the fine should be rescinded since it is unjust.
"Liar. Any military arrangements, within the EU were always subject to our veto. But, we will lose that veto - so they can do whatever the hell they want."
You're in denial. Germany is already doing it and has been for a while now. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/22/germany-is-quietly-building-a-european-army-under-its-command/
The fact that Vote Leave received incorrect advice does not absolve them, they still have to follow the law and still have to be fined.
Stronger In also received incorrect advice but it did not breach spending limits.
As for punishment budgets, that's a Tory Party thing. It probably turns them on.
"The fact that Vote Leave received incorrect advice does not absolve them, they still have to follow the law and still have to be fined."
This is actually incorrect and its the spin vote leave put on the outcome of the case.
They actually recieved correct advice that they could donate money to other campaigns but they could not work in co-ordination with them.
They ignored that bit and thought they could launder money through Darren Grimes and no one would notice. The reality is, as all the evidence shows, they co-ordinated from the outset and they knew throughout that this went against the guidance the electoral commission gave them.
They lost the leave to appeal case yesterday as well as they have no realistic prospect of convincing the court they didn't coordinate.
"Let's twist this. You're forcing me to remain in a United States of Europe that takes more of our GDP each year, foists more rules on us each year, and is slowly combining armies to achieve military dominion over members (another thing you lying remainers said wasn't happening during the referendum you cheated and lied in constantly)."
Name one law imposed on you by the EU. How much of our GDP are they taking? Our contribution to the EU, the magical 350 million quid a week, is about 0.6% of your tax bill. This also includes some of our contribution to overseas aid. To put it in perspective for you, over the last 10 years we have paid in around 110 billion to the EU (plus or minus )- we have paid out over 850 billion to prop up our banks despite their criminal activities.
Which armies have been combined? And assuming any have (they haven't) who is seeking military dominion over member states that ASKED TO JOIN IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Cheating in the referendum? Hmm lets see, who is being investigated and fined for improper behaviour during the referendum again?
When you have anything sensible to say please come back, but leave your idiotic slogans and UKIP lies behind, please.
@ Mooseman
"Name one law imposed on you by the EU"
All of them dictated by the EU and written into UK law. Otherwise May wouldnt be transferring EU laws to UK law once we have left and then trying to weed them out.
"How much of our GDP are they taking?"
This is tough to work out as it would not be a glorious utopia if such was asked. I found the following amusing. Not because of its result but the amount of assumptions required to guestimate if there even is a benefit-
http://www.cityam.com/235348/eu-membership-the-true-cost-to-britains-economy-and-the-unrealistic-assumptions-you-need-to-make-the-numbers-net-positive
"we have paid out over 850 billion to prop up our banks despite their criminal activities."
How much of that is the propping up of the banks which they paid back plus a healthy interest to the public coffers benefit? The alternative being what happened in the EU with high unemployment, sacrificing countries and even now are still behind in the recovery process.
"Cheating in the referendum? Hmm lets see, who is being investigated and fined for improper behaviour during the referendum again?"
Which group wont be investigated regardless of the same accusation of cheating? And is it not improper for a government to actively threaten its population just like Osborne did with the punishment budget?
This post has been deleted by its author
In December 2005 the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed to give up approximately 20% of the rebate for the period 2007–2013, on condition that the funds did not contribute to CAP payments, were matched by contributions from other countries and were only for the new member states. Spending on the CAP remained fixed, as had previously been agreed. Overall, this reduced the proportion of the budget spent on the CAP. It was agreed that the European Commission should conduct a full review of all EU spending.
Pressed by most of his colleagues to give ground, Mr Blair raised the amount of rebate which Britain is prepared to forgo from €8bn (£5.4 bn) a week ago to €10.5bn - £1bn a year for seven years. That is almost a third of the annual rebate Britain has enjoyed since 1984 as compensation for the lopsided farm subsidy system.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/dec/17/eu.world
Galileo should never have been created in the first place: There are two faults with GPS (coverage for accuracy, US right to switch it off or encrypt it).. which could have been addressed with funding contribution and contract.
Space is outside of the realm of Earth laws.. if the UK is locked out through decision to leave the EU, a price can be negotiated on the scrap value.. It is a question of the inconvenience price for recovering them
<sigh>
Being in Galileo is irrelevant for all practical purposes other than sending money (our own!) to our space industry. It's purpose is purely to pretend that the EU can guide smart munitions via it's own satellite navigation systems if the US stops us from using GPS (the likes of ships and aircraft can carry alternatives). In practice, this is nonsense because neither the EU or individual countries within the EU (partially excepting ourselves and France) could ever mount any independent operation without US support. Being outside Galileo has no practical impact: we never needed it anyway.
On the other hand, beefing up our own satellite communications capability has actual utility...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
