back to article UK getting ready to go it alone on Galileo

The UK is about to press the big red button on its own satellite navigation system as an agreement for access to the EU’s Galileo programme looks more and more unlikely. Following hot on the heels of the release of papers detailing the customs and tax implications of a no-deal Brexit come reports that the UK Treasury has …

Page:

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "And if rather than just "hiring" the Gym you actually paid to construct part of your Gym's building and the equipment you reckon they should keep it all then ?"

      That's the way it works in the real world.

      *Every* club I have ever interacted with worked that way.

      If you want to use the club's facilities, stay a member and keep paying your dues.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        My gym has just had its restaurant refurbished. So any of the workmen working on it should be able to demand free gym membership?

        If this also extends to IT then a lot of FTSE100 companies owe me a significant amount of shares and dividends as do plenty of companies overseas. Looking forward to this windfall.

  1. Old Tom

    Cooperation

    The UK Government has found it difficult to understand that if one stops being a member of a club, one loses access to that club’s facilities.

    I find it difficult to understand that the EU aren't happy to agree a simple treaty with us to continue partnership on this. Are they going to go without the Falklands and Ascension ground stations? Do they wish to undermine our military cooperation with France and other EU27 NATO members? Looks quite like toys flying out of the pram.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Cooperation

      I find it difficult to understand that the EU aren't happy to agree a simple treaty with us to continue partnership on this.

      Why do you think the treaty would be simple? The rules for Galileo, including who gets access to privileged data, were drawn up with the UK's full involvement and approval.

      Looks quite like toys flying out of the pram.

      That would be the referendum and all the calls that "no deal is better than a bad deal!".

      1. John Styles

        Re: Cooperation

        Almost every response by the 'no deal will be great' crowd is 'well, there will be a deal for that' e.g. nuclear medicines, aircraft etc. etc.

    2. Robert Sneddon

      Ground stations

      There are more than two ground stations involved in the Galileo error correction system and the Falklands and Ascencion Islands stations can be replaced to fill in gaps since we're leaving the EU and the Galileo programme.

      As for a "simple treaty", go ahead. Getting 27 separate national governments to change their minds on this exclusivity because we want to stay in just this bit of the EU after March 2019 is going to be tricky.

    3. Nick Kew

      Re: Cooperation

      @Old Tom

      I find it difficult to understand that the EU aren't happy to agree a simple treaty

      Who says they aren't?

      It's the UK that's walking out of both the existing treaty (as per Cameron's stunt) and the legal framework underlying it (completely separate to any question that was voted on). Do we know how the EU would react if the UK were to propose some alternative treaty reinstating the necessary foundations? Of course, they'd be up against a whole new raft of red tape, and who could blame them for raising an eyebrow at the cost and complexity of reinventing legal and contractual wheels?

    4. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Cooperation

      I find it difficult to understand that the EU aren't happy to agree a simple treaty with us to continue partnership on this.

      The EU doesn't want partnership, it needs victory. A partnership would suggest that a post-Brexit UK is a serious partner worth working with, which undermines the worldview that only the EU can save Europe. Any suggestion which accepts that Brexit might work creates too much risk that other countries would eventually follow.

      It's a perfectly reasonable point of view from the EU, survival-wise, but doesn't lend itself to meaningful or fair negotiations. Theresa May seems to be too naive to realise this.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Cooperation

        It's a perfectly reasonable point of view from the EU, survival-wise, but doesn't lend itself to meaningful or fair negotiations.

        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        You have no way to know this, and you won't until the UK:

        1) Agrees among themselves what they want.

        2) Starts generating proposals that amount to something other than 'give us everything we want the way we want it, even if we don't know yet what that may be, no matter how much it may cost you, because we want it, and we deserve it because we think we do'.

      2. strum

        Re: Cooperation

        >The EU doesn't want partnership, it needs victory.

        Bollocks. Amid the petty posturing of Brexiteers, the EU have remained calm, quiet and undemonstrative. The worst they've done is to frown sadly at our childishness.

        On the other hand, the EU has a responsibility to protect the interests of its remaining members. It has no responsibility to accede to the demands of a bunch of surly ex-members.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Cooperation

          the EU have remained calm, quiet and undemonstrative.

          Indeed, they have their heels well dug in, and they are sitting back quietly refusing to take any part in the negotiations they insisted on.

          The worst they've done is to frown sadly at our childishness.

          Yes, in that condescending, patronizing way that says "we know what's best for you, so just go back to your room and behave, and stop making noise". Most kids have left home by 25, we're doing so now.

    5. This post has been deleted by its author

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Cooperation

      "Do they wish to undermine our military cooperation with France and other EU27 NATO members? Looks quite like toys flying out of the pram."

      Of course not, but if the UK insists on wailing and tossing toys, it is not the EU's fault.

      The hardest part to understand - as someone from neither the EU nor the UK - is how the UK government, politicians and parts of the popular press can be so impervious to understanding any of the fundamental realities of the situation.

      Particularly when a lot of this was obvious to anyone spending a little time to read and analyze things, two years ago.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Cooperation

        The hardest part to understand - as someone from neither the EU nor the UK - is how the UK government, politicians and parts of the popular press can be so impervious to understanding any of the fundamental realities of the situation.

        Perhaps it's you, as an outsider, who dosn't understand the situation, or the deep-seated feelings behind it?

      2. Nick Kew

        Re: Cooperation

        The hardest part to understand - as someone from neither the EU nor the UK - is how the UK government, politicians and parts of the popular press can be so impervious to understanding any of the fundamental realities of the situation.

        It's because they can't agree among themselves.

        The referendum presented two options: the status quo (remain) vs a blank canvas (leave). Those who campaigned and voted for leave had wildly differing and mutually incompatible expectations of what they were voting for. To take just one question, the traditional nationalists like BNP/UKIP are firmly anti-immigration, whereas Tim Martin (who campaigned for "leave" through his chain of hundreds of big pubs) told the world he expected leave to lead to more immigration, to the benefit of businesses like his.

        The equivalent in a general election would be to lump together all votes for parties other than the incumbent Conservatives, and hand the government to whoever shouts loudest. It's no wonder they're all screaming now.

        1. NerryTutkins

          Re: Cooperation

          I think this is only part of the story.

          More than anything, most votes outside of a general election are seen as an opportunity to protest - and give the PM/government of the day a black eye.

          Cameron went out and pushed for a 'remain' vote. So a lot of people who didn't really care much about Europe one way or the other (it was previously a very marginal issue, only of interest to some wingnuts in the Tory party) went out and voted against what Cameron told them to do, instinctively.

          Much was made about Labour constituencies voting for brexit. Recently, polls have indicated these places have switched en masse to 'remain', and against brexit. Various pundits have explained this as people there realising the end result is not what they were being promised. But I'd suggest the reason the shift is biggest in those labour constituencies is simply because brexit is now quite clearly a Tory party policy, so they're now instinctively against it.

          If there is a second referendum, we have to hope Theresa May recommends people to vote 'out'. Because that will be guaranteed to get those labour constituencies that voted leave to turn out for 'in'. And that should sink Brexit, May and even Corbyn in one fell swoop. Result. No wonder they don't want a referendum on the actual deal, and prefer to accept the one which promised an unrivalled new era of prosperity instead of the now more realistic "not the end of the world".

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Cooperation

            Cameron went out and pushed for a 'remain' vote. So a lot of people who didn't really care much about Europe one way or the other ... went out and voted against what Cameron told them to do, instinctively.

            Every time there's a referendum on something, the losing side always try to justify their loss by finding some excuse why the winners didn't know what they were voting for, and would have made the "right" decision if only they had understood it properly. That may be true for some, but it's equally likely to have worked in the opposite direction. How many people voted "remain" just because Farage told them not to?

            Recently, polls have indicated these places have switched en masse to 'remain', and against brexit.

            Recent independent polls show that the situation is just as finely balanced as before, roughly equal leave/remain with a large enough number of "undecideds" that a second vote would be like the first, too close to call and down to the wire on the night.

            1. strum

              Re: Cooperation

              >Every time there's a referendum

              ...politics has failed.

        2. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Cooperation

          @ Nick Kew

          "The referendum presented two options: the status quo (remain) vs a blank canvas (leave)."

          Now thats a wet dream if ever I heard one. Status quo? Since when has the EU been in status quo? They are in multiple self inflicted crisis and the only response from those morons is 'more europe!'. It is anything but status quo. Ever creeping and ever reaching and ever breaking its own rules and agreements.

          The referendum was remain (and whatever that entails) or leave (and whatever that entails).

          "Those who campaigned and voted for leave had wildly differing and mutually incompatible expectations of what they were voting for"

          Those voting remain were voting for a utopian union/crap but needs us, a socialist paradise/capitalistic juggernaut, global trade/protection from foreigners, common market/federalising force, multicultural/cultural convergence and so on.

          The idea remain is some unified group is amusing but very wrong.

          1. strum

            Re: Cooperation

            Since when has the EU been in status quo?

            The status quo was a system of negotiation, analysis and legislation - which we could influence (and in many cases, veto), from within. That some Europeans saw a federation as a far-distant objective was never a reality (and we could always have vetoed it, anyway).

            Instead we're going to be subject to a bunch of rules we have no say in forming (not just from the EU).

        3. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          Re: Cooperation

          The referendum presented two options: the status quo (remain) vs a blank canvas (leave).

          There is no "status quo" in that sense, that would imply some static situation. In or out, the future is constantly changing. The choice was between remaining in and letting the direction of that future be set by Brussels, or leaving and setting our direction ourselves. Neither has the clear predictable outcome that "status quo" would imply.

    7. strum

      Re: Cooperation

      >I find it difficult to understand that the EU aren't happy to agree a simple treaty with us to continue partnership on this.

      Do you understand rules? The EU has rules about dealings with third countries, one of which is about to be us. These rules preclude secure access to its systems (as any sensible entity would do).

      After all, if the UK were to go ahead with its own system, would we give full access to Nigeria, on the basis that they were once part of the Empire?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Name Calling

    WOT! No comments so far about Satnav McSatnavface.? I am utterly disappointed with my fellow countrymen. This is The most important issue of all.

    A far better name for the UK Imperial satnav system would be Barberini.

    (Go look it up)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Barberini

      A far better name for the UK Imperial satnav system would be Barberini.

      (Go look it up)

      I did and am no less mystified

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Barberini

        Mafeo Barberini became Pope Urban VIII and it was he that set the Inquisition on Galileo and had him locked up under house arrest for the last 10 years of his life.

        TL:DR

        Barberini screwed Galileo

  3. illuminatus

    ::head desk::

    This is apparently a "serious" proposal.

    Not from where I'm standing.

  4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    The big mistake here is having it as an unmanned system. I'd like to nominate the crew. We wouldn't, of course, have a means of crew return and the launch vehicle might have "B Ark" written on the side.

  5. John Robson Silver badge

    I could do a feasibility study for a lot less than that

    I might want a week or so with the Galileo team...

    And some tea and biscuits.

    The answer will be - its stupidly impractical for a single small country.

    It's the details of the report that need fleshing out...

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Let me guess.

    The article's author is not an unbiased technical journalist. He fervently Believes in Remoaning.

  7. John Styles

    I do think that feasibility studies for things that are unaffordable is a giant scam and part of the general corruption in this country. That league tables don't show this country as being incredibly corrupt is indicative to me that the measures are meaningless. We are probably reasonably non-corrupt in the 'brown envelopes full of cash' sense but not in the 'doing favours for the right sort of people in the justified expectation that favours will be done for you because you're the right sort of person' sense.

    See also the enormous trade in feasibility studies for transport schemes that are never going to happen.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "I do think that feasibility studies for things that are unaffordable is a giant scam and part of the general corruption in this country."

      But for only 92,000,000 GBP the government gets to claim that they 'could' build such a system, possibly pushing the scam past the date of the next election.

  8. Spook

    Go the full distance

    While we're at it, bring back Black Arrow Mk 2 to launch it.

  9. JLV

    losing club gear access

    Far from me to say that Brexit wasn’t a fine bit of democratically-decided foot targetting.

    However, as the UK military is -carriers aside - quite a lot more veteran and capable than the next big European combat fish, France, the EU choosing to cut off Galileo access as a matter of principle seems rather unwise.

    One would almost suspect immature political peevishness or the lobbying of other European arms suppliers.

    Or both.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: losing club gear access

      What a lot of people seem to be incapable of doing here, as with other things Brexit related, is trying to put yourself in the position of others.

      Suppose France was leaving the EU and had publicly said it wanted to move its business away from the EU and to its former colonies and the US. Suppose it had already sent delegations to India and China, seeking to do what it takes to increase inward investment.

      Would we really want them to have full access to our military systems?

      1. JLV

        Re: losing club gear access

        I'm French originally and I can "put myself in the position of others" well enough to understand Europe playing hardball on other negotiation points, thank you very much. Galileo-related squabbling however seems highly counterproductive.

        What you don't seem to be capable of doing here is to realize that, in objective terms, it is in Europe's best military interests to have its military well-integrated with UK system. Because of the relative importance of the UK's armed forces in Europe's defense capabilities. Replace "UK" with "Italy" for example and I would not offer this opinion.

        There has already been a precedent for this type of screw up and it was the lackluster integration of French military systems to NATO gear, once France left NATO. That, I believe, has been somewhat corrected, but it has hampered both French operations and weapons sales.

        There have also been enough friendly fire incidents in modern wars that the troops themselves probably don't see incompatible satnav systems as a genius idea.

        That has very little to do with Brexit per se. Nor does it have much to do with giving potential adversaries access to one's sensitive military secrets, unless you'd stretch your point to say that the UK should now be considered unfriendly.

  10. Sil

    Money wasted.

    Apart perhaps from the USA and China, the financial burden of a navigation system is too big for a country.

    UK will probably have to make more concessions to get into Gallileo.

    1. shaunhw

      Can't we just lob a few modified Raspberry Pi's (you know, the one designed by some clever and charitable Brits for free) into space, along with some (good) atomic clocks somehow, and use those ?

      That could do the trick! ;-)

      One should remember which country invented the ARM chip the Pi uses, which also now drives most of the worlds phones and tablets. It wasn't the Americans, the French or the Germans, or even the Japanese (even though they own it now, which says it all I guess) was it?

      No it was a tiny computer firm in Cambridge called Acorn, and the brainchild of one brilliant person - Sophie Wilson. I'm not for brexit at all, but we've collectively made our decision and will have to make the best of it.

      We've still got some brilliant people here, and we Brits tend to pull together when the chips (pun intended) are down. We'll be OK. Or at least I hope we will.

      I was watching a video about how the Americans refused to share the technology of nuclear bombs after the war even though we'd helped them with it. So then we just made our own without their help, one way and another with a team led by Dr William Penney. They weren't pleased but I think it taught them a bit of a lesson.

  11. Domquark

    Out of interest..

    Why not construct a GPS receiver that picks up on all 3 [Public] systems (GPS/GLONASS/Galileo) and uses all three to augment each other to increase positional accuracy?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Out of interest..

      Gosh - what a good idea. Basically one that is already implemented in just about any GNSS chip in any phone or GPS. And probably about the level of good idea that we will get for £80 million quids worth of feasibility study.

      There is no sane navigation/security issue for a BrexitPS. No feasible war where an extra 20 cms (*sorry 8 inches) left or right will make a bag of beans difference, even if we had armed forces left to project force beyond Aldershot on a weekday.

      There might be a sane reason to invest public money in the UK space industry, but lets do something fun with it - like go to the Moon or Mars. We can waste just as much money and annoy the Americans and Russians to boot.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Out of interest..

        "There is no sane navigation/security issue for a BrexitPS. No feasible war where an extra 20 cms (*sorry 8 inches) left or right will make a bag of beans difference"

        Ummm.... mapping mines and booby traps for subsequent clearing?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Out of interest..

          And Galileo will do that? We don't use land mines because Lady Di. And somehow I doubt that The Taliban are meticulous record keepers. But if you want to trust your life to a GPS coordinate ....

          'Two paces forward - one pace left' -'Bang - Ow' - "Oh - did I say 2, it was actually a 5 - my bad!'

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Out of interest..

            'Two paces forward - one pace left' -'Bang - Ow' - "Oh - did I say 2, it was actually a 5 - my bad!'

            --------------------------------------------------

            ROFL!

            You are absolutely correct. I should not have discounted the inevitability of human error.

            Murphy rules!

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It seems that instead of being a world power largely without militaristic aims Europe is being dissected to enable China, Russia and America to prosper. Apart from some southern good ol' boys I don't see any signs of any US states looking for their version of Brexit. The UK is just a state in the republic of Europe and we ought to accept it before we become more of an irrelevance.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >The UK is just a state in the republic of Europe and we ought to accept it before we become more of an irrelevance.

      Irony? It is not as if EU ever had a grip on the conflicts that ravaged the Balkans. In fact the EU was pretty much irrelevant until the US and Russia air lifted own troops into the region. Internationally, that was a major embarrassment.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What can you expect from our clueless so-called leaders?

    Errr...ummm...nothing.

  14. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

    Trump threatens to pull US out of World Trade Organization

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45364150

    Oh dear, UK may not even be able to rely on WTO rules if Brexit.

    "Please Mr Barnier, can we pretend Article 50 never happened, or send us an Article 49 form to fill out ASAP?"

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon