Three weeks...
When we're out it'll only take three weeks to recoup that though...
Boris said so...
(I would put the joke icon, but I don't actually think it's funny)
There were heated exchanges at Parliament's Defence and European Scrutiny Committee this week as members attempted to get the Minister for Defence Procurement, Stuart Andrew, to put a figure on the cost of the Galileo project. Andrew did not have the number to hand, which prompted Mark Francois MP to splutter: "Oh come on, …
A Brexiteer without the balls to sign their own name.
My prediction
By the time the transition period ends the number of people who admit they voted to Leave will be as high as the number who admitted they voted for Oswald Mosely on VE night 1945.
Not fu**king many.
You and the new EU Federal State Army? (Which they're actually building and if we remain will completely replace ALL internal armed forced - thats bye bye RAF, Royal Navy etc).
And thats not hyperbole. the EU has announced this was its plan all along, despite lying their faces off saying they didn't want a "federal states of Europe" just before the referendum.
@AC
Sounds alright to me. I’d be quite happy with a federal Europe, and one European military. It’d save money overall - and give us a bigger stick to wave around too. No wonder the Putinists and Trumpists foment dissent over Europe - it’s just a pity that so many people believe their codswallop.
But… but…, I hear you whine, that’d be undemocratic (it wouldn’t - we vote for our European government - undemocratic is leaving Europe on a flimsy to nonexistent mandate), Brussels doesn’t care about us. Brussels doesn’t understand us. And no more it does - at least, no more than London understands Manchester. Sod it - London doesn’t even understand Oxford. So we’d be no worse off.
So how about this? Federal Europe for the big things - Defence, Trade, Human Rights, Galileo and so forth, and increased local government for the regions. That’s the way it was going before the simpleton / traitor Brexiteers screwed it all up. So thanks, ’tards.
And breath /rant.
You haven’t heard of an EU Army? Just a big lie is it?
Jeez don’t you guys have computers?
If you did you could look up the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) on the internet.
Here’s a sample of the information available there to members of the public who want to inform themselves...
“The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) is the part of the European Union's (EU) security and defence policy (CSDP) in which 25 of the 28 national armed forces pursue structural integration. Based on Article 42.6 and Protocol 10 of the Treaty on European Union, introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, PESCO was first initiated in 2017.[1] The initial integration within the PESCO format is a number of projects planned to launch in 2018.”
A huge increase in National Health Service spending over the next five years is expected to be announced by Theresa May in a speech on Monday. The numbers are larger than expected and, significantly, allow the prime minister to say that she will deliver the resonant figure on the side of the Brexit bus, an increase of more than £350m a week. Indeed, by 2023 public spending would be £385m a week more in real terms than today.
Boris was a lying git then, it wasn't £350m after all....
> "You voted for this (or didn't vote at all) and now it's time to pay the piper."
Not to mention that IIRC the UK was involved in drawing up the rules that excluded non-EU members from Galileo.
"'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party." (Credit: Adrian Bott)
"This non-EU nation is in the project."
You find it all on the wikipedia like, and of course information on how much different countries pay.
"In July 2004, Israel signed an agreement with the EU to become a partner in the Galileo project.[61]
On 3 June 2005 the EU and Ukraine signed an agreement for Ukraine to join the project, as noted in a press release.[62]
As of November 2005, Morocco also joined the programme
....."
This post has been deleted by its author
Please explain what benefits access to the encryption give.....
It only benefits military receivers with access to the encryption sequence. It isn’t relevant to ordinary citizens or commercially.
So, *what wars would you like to fight* where that is a relevant consideration? Do you wish to exit NATO?
The Trident missiles don't use GPS since they spend their time underwater a lot and GPS signals don't penetrate seawater very well. In flight after launch they use an internal inertial guidance system and in space at the top of their ballistic trajectory they use a star tracker system for final course changes before their descent to glory.
>The Trident missiles don't use GPS since they spend their time underwater a lot and GPS signals don't penetrate seawater very well.
Very sassy. The official line is 'Trident does not require GPS' or 'GPS is assumed to be non-operational' - nonetheless almost all test flights used it and failures of the inertial guidance system are a matter of public record - eg the Trident Missile Testing Defence Parliamentary Committee session from 2015 which was published last year.
The test flights of Trident used GPS to monitor the missile's operation, not to control it in flight. It's kind of obvious, really, it wouldn't be a test of the inertial guidance system, a key component of the missile if they relied on GPS just for the test flights and just hoped the INU worked if, God forbid, it was ever used in anger.
There have been over 150 test flights of Trident D5 missiles over the years, nearly all have flown successfully. A few have failed, not a surprise there.
There's a lot of other military kit in use by British forces that does use GPS and we have access to the encrypted high-accuracy GPS data for that purpose as part of NATO. We can, of course, be locked out of that access if the US so chooses. They have changed their minds on this before and they control the system with no-one else allowed input. Galileo is a civilian global positioning system with military applications as a secondary benefit so access to the encrypted high-accuracy data it provides can be purchased for use for things like autolanding airliners and harbour manoeuvering of ferries etc.
What we're losing by leaving the EU is a place at the table deciding how Galileo is developed in the future and contracts to build the secure parts for it and we're no longer on the preferred supplier list for things like satellite components and integration since it's an EU project and EU-based companies will have first dibs rather than, say, SSTL.
You do know that none of what you say is actually true, right?
Harbour manoeuvring ferries.....you can’t use GPS-type nav for that, for multiple reasons. The issue isn’t the precision of the nav-code, (which makes zero difference for this type of application), nor even Dilution of Precision. River and harbour pilots are necessary because underwater sand-banks move. And radio reflections off the water cause positions in port to be off by 200meters quite often. End of. Shame neither you nor the EU actually *asked any Port Authorities* before claiming it.
Auto landing airliners is done via airport radio beacons. It’s a solved problem, and nobody is interested in GPS type nav for it.
“Deciding on the future direction” is pure control-freakery EU jargon. Why would you want to? It’s free, and a useful add-on to GPS. That’s all.
Missing out on contracts: Yes. Just exactly like we did when part of the EU. Both the SSTL and Astrium offers were cheaper, technically better, and would have come in on time, compared to the German OHB proposal, which was slideware. But, we lost the bid anyway. SSTL built two satellites in one quarter the time of OHB, to keep the orbital slots rescuing the whole project, and proved they were better, but still didn’t win the work. UK had to pay for SSTL tech demonstrators out of a separate budget, that wasn’t EU money. The EU financed only the (non-UK) launchers. Please give facts and which specific components you think are or might have been UK return on Galileo, had we stayed in?
Auto landing airliners is done via airport radio beacons. It’s a solved problem, and nobody is interested in GPS type nav for it.
There's actually quite a lot of interest, at least in the US. Maintaining all those radio beacons is expensive and they're seeing increased failure rates as the equipment ages. ILS will probably be the last to go, but we're already seeing experiments with using GPS instead of VOR beacons, allowing more direct flight paths.
"There have been over 150 test flights of Trident D5 missiles over the years, nearly all have flown successfully. A few have failed, not a surprise there."
When you're incinerated in a nuclear apocalypse, it doesn't really matter if it the enemy's or your own side's nukes that are doing the incinerating...
Test flights of the Trident missiles used GPS payloads to calibrate and test the inertial guidance system.
The Trident missile system has multiple-independently-targeted warheads: I don't know how they work. Nothing I've seen suggests that they use GPS (there are problems with reception, lock-in, and speed), but I don't have any specific information.
One of the first possible suggested uses for a proposed satellite navigation system was to provide location information for launch sites, to be used with alternate-launch-site missiles. I don't think GPS is used by submarines to get accurate launch location information (in any normal scenario, they would be underwater for long periods before launch), but again, I don't have any specific information.
>I don't think GPS is used by submarines to get accurate launch location information
Don't know why you think that - it's among the primary purposes for which it was created.
>Test flights of the Trident missiles used GPS payloads to calibrate and test the inertial guidance system.
Nope, GPS updates are received throughout flight - in fact Boeing have made much of the improved GPS unit they'll be adding under the contract they won last month to update and maintain the navigation subsystem. Reliance on GPS is of course a non-issue in the US......just a little problematic for UK claims of operational independence.
It's *one* reason, not a primary one. The Americans are fully aware that a nuclear deterrent that requires GPS is worthless. US doctrine assumes GPS in peacetime, but not in a hot war. To use Trident as an example, an SSBN will occasionally get a GPS fix to verify its own location. But it doesn't have to, and does so rarely. In wartime, it may *attempt* a GPS fix - because who doesn't like to triple-verify things like that - but a launch can take place without it. To-the-metre location is not required for a successful D5 launch. You get a decent rough estimate of launch location and the stellar navigation can handle the rest. I mean - seriously - they were launching nukes from submarines for *decades* before GPS was around. It helps with accuracy, but given that they quote D5's CEP at under 100m, it can be out an order of magnitude and make little difference to the end effect. (Unless it's a first strike at hardened targets - but then GPS would be available)
To sum - GPS is optional and nice to have, but not at all required for the nuclear deterrent. There are plenty of *conventional* weapons that are near-useless without it though.
>they were launching nukes from submarines for *decades* before GPS was around.
Yep, previously they used NAVSAT. GPS was first introduced into the Trident's IGS on the D5, though launch platforms had already shifted by then. In the updated navigation sub-system finalised last month, the IGS is being spun off to Draper and will no longer include integral GPS as this is provided by a new discrete Boeing unit. But you know all this, cos you're like an expert and not just reading wikipedia or something.
The Trident missiles don't use GPS since they spend their time underwater a lot and GPS signals don't penetrate seawater very well. In flight after launch they use an internal inertial guidance system and in space at the top of their ballistic trajectory they use a star tracker system for final course changes before their descent to glory.
GPS was developed from a predecessor called TRANSIT which was developed during the Cold War specifically to provide US ballistic missile submarines with an accurate position prior to launching their missiles.1 GPS provides this functionality too, as well being extended to other branches of the military, and more recently to us proles too.
Inertial guidance doesn't do diddly squat unless you know exactly where you started from. Whilst Trident missiles might not use GPS, the Trident launch platforms certainly do.
1See for example page 3 of https://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf99712826/pdf99712826dpi72pt01.pdf
GPS technology was developed from a predecessor proposed during the cold war to provide Land-Based US ballistic missile launch sites with accurate position, because the process after moving the missiles around was so difficult (ie all day) by conventional means.. The idea was to move the missiles around by train.
Nuclear launch submarines stay underwater, and don't use GPS for positioning. GPS was developed (out of earlier ideas) to provide civilian navigation information, after the loss of an American airliner over Soviet Territory. Normally the US military is a bit pissed off at having such a huge chunk of "their" budget directed to political/civilian "research" projects, but it always been the case that the military is able to use civilian navigation aids. That approach was justified the first time the US military really wanted to use GPS, when they had to turn off jitter and supply civilian GPS receivers to the troops.
Nuclear EMP is unlikely to damage the GPS satellite constellation, or Beidou or GLONASS or Galileo either. The satellites in question orbit at an altitude of 20,000 km or so, far enough out so that any terrestrial or even stratospheric nuke bursts could damage them. They're already radiation-hardened given their operational environment which is another reason they're quite durable in the face of such energy-directed effects.
They fly in widely-separated orbits to provide maximum coverage on Earth with close to the minimum number of satellites and that means attempts to attack a complete satellite constellation directly is tricky since they'd need to be hunted down one by one, just about. I've seen unattributed statements that in a real hot war GPS could be knocked out quite quickly by the Other Side but there were no details on how this might be done.
You almost hit the nail on the head. The overarching problem with the UK is that there have simply been one too many "No clubbing baby seal" parties, whose manifestos (in the small,small print) have actually advocated increased "baby seal club production" and reduced taxes on "baby seal meat and fur hats". Over half the country has lost ALL trust in the establishment to the point where we simply assume they are lieing... about absolutely everything and anything. This manifests a sort of relected reverse psychology wherein whatever they say is good for us, must be bad; whatever they say is true is clearly false. It's what caused brexit - child psychology 101. But you can't blame them - they do have a valid point (on the mistruths, not necessarily on brexit)
I'll just remind you that those in the top half of the UK voted strongly to stay in the EU.
And one of the main arguments in the Scottish referendum for staying part of the UK was that if Scotland didn't stay it would be out of the EU.
Guess how how well those arguments will work next referendum?
Of course the Scots wanted to stay in. They profited the most from the EU's generous farmer-sponsoring. In fact AFAIK the agricultural industry is the heaviest EU sponsored industry. Granted food is important but this fixation to the farming industry lead to a common disconnection with all the other industries and people. With brexit as a consequence.
I'm not surprised that Brits voted against the EU. I AM surprised that nobody else had the guts to do the same. Nonetheless I'm (still) convinced that in the long run Brexit is not a Bad Thing(tm).
We'll just have to take the bull by the horns, re-build our Industry again and become the technological force again that we once were. We need innovative ideas from innovative people like there used to be C. Sinclair, A. Sugar etc... Besides we don't need to be IN the political EU to make business treaties. In fact without all that red tape companies can deal with other companies directly. It used to work in the eighties (or other times before the EU) why can't it work now?
One massive flaw with that argument, and I haven't down voted as your opinion is as valid as everyone else's, is that the government is allowing our tech to be sold off. We had ARM, but the Chinese bought that out and the UK government agreed it. The Chinese just took advantage of the weak pound at the time so they could get it cheaper. And that is the issue. They've been forced into an agreement that they have to keep the UK branch, but I don't expect that to last. Once that has run its course they'll probably shutdown the UK branch making everyone redundant.
Also tariffs may be another that reason the tech industry and others will never pick up again in the UK.
I don't know if it's the same as in the 80s but Alan Sugar said at the time (video interview of it is on YouTube) he made all his Amstrads abroad as there were tariffs in the UK. From rough memory I think there was a tariff he'd get hit with if the items were built and manufactured in the UK. He said because of this it worked out cheaper to get them made in abroad and then imported in.
We'll just have to take the bull by the horns, re-build our Industry again and become the technological force again that we once were.
Still got your war pamphlets, I see.
Dig for Britain
<Britan can take it</i>
They profited the most from the EU's generous farmer-sponsoring.
Per person it's probably the welsh farmers who benefit most. Scotland makes most from the Barnet formuala for redistribution within the UK.
Of course, those who make the most are the large agribusinesses and I don't see much changing there. Well, perhaps they'll push to replace Bulgarian and Baltic farm labourers with others they can pay even less.
It used to work in the eighties (or other times before the EU)Did it bollocks, it was until the Single European Act that all trade barriers in the EU fell.
"We'll just have to take the bull by the horns, re-build our Industry again and become the technological force again that we once were. We need innovative ideas from innovative people like there used to be..."
That speech would've made a good Monty Python sketch, with the orator sinking into the sea as the sun sets on the British Empire...
That's the spirit, Mr AC. Soon you and your fellow South Britons will be driving around in your C5's, knocking up spiffing apps on your Amstrads and laughing at the Scots farmers for wanting to stay in business rather than eat new Zealand lamb like the English. Pretty soon the UK economy will be back to it's condition in the 1970's, with rocketing inflation, sterling in freefall and the IMF bailing it out, like the good old days!
"Soon you and your fellow South Britons will be driving around in your C5's, knocking up spiffing apps on your Amstrads and laughing at the Scots farmers for wanting to stay in business rather than eat new Zealand lamb like the English."
Hang on! I'm English. I live in the "Home Counties", and if anyone could show a way for those counties to become an annexe of Scotland rather than of self-serving Westminster Bozos I'd be there in a flash. So would many other "South Britons" I know.
If those companies are in the EU27, Britain must trade with them in line with any agreed trading rules with Europe. That's kind of the whole point, whether it's done under a deal, or onerous WTO rules. Brexiters like to say that Europe trades more to Britain than vice versa - and that;s true, as a net sum, which hides the reality that a far smaller percentage of EU exports go to the UK than vice versa, and this is why the EU27 were in a far stronger negotiating position. Only 2 EU nations are exposed badly, and can be supported by the bloc, while the UK would taker a serious haircut, potentially exacerbating the rate of companies exiting too.
WTO rules would also punish companies using the UK as part of "long workbench" cross-EU manufacturing - like the auto industry. Expect the golden handshake deals given to keep the Japanese car companies settled in the early days of Brexit to get picked apart quick enough if there's no deal.
"Andrew reckoned the EU's decision was "short-sighted" and professed himself "annoyed" at the situation whereby Brit taxpayers had shovelled £1bn into the programme from which they would now be locked out."
The same Brit taxpayers who have exercised their will to flounce. Actions have consequences, so suck it up.
Actions have consequences, so suck it up.
Exactly. From the west side of the pond, it appears to be the norm that things are not thought out by those in power. While Brexit may or may not have been a good idea and purely politically motived by those in power, no one thought further than the vote. Too many times we've seen where actions have re-actions and consequences far beyond the initial action.
Goldcd,
>I think the issue was the binary question
>1) Leave things as they are
>2) Change things
Not entirely true.
I have seen numerous people that support 'remain' claiming that they knew what they were voting for/it was to keep things as they were, yet this is incorrect: the EU is not static, but is constantly changing.
If you voted to leave things as they were, then, as (relatively trivial) examples, your vote has already been overturned by:
the implementation of PESCO (occurred after the vote)
the reduction in the percentage of tariffs raised by the Common External Tariff (which are, of course, actually paid by UK consumers, so amount to the UK 'sending money' to the EU) kept by the home nation from 25% (2016) to 20% (2017) (with commensurate increase from 75% to 80% paid to the EU).
Remain voters (assuming they were moderately intelligent and informed) voted for ever closer union - constant change, in a direction that was broadly known, but with huge uncertainty in the details.
So the options were:
Vote for moderate uncertainty (change things a little, but continuously), and a broad direction of travel that was known
Vote for extensive uncertainty (change thing a lot), on an entirely different direction of travel
And add, "straight cucumbers" etc. Years and years of the press and anti-EU politicians saying that the EU were imposing this and that on us. Almost all either lies or stuff we'd agreed to. And those bureaucrats are a myth too. From the same stable. They are no different to our own (Some are our own) officials. But the EU laws are made by our elected EU parliament and our national elected ministers. We had control, we're not taking it back. We are giving it away. Along with our freedom of movement. The 27 have 26 other countries to move around in. Us.?
"Actions have consequences, so suck it up."
The issue is I didn't vote for it and the consequences so far seem likely to be inline with what I expected - The deal we can negotiate is manifestly far worse than being in so we will be unable to agree a deal and will leave without one. Leaving without a deal will be worse than leaving with the deal we could negotiate so we will get the worst possible outcome.
I remember many of the Brexiteers saying how strong the UK negotiating position was and how easy it would be to negotiate a favourable deal. Davis I seem to remember said it would be 'one of the easiest in human history'. Complete fantasy and obvious that Farage and others who distance dthemeselves from any involvement in delivery knew it. Davis and Johnson only realised once they were involved and jumped ship when it was clear that what was promised could not be delivered.
There are plenty spaces for heads on pikes on Westminster bridge.
Seriously though, what a complete cluster fuck. At the very LEAST, give yourself time before triggering Article 50 to ascertain, in detail, what the implications are.
Hard to apportion blame appropriately between the intransigent EU bureaucrats (unelected arseholes on the gravy train) and UK fucking chancers out for a vote. Let them fight it out in a lime pit somewhere.
This whole Brexit thing makes NHS IT contracts, PFI and the likes of Cr4pita, Carillion and the like look like shrinking violets by comparison in their up front audacity to rip the UK public off.
Bend over, supply your own butter and take a deep breath.
There are plenty spaces for heads on pikes on Westminster bridge.
No, we are a 48% civilised country, we don't put heads on pikes these days (although it has a strong emotional appeal, and would undoubtedly be a major tourist attraction for years - helping our foreign trade balance, which I'm sure they would appreciate, if they were alive to do any appreciating)
No, they should all spend the rest of their days in a 10x10ft cell in Dartmoor, only coming out for 12 hours work a day breaking rocks in an open-air quarry, regardless of the weather. The whole thing being livestreamed 24/7. Vindictive? Moi?
@ Pen-y-gors
"No, we are a 48% civilised country"
So accept the results of the 3 democratic votes? 1 GE for a referendum, 1 referendum and 1 GE.
"No, they should all spend the rest of their days in a 10x10ft cell in Dartmoor, only coming out for 12 hours work a day breaking rocks in an open-air quarry, regardless of the weather. The whole thing being livestreamed 24/7. Vindictive? Moi?"
I think you are rubbing up against that civilised but when talking of vindictive dreams. At least leave voted for change (3 times).
Can we have the heads of Farage, Boris and Davis on a post outside Parliament?
After all they promised that we'd all be in the land of milk and roses by now and enjoying the fruits of that £350M/week.
Instead we are up shit creek without a paddle.
The deal will get thrown out on its ears and come 29th March we will have 100 miles of lorries stuck trying to flee the country as the borders close.
A few weeks later, the situation will get worse leading to food and drug rationing.
The pound will crash below the $1==£1 level and our interest rates will rise to 10% in an attempt to stop the exodus of cash and businesses to Europe.
Sell, that's one scenario...
We have to hope that it does not come to that.
What are the odds eh?
Boris and co will be long gone (unless he becomes PM by some freak of nature) to foreign parts.
You missed out Jacob Rees Mogg.
I think you'll find Somerset Asset Management (both the London and Dublin branches) will definitely have been making investments to increase the family fortune.
The more I look into his behavior the more I think he's in it for the bucks rather than the beliefs.
At least with Gove you could predict you were in trouble when he stands behind you.
Can we have the heads of Farage, Boris and Davis on a post outside Parliament?
I'd have thought May should be first up. Negotiating a deal that hands over billions with a loose "might do" text as regards a future "maybe" trade deal doesn't sound like a deal you could sell to anyone. In fact it looks like the sort of deal you'd negotiate if you want it to never get across the line back home. I'd like to give credit and say there's some kind of greater end game in play here but it seems more like she'd just like to be done with it and bring on the famous Tory long knives to end her term.
Not sure Corbyn is particularly offering any alternatives.
"I'd have thought May should be first up. ..."
The trouble is that May most probably really wants to deliver "Brexit", something I think many of her Brexiteers colleagues have forgotten. May wants to have an election "post-Brexit" and be able to say she (and the Conservative party) delivered on "the will of the people". In this context (ie. winning the next general election) it doesn't really matter what 'Brexit' is, just so long as it can carry the 'Brexit' label and the Conservatives can claim to have delivered it.
I'd have thought May should be first up. Negotiating a deal that hands over billions with a loose "might do" text as regards a future "maybe" trade deal doesn't sound like a deal you could sell to anyone.
The great betrayal fallacy. May was the elected leader of the party that wanted to push ahead with leaving. She appointed pro-leavers to the job of top negoatiators. And this is the best they could come up with. Rinse and repeat and you won't change much because the UK wants access to the single market and doesn't want border controls with Ireland reintroduced.
50+ people up voted how disasterous a Remainer Prime Minister and Remainer Civil Servant have made a complete and utter farce of UK Democracy.
You must be a complete bunch of morons .. I'm surprised you've got the brain power and the gall to type this rubbish.
I don't know why THIS rag has a bunch of Left wing morons on it .. perhaps you're just young, who knows.
God knows how you can justify lying supporting Teresa May the traitor.
The EU is ALL about Germany and France .. that's why over the past 40 years you've seen manufacturing leave the UK in the MILLIONS of jobs. For 40 years we've seen our coastal towns destroyed by the EU with the help of HMG.
There will be repercussions .. the time for giving Remainers their fair share has GONE.
David Davis was undermined COMPLETELY by Traitor Mrs May .. she even took most of his neogitiators off him and gave them to Olley Robinson. David Davis had a free trade plan.
Just look a the cr@ppy mess created by Mrs May .. a REMAINER.
A dirty little filthy disgusting traitor REMAINER.
If you love the EU so much bugger off and live there .. I have for over 10 years. At least I know what Europeans think of the UK.
@ITfarmer
I don't know why THIS rag has a bunch of Left wing morons on it .. perhaps you're just young, who knows.
In what universe is it a Left Wing thing to support Theresa May? She's a Right Wing politician FFS.
The EU is ALL about Germany and France .. that's why over the past 40 years you've seen manufacturing leave the UK in the MILLIONS of jobs.
No, over the past 40 years, various flavours of UK government have systematicaly destroyed most of the manufacturing industries all by themselves. And had it not been for certain protections offered by EU employment law, they'd have removed most ordinary workers rights completely.
It makes no difference whether May voted to leave or remain, not even the most rabid remainer could have made much difference to the way this is turning out.
@ ITfarmer
'If you love the EU so much bugger off and live there .. I have for over 10 years. At least I know what Europeans think of the UK.'
Is it possible your perception of your neighbours feelings towards the UK may not be general but far more personal?
@ITFarmer
Nice try at sarcasm, but this statement David Davis was undermined COMPLETELY by Traitor Mrs May gave it away.
David Davis and Boris Johnson undermined themselves - remember they agreed to the Chequers Plan... Then David Davis, along with a bunch of other Brexiteers then stood up in public with Mogg and showed themselves up to be deluded idiots...
I found it very interesting that a proposal by Davis in a newspaper column of his - thus not a hurried off the cuff response to a question in an interview - seems to indicate that he had/has no clue what he was supposedly negotiating for two years as Brexit secretary... otherwise he would not have been advocating using the transition period to negotiate a better deal after crashing out with no deal.
He kind of makes a bookend with 'I never realized Dover-Calais trade was so important' Raab.
For 40 years we've seen our coastal towns destroyed by the EU with the help of HMG.
More like cheap travel led to people preferring to spend their holidays in Mallorca, Greece or Croatia as going to any UK airport around Christmas demonstrates. No idea why this is the case. Wonder if the weather has anything to do with it?
>>For 40 years we've seen our coastal towns destroyed by the EU with the help of HMG.
>More like cheap travel led to people preferring to spend their holidays in Mallorca, Greece or Croatia as >going to any UK airport around Christmas demonstrates. No idea why this is the case. Wonder if the >weather has anything to do with it?
Greece joined the EU in 1982. Spain in 86. Croatia a mere 5 years ago. People were going to these places long before they were in the union.
Cheap air travel saw the death of miserable UK seaside resorts, not the EU. Just like the supermarkets followed by the internet (compounded by politicians doing fuck all about it) saw the destruction of the high street, not the arrival of foreigners, who for some reason still wanted local shops rather than Tesco.
Greece joined the EU in 1982. Spain in 86. Croatia a mere 5 years ago. People were going to these places long before they were in the union.
Visa-free travel was largely driven by the EU. The Open Skies programme has been a key driver of opening up the flights market in Europe. Yes, people were going somewhere foreign for their holidays before the Treaty of Luxemburg but the rolling back of borders certainly accelerated the trend.
@ITFramer
If you love the EU so much bugger off and live there .. I have for over 10 years. At least I know what Europeans think of the UK.
I've lived in the EU for many years, still do. It's a little country called Wales. I want to continue living in the EU, but a bunch of mindless, selfish, gullible twats are taking that right away from me.
@ Pen-y-gors
"I've lived in the EU for many years, still do. It's a little country called Wales. I want to continue living in the EU, but a bunch of mindless, selfish, gullible twats are taking that right away from me."
No we aint. The EU is just over there, feel free to go. If you consider the majority of the UK to be mindless, selfish, gullible twats then you might be happier over there. And please take those other remoaning mindless, selfish, gullible twats with you. Stop trying to take the UK away from us. You cant even get a democratic majority in 2 votes (referendum and GE).
"No we aint. The EU is just over there, feel free to go."
An insightful comment Codejunky!
This perception of separateness I think is key to understanding some of the relationship issues this country (and probably its just the English) has with the EU and Continental Europe over the decades. Many in the UK have failed to grasp that if you live in a nation that is a member of the EU then you are living in the EU - but not in Continental Europe.
@ Roland6
"An insightful comment Codejunky!"
I wasnt trying to be funny with him, just pointing out that we have not taken away his 'right' to be in the EU, it is in existence without us its just over there. And his 'right' to want to be in the EU does not undermine 3 votes to remove ourselves further. The worrying part is he thinks he has a 'right' over all these people he seems to dislike.
"This perception of separateness I think is key to understanding some of the relationship issues this country (and probably its just the English) has with the EU and Continental Europe over the decades."
It is to be expected to have a long and not all happy relationship with such close neighbours. Throw in the geographically close and conflicting empires throughout history and it isnt shocking that another empire is not warmly welcomed. Even throughout the EU the populations are unhappy with the EU, this isnt a UK or English thing.
It amazes me the fight to remain but only because we opted out of so much. The EU project is so wonderful and desirable that we do not wish to join it proper, and even with our arms length participation the majority voted for change in 3 votes, leave in 2 votes.
This post has been deleted by its author
@ Jamie Jones
"His claim was only amusing if you find others misfortune funny."
His claim was amusing because it was not only crap but not even polished crap. How is it his misfortune that he lives in a democracy and is free to leave for the very place he is claiming to desire to be?
"Because of backwards people like you, we aren't "free to go"."
Erm, why? Why cant he go? Its just over there. He can go.
"Hope that is clear."
Not really. Sounds like you are moaning but there is no clear reason. Seems your comment exists only so you can call me backwards. I dont really know how to respond to that without being condescending- awww, there there
If you gave a crap about democracy, you would welcome a referendum based on the final situation, especially as the first was run on illegal campaigning and lies.
But then, you know that current polls show that over half the voters want to remain, which scares you no end. Democracy? When it suits you.
Now, even ignoring the fact that he already lives in the EU, and you're taking that away from him, explain how he can move to Europe? Removal of free travel and immigration rights doesn't just apply to the UK and the "bloody foreigners pinching our jobs, houses, and benefits"
@ Jamie Jones
"If you gave a crap about democracy, you would welcome a referendum based on the final situation"
Only if I gave a crap about removing democracy yes. That is not what I want, I like democracy and the people being able to make a choice. We dont have do-overs every time a new government is formed and they 'adjust' their promises. However if you give a damn about democracy you would know we have had 3 votes to say we want a say and 2 of those to say leave the EU. The only democratic option now is to leave the EU. Hell the argument for another bloody vote is to stop brexit, not democratic.
"especially as the first was run on illegal campaigning and lies."
Yes it was. Both official campaigns lied. The gov and BoE abused their position. Rigged the vote and still lost badly. Yet the remain propaganda campaign has continued long after the votes. And not for democratic preparing for the next election to fight to rejoin the EU but instead to overturn the 3 democratic votes.
"But then, you know that current polls show that over half the voters want to remain, which scares you no end. Democracy? When it suits you."
Such polls similar to before the referendum. 1 vote for a referendum, 1 referendum and another general election where the remain party almost wiped out completely. At what point are you confused about democracy?
"Now, even ignoring the fact that he already lives in the EU, and you're taking that away from him, explain how he can move to Europe?"
What argument is that? You go to Scotland and tell them they didnt deserve an independence vote because they already live in the UK and it would be taking that away from them. Also how are you confused about how he can go to Europe? He could emigrate to the EU. It has not been taken away from him, it still exists. Why does his minority opinion overrule democracy? That is not very democratic.
"Removal of free travel and immigration rights doesn't just apply to the UK and the "bloody foreigners pinching our jobs, houses, and benefits""
Travel isnt free. You actually perform a transaction of money for passage by train, boat or air. Or is your argument that the EU doenst want him? Because he is free to leave the UK.
@ Jamie Jones
Important follow up. Why is there such a huge fight to remain, but no fight to join the EU proper? Some people want to remain, but not rejoin because then we lose our opt-outs etc. The EU is so wonderful and great that we dont want to join it because it is a mess, it is awful and we prefer to be at-least arms length away.
Even with our opt outs there is no vote to remain. A GE demanding a choice, a referendum majority out (remain couldnt even get a piddly 50%) and then another GE where the only party promising to ditch democracy and ignore the referendum are left with a handful of people. A few thousand people wandering the street with some of them maybe knowing what the protest is about doesnt change that they are not an overwhelming majority, nor even a majority!
It is almost like this is the last stand for the lost cause. The desperation to remain now with opt outs is paramount or we would never join such a bad political union.
Hilarious that Wales and the North East were two of the biggest Leave voting areas and the only areas in surplus to the EU IE the EU owes them money.
This sort of self-harm isn't cutting yourself with a craft knife.
It's playing a blow torch over your arm.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
"David Davis was undermined COMPLETELY by Traitor Mrs May .. she even took most of his neogitiators off him and gave them to Olley Robinson. David Davis had a free trade plan.Just look a the cr@ppy mess created by Mrs May .. a REMAINER.
A dirty little filthy disgusting traitor REMAINER."
Blimey! What a totally unhinged rant, complete with random capitalised words and everything! You are a typical brexitter!
May is defintitely not a remainer. Where have you been the last 2 years? The hypocrite pretended to support remain when she was still under Cameron. sure. but that was the obvious lie.
Anyway, where the hell do you get that we all support May? As a staunch remainer, I hate May. I'm not old enough to remember much about thatchers politics first hand, so can easily say that May is the worst and most slimey politician I've experienced (and I can even remember Blair)
The sad thing is, when everyting crashes and burns, you and your other daily mail friends will still be blaming the EU/remainers.
By the way, can you tell me why Rees-Mogg has moved all his companies assets and interests from the UK to Ireland?
"If you love the EU so much bugger off and live there .. I have for over 10 years. At least I know what Europeans think of the UK"
Trumpites use the line "if you hate the USA and freedom so much, why don't you move to North Korea?"
I'd say to you, if you don't want to live in Europe, you bugger off. You are now responsible for slowly turning us into a jingoistic nation, exploited by the rich and elite who don't actually give a crap about us - a nation where those like you who will suffer the most are the very ones that will vote for the oppressors. You didn't need to do that. You could have taken your MUKGA hat and just moved to one of those instead.
And as for what Europeans think about the UK, I've always found them to be fine. But how do you expect them to react when dealing with a blubbering manic old git who probably patronised them at every opportunity? It's little wonder your view is somewhat skewed.
"Brit taxpayers had shovelled £1bn into the programme from which they would now be locked out due to rules we insisted on and which we then decided to become non-compliant with"
Fixed his statement for him...
It is sad and stupid, and the loss of privileged access to Galileo is also sad and stupid but entirely predictable.
Why all the upset about £1Billion?
For the last 40 years the U.K. has paid 14% of every penny spent by the E.U., if we stay until 2020 they want another £10Billion.
Those of us who voted in favour wanted a clean break and the time has been wasted trying to conjure up a deal that was never going to happen
@AC
The referendum was a simple question, do we want to leave the EU. The Leave campaign was wholly based around, and sold to Joe Public, on our ability to negotiate a way out which would be beneficial to the UK, because if we couldn't reach a favourable deal we would just walk away.
Despite this fantasy, at least those clowns understand reality enough to grasp the fact that a so called 'clean break' is the worst possible option. Any other deal we may be able to strike with other trading blocks we will be the far weaker party, with no leverage and they will see how we treat trading partners. We will 'eventually' get deals which reflect our behaviour.
Is it naivety or just intellectually challenging for you to understand this?
I don't believe you speak for the entirety of the leave voters, at least the ones I speak to grasp the basic facts of the situation.
The £1 billion is not really lost, this is stupid headline reporting.
Work done by Airbus in UK and SSTL in Guildford, who are part of Airbus and the other tech companies who have contributed so far is going to be paid up as per the contract. So a sizable chunk of the billion, ir not all of it, has come back into the economy.
>Those of us who voted in favour wanted a clean break
Delusional in thinking that all 17.2M wanted the same thing...
The only thing 17.2M people voted for was a direction of travel, at no time have they been given an option to express an opinion about the mode of travel...
Additionally, whilst the hard Brexiteers might have wanted a "clean break", what they overlook is that once the UK leaves, the UKs negotiating position will be much much weaker than it is now; al the fun-and-games with the EU27 is just a taster to the fun and games we will have with the WTO...
>Why all the upset about £1Billion?
During Osborne's tenure as Chancellor he printed (Quantitatively Eased) £450 Billion and the last two governments have increased the ridiculous national debt of £700 Billion left by Labour to £1800 Billion.
Seems odd everyone is getting so exercised over the odd 30 or 40 billion quid here and there.
The Labour parties legacy was a welfare state so large that no government can reign it in. The sheer number of benefits that exist now that simply did not exist during the 70's and 80's is the biggest problem. Out sourcing in the NHS along with PFI means that the NHS ow accounts for ⅓ of the entire UK budget. The country has been completely mismanaged for years.
So I take it you refuse to use anything created by Labour? You don't use the NHS or intend to have a pension etc?
Obviously I can't prove if you do or don't use any of those, but you're the one who'd have to live with his sense of dishonor, no matter how you convince yourself "i paid taxes i deserve this"
>The Labour parties legacy was a welfare state so large that no government can reign it in.
Tedious argument - rather like the Tory dogma of 'make work pay' when most benefit recipients are in work which still doesn't even with the government subsidy to their employers.
The failure to plan for social care, enforce living wages and build affordable housing (or have rent control like pretty much every other major country) is decades old, cross party and the primary driver of welfare costs.
£1.8 Trillion back to whom and/or what for what and/or whom is the thin edge of the Grand Ponzi Hedge. ..... What Would Happen If USA Stopped Paying Its Debt? ...... and all debts are still rising, and are never able to be paid back. It is a Sweet Bear Raging Bull Trap for the Pleasures and Fiat Paper Enrichment of Bankers Seeding and Feeding Old Analogous Global Command and Control Assistants in Ages and Spaces/Times and Places which have AI Remote Virtualised Control of SCADA Command Systems.
Picturing things into another uncomfortable perspective ...... https://youtu.be/XqUwr-Nkq9g
"Those of us who voted in favour wanted a clean break and the time has been wasted trying to conjure up a deal that was never going to happen"
*SOME* of you who voted in favour wanted a clean break. I know that for a fact because I know people who voted leave and expected a staged and managed withdrawal
I suspect that most of those who voted for leave and wanted a hard brexit barely gave a thought to the consequences of that action.
Equally anyone who has any sense must have known that given how the EU works a staged, managed withdrawal was never going to happen. The two phrases that I've always seen waved around any major political decision within the EU are "nothings agreed until everythings agreed" and "it all gets agreed at the last minute".
"Equally anyone who has any sense must have known that given how the EU works a staged, managed withdrawal was never going to happen. "
And here we are, a day or so later and the staged and managed withdrawal is all approved apart from the HoC vote on it. 27 countries have agreed to the deal as laid out. But one country can still scupper it all. Us.
I love the way that nearly all the Brexiteers are Anonymous Coward. Talk about having confidence in your convictions.
Are you claiming that your name is really 45RPM? Everyone is anonymous to some extent on here. Not posting as AC reveals some information but hardly enables complete identification.
Those of us who voted in favour wanted a clean break
There was no such concept as "clean break" or "clean Brexit" at the time of the referendum. "Clean Brexit" only appeared this year.
2 weeks after the vote, only 35% of Leavers thought their vote meant leaving the SM.
And anyone who wanted a "clean break" was frankly beyond pure delusion. How do you even think you can have a clean break from your neighbours? You can't even do that in your local street, let alone a continent. We need to trade, share borders, share intelligence, share manufacturing, share design, share patents and so on.
I do recall some idiot Brexiteer posting on Twitter or somewhere like that, that we could design and build our own cars, without needing to import any parts. They didn't seem to have any details about how this would work, though.
Those of us who voted in favour wanted a clean break
And really, really, really didn't understand international finance, treaties and trade.
Here's a hint: Treaties and agreements that we have signed up to for the last 40 years don't magically disappear just because you want them too - any more than the mobile contract that you agreed to a month ago (and now want to cancel) will cease without you paying a leaving fee.
It's not a difficult concept and only someone with either something to sell or very little brain indeed would realise it.
"Those of us who voted in favour wanted a clean break"
A what?
Impressed that you know what a "clean break" is whilst those in the politics industry have been arguing the toss for two years still don't have the vaguest idea. Or perhaps you don't either.
Haven't Got a Clue means Haven't Got a Clue, as Ms. May might have said with the deep insight of a politician.
and so it continues. I really wish El Reg would let Tim Worstall re-explain his rainbows and unicorns once again in a guest article. Smart guy, but one wonders in this case.
Trump => 4 years (surely not 8?)
Brexit will keep on giving for a long time. Long past those who voted for it too.
I wonder if the - beneficial - aspects of the UKs traditional role in nuking some of the EU's more daft - usually French - proposals will be outweighed by its salutary inspiration on what NOT to do. Wonder what this spectacle will do for Le Pen's snake oil, for example.
Will it out-Greece Greece in that regard? I sincerely hope not, but this is certainly on track to be some massive foot machine-gunning.
You realize the "second vote" "campaign" is being lead by billionaires such as Rupert Murdoch and people who want "ordinary scum" to HAVE to take minimum wage or be outcompeted by 10s of millions of desperate people right?
2 years of ghost stories by mass media corporations controlled directly by their overlords.
"I really wish El Reg would let Tim Worstall re-explain his rainbows and unicorns once again in a guest article. Smart guy, but one wonders in this case."
I just think the EU is a terrible system which no one should belong to, let alone us. Entirely an arguable idea but that's where it all stems from. Centralised control of the lives of 500 million people just doesn't seem to work for me.
Chacon a son gout, obviously.
'That is an interesting issue and I have never seen anyone document it. Can you?'
Well if you read the article you will see the author eludes to it. Then all you have to do is investigate a little further. That way you can assuage your interest, if that interest is real, most genuinely inquisitive people do that.
"I am glad to hear one MP is challenging if building our own is worth it."
If results are more accurate when you have more data points, are we reaching the stage that there will be so many SatNav beacons in the sky that a good box with the relevant receivers and the right software can't get a highly accurate position using the jittery public signals?
At least we don't have to disband the Royal Navy, armed forced and RAF under the one-state one-army plan officially announced by the EU anyway. So thats a positive eh?
pre-referendum "no federal states of Europe, plz stay"...post referendum: "We lied...one army for all of Europe and centralized EU control over EVERY aspect of defence without a veto"
EU army is not something that could happen if the members don't agree to it. And the 27 are not agreeing to it, in any shape of form ( even if some might, to save money). Every EU country will have some sticking points that they won't let the EU agree to. And there are plenty that won't agree to an EU controlled army. We aren't quite as exceptional as you think we are.
It's never going to happen in any case, it is nonsense from the Brexiteers. No, nothing has been officially announced, finding a couple of random eurocrats vaguely musing the possibility does not amount to official policy statements.
On the other hand we had already negotiated ourselves out of ever closer union. Also consider the nations remaining in the EU. On the one hand you have a nuclear power and multiple NATO members. On the other hand you have the likes of Ireland with a constitutional commitment to neutrality. You can't negotiate away such divergent attitudes and the proposal inevitably fails there.
At least we don't have to disband the Royal Navy, armed forced and RAF under the one-state one-army plan officially announced
Ah yes - the old "unofficially announced" ploy. As in "I ate too much cheese one night and dreamed it"..
(And the UK has a veto in the EU - so anything that *we* don't want isn't going to happen..)
Well, I've transitioned through the various stages of shock and am now fully accepting of the reality to come. And in true British spirit will embrace the chaos to come as an opportunity.
My double bed is currently three feet higher than usual. Propped up with 500 tins of baked beans, corned beef and sardines.
I've emptied my immersion heater and disabled all the hot water taps so I could fill the system with Lambrusco Bianco.
Come brexit, I'll be trading the necessities of life to the plebs that voted for this once in a lifetime foot shooting through a steel hatch, that I'll be completing over the coming months.
Nothing like a disaster to line the pockets of those with the sense to see it coming.
"Nothing like a disaster to line the pockets of those with the sense to see it coming."
You mean like Brexit supporter Nigel Lawson who has applied for a French residence permit to continue living in his house in France.
People who will benefit are those rich enough to increase their stakes in the investment banking industry. Their wet dream is a "Singapore" UK - with deregulation of anything that currently protects the rights of ordinary people. Now who do we know with that profile?
>investment banking industry
think again. I suspect a large part of the UKs attractiveness as a financial center is being an EU member. No doubt, the really big cheese won’t be suffering with the little people. But i’d be surprised if a large proportion of British investment bankers didn’t get shafted out of this. Yes, yes, they may not be all sympathetic but they pay taxes and spend money.
EU bankers can head towards whichever city takes London’s place. Probably a net loss for the EU, but nowhere as dramatic.
Because Britain has never been powerful on its own right? ever?
We're a tiny little island with the 5th largest economy on the planet. Doesn't that tell you something?
Also the fact the EU BEGGED and PLEADED for the referendum to be scrapped. They need us more than we need them, but they're like an abusive boyfriend.
"if you leave me, YOU'll be the one thats sorry, you're just not GOOD enough to live without me!" <sob>
No. UK was powerful and independent when it was able to control trade with its colonies. You can't build a country on history. The world has changed. A lot. Fifth strongest economy, yes, because we are part of the EU. You need to join some dots.
This post has been deleted by its author
“We're a tiny little island with the 5th largest economy on the planet.”
Mainly thanks to the EU free trade zone.
Before we joined, the UK had become an economic basket case, on the verge of seeking an IMF bailout. Then we joined the EC and it’s transformed our country for the better.
Then we joined the EC and it’s transformed our country for the better.
Shh.. don't blow their minds with actual facts from actual history. Admittedly, it would be a small explosion..
(I'm convinced most brexiteers have forgotten the 1970's and, in their minds, we go directly from 1940 to 2018..)
>We're a tiny little island with the 5th largest economy on the planet.
I think you'll find we've slipped down that scale somewhat. On some measures, India has a bigger economy than us.
Yes, we used to be number one - but that was when we could 'trade' behind a huge army & navy. I don't think our salesmen can get away with shooting the competition, these days.
You mean like Brexit supporter Nigel Lawson who has applied for a French residence permit to continue living in his house in France.
No. I mean the like of Mogg which own major stakes in investment funds and other vehicles which have invested heavily in office properties and the office real estate boom in Dublin, Sofia, Bucharest, Plovdiv and elsewhere in (mostly Eastern) Europe. Billions are being made by servicing the financial rats jumping the sinking ship HMS City of London.
Compared to them Nigel Lawson and his French residence permit is a minor joke.
"I've emptied my immersion heater and disabled all the hot water taps so I could fill the system with Lambrusco Bianco."
Why on earth would you do that when you could have used a passable red and added some cinnamon, star anise, cloves, lemon zest and sugar and had mulled wine on tap?
"Why on earth would you do that when you could have used a passable red and added some cinnamon, star anise, cloves, lemon zest and sugar and had mulled wine on tap?"
Pandering to my potential customers tastes. I myself will be quaffing the usual Bushmills, which wouldn't be best suited to a Whiskey Galore storage option.
Whilst some here will agree the Brexit and some do not, what I do not understand is why some people seem to think that it is right to punish the UK. The UK like any other nation is free to chose to self determination. Being a member of the EU has benefits and also has costs associated with those benefits.
The EU's action in seeking to "Punish" the UK is wholly unjustified. They should respect the decision of the people and move forward with sensible trade agreement. The UK is not asking for favours just respect. If the EU wants to impose tariffs in the UK, then the UK should reciprocate, however I think that it is probably in both entities interests to agree a free trade agreement.
With regards to Galileo it is clear that the EU wishes to punish the UK and does not wish to reach a sensibe agreement even if it is in the EU's interest to do so.
"With regards to Galileo it is clear that the EU wishes to punish the UK and does not wish to reach a sensibe agreement even if it is in the EU's interest to do so."
There is no desire for punishment, this is just a case of the UK applying a gun to its own foot.
Very simple explanation: Galileo is a sort of club. One of the rules of the club, agreed to by all members and first proposed by the UK is that non-members don't have access. Now one of the members (UK) is cancelling its membership. Sorry to see you go, but your choice. By the way, do you still remember that rule about non-members not having access? Sorry to say, but it will also apply to you.
Most of the rest of the actions you see as punishment are the logical consequences of similar rules and situations. Either reverse the decision to leave or deal with the consequences, your choice.
It is a fact of life that in any negotiation there will always be a stronger and a weaker party.
If both parties were equal then there would be no requirement for negotiation as both parties can just walk away on an equal footing.
Sadly in the majority of cases, upon failing to get exactly what they want, the weaker party generally resorts to claiming victimisation with suggestions of punishment, bullying, arrogance or calls for respect from the other party. It really is a last ditch strategy, an emotional response that means nothing in the real world. The fact that it is regularly called by the Brexiteers is just a reflection of how strategically clueless they are.
Reality is hard, the gap between what you want and what you get is wide, no amount of name calling will change that.
Negotiation relies on some form of leverage. When you haven't got anything the other party wants, which it can’t easily replace elsewhere, you are screwed.
We have three choices -
a. We accept the deal May is given.
b. We stop the process, try to salvage our dignity and resume trying to democratically influence the EU more towards the UK’s point of view.
c. We walk away, take the huge hit, stop whining like babies, and spend the next few decades being the bitch of multiple trading blocs while we try to set up favourable deals with them.
That is the way we can exercise our right to self determination….
This post has been deleted by its author
>b. We stop the process, try to salvage our dignity and resume trying to democratically influence the EU more towards the UK’s point of view.
As much as I am pretty relaxed about immigration myself, not everyone is. It bears remembering that, when Greece, Portugal, Spain joined the EU, in 1982, there was a 10 year moratorium on allowing full free immigration into/from those 3 countries.
In hindsight, it would have been more sensible for the EU to apply the same kind of transition period to Eastern European countries. Or indeed any new member with a sufficiently big GDP difference.
Didn’t happen. Brexit was a bait and switch but the EUs bureaucracy will need to reassess its our way or the highway attitude towards its _member_ states. The ratification referendums for the constitution being another clusterf***. Ditto the pointless insistence on metric system precedence. Or curly bananas.
Subsidiarity was a very useful UK-sourced principle, IMHO.
None of this really makes Brexit any less of a self goal 8-/
don’t misunderstand me on this. letting in Eastern Europe was the right thing to do. 100% and if anything, Putin’s nastiness only reinforces that. For them, but also for the previous EU core.
i’m not even sure a 10 yr freedom of people movement moratorium would have been good. But it was a policy decision at the time and it did allow those 3 countries to build up their economies gradually, dialing down the motivation to seek better opportunities elsewhere in the EU once full liberalization was reached.
The EU is a great club, but, when reasonable, it needs to be more sensitive about national preferences and perception. Subsidiarity being key here.
Pressuring the Piss folk in Poland and Viktor Orban not to become lil Trumps against human rights? Good. Need more of that. Setting banana curvature? Bureaucracy gone amok and recruiting poster for big Borises. Getting Italy back in line on their budget, to avoid another Greek bailout? Much, much, needed because the risks outweigh national prerogatives.
As to Galileo, purely on military self-interest, the EU should have found a way to keep the most capable European army integrated. The rest of Brexit negotiations however? Well, they’ve got the leverage and very little incentive to cut a sweetheart deal encouraging future xxxexit movements. They got you by the balls.
Too bad the Borises and Ress-Moggs didn’t see that coming or just managed to pull wool over the eyes of the more clever Leave voters. Yes, they exist, and Remains need to gently convince that constituency to reconsider in light of all the hollow promises.
btw One brilliant thing the Federal government here did, late 90s, fought tooth and nail by the Quebec separatists, was to force future leave referendums to have a clear Leave or Stay question. They can’t just fudge something harmless sounding. Wasn’t the issue with the actual Brexit vote wording, but it sure was with previous Quebec referendums.
10 year moratorium?
Yes, there WAS one agreed for Poland’s and Baltic States entry which Germany and other countries kept to but for which a certain country negotiated yet another get out clause; guess who?!
Yep, Britain!
We invited them in straight away! Ireland too. It was good for business, remember?! Sod the other impacts.
We’ve had so many get out clauses, we’ve done excellently out of the EU, now we’re throwing it all away.
Collective insanity.
There is no "punishment" being handed out here. If you join a club, that membership comes with costs and benefits you receive in return for your membership fee. If you decide to cease being a member, you stop paying those costs and you cease receiving the benefits. Would you complain you were being punished if you decided to cancel your gym membership and they wouldn't let you continue to use their Jacuzzi? If you stopped paying for health insurance after years and thousands of pounds of membership, would you consider it unfair or disrespectful they wouldn't give you treatment if you got sick after you left?
We were instrumental in writing the Galileo rules. We knew they contained a provision that non-EU members can't have military-grade access to or perform work on the service. When we triggered Article 50, it was entirely predictable that we would lose access to the system as non-members. Those of us who repeated pointed things such as this out were howled down as "Project Fear" or "unpatriotic."
This whole "punishment" argument makes me quite angry. Vocal parts of the Brexit movement told the people that we were so special that the EU would bend over to give us a wonderful deal when the EU, quite honestly, said from day one that no non-member deal could ever be as good as a member deal. I have had to close the business I spent 25 years nurturing because I can't get anyone to sign contracts for performing work on the continent when I can't promise I will be able to fulfill them going forward and the customers were looking for long term business relationships. The orders dried up as soon as the referendum result was announced. I am angry that those who convinced the people that a better deal would be available are now using talk of "punishment" to try to avoid responsibility by effectively saying, "It's the EU's fault they won't give you what we said you could have. Not ours."
Business moves cost money and take time. Big businesses, unable to get the certainty they wanted that they weren't going to be hugely impacted by Brexit, have already started moving jobs and the money that goes with them abroad. It's the sensible course of action for any large company faced with a significant business threat. They need to make moving decisions in time to get the move done before the threat materializes. Because of the time and money moves cost, once those jobs are gone, they're not coming back.
There is no "punishment" being handed out here.
Wow, just wow. Are you really so short-sighted, so blinkered, so naive as to not realise this is the EU sending a very strong message to the likes of Italy and any other country that thinks they can sway matters with talk of doing their own little side-stage exit if they don't get their own way?
It was always going to be this way. If Brexit resulted in a sweet deal for the UK then other countries would have a viable fall-back option should they not want to play ball, which would result in a clear lack of cohesion within the block. You simply have to make leaving the block appear unpalatable, anything else is suicidal.
"Whilst some here will agree the Brexit and some do not, what I do not understand is why some people seem to think that it is right to punish the UK. "
Watching from a safe distance (neither UK nor EU) I don't see any 'punishment'.
The UK is being treated like exactly what it claims it wants to be - a non-member, free of obligation or entanglement, carving its own path to destiny in the global economy.
Of course, leave advocates promised you could do that while keeping all the benefits of EU membership.
And British politicians of all parties kept promising one thing to the EU and the exact opposite to the British public - like somehow they thought EU citizens couldn't understand their speeches and press releases. That doubtless cost a lot of credibility and good will. When you prove you can't be trusted, even before a deal is struck, you shouldn't be surprised when the other party is cautious about special privileges.
And as others noted, a lot of the rules biting the UK now were their own idea.
A lot of people are tired of listening to Leavers whining about how mean the EU is being to them... pretty much anyone I know is.
The best, of course, was the British MP condemning the deal for leaving the EU because it didn't give the UK any MEPs. People would find this hard to accept for a character in a black comedy about victims of brain sucking aliens, let alone someone in a position to influence a country's future.
This post has been deleted by its author
Who said anything about the EU or US denying the UK access, in line with the "taking back control" the UK can't have a third-party supply it with military signal... So it will be the hard Brexiteers complaining that the EU/US are punishing the UK by not allowing the UK to provide the military signal to them.
>Who said anything about the EU or US denying the UK access, in line with the "taking back control" the UK can't have a third-party supply it with military signal
As long as the UK has access to the GPS military signal it will be about as good as the Galileo military signal. So if losing access to Galileo military signal is a problem it implies the UK cannot use the GPS military signal either.
Hence the question.
The UK wants access to Galileo to patrol Gibraltar - Spain says no,
The Eu/UK send a peacekeeping mission to Gaza - the US blocks GPS
Britain does another "Falklands" with which ever bit of the empire is left. A US senator has a large immigrant minority from the invaders in their constituency and says no GPS
Remember in 1982 when the UK was a fairly major NATO ally against the USSR - the USA wasn't exactly on board with Britain attacking one of their staunchly anti-communist dictators in S America. Now when the US president has more important links with Saudi Arabia and Russia than with the UK, how accommodating will they be?
>The UK wants access to Galileo to patrol Gibraltar - Spain says no,
So what? There is still military GPS and DGPS.
>The Eu/UK send a peacekeeping mission to Gaza - the US blocks GPS
Again: so what? There is still military GPS and DGPS. And why should the US block GPS?
>Britain does another "Falklands" with which ever bit of the empire is left. A US senator has a large immigrant minority from the invaders in their constituency and says no GPS
One US senator against one of the few reliable allies the US has in the world. Hard choice?
>Remember in 1982 when the UK was a fairly major NATO ally against the USSR - the USA wasn't exactly on board with Britain attacking one of their staunchly anti-communist dictators in S America. Now when the US president has more important links with Saudi Arabia and Russia than with the UK, how accommodating will they be?
I know it is popular to consider Americans stupid in general and the president in particular. Do you also think they would go as far as alienating what is practically their only real ally? I do not.
"I know it is popular to consider Americans stupid in general and the president in particular. Do you also think they would go as far as alienating what is practically their only real ally? I do not."
During the Falklands crisis, there was a big fight in the US State department between the South American crowd who considered that continent more important to US interests, and wanted to back Argentina, and the Atlanticist crew who maintained Britain and NATO were more important.
Eventually the second faction won, but it could have gone either way. If it had gone the other way, chances are the British attempt to regain the Falklands would have failed. Details are too lengthy to get into here, but if you want a good account of both the diplomatic and military aspects, dig up a copy of The Battle for the Falklands, by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins.
Not all of the Americans - even the politicians and diplomats - put the UK ahead of other considerations, and any support depends on their internal politics first and foremost. Thinking otherwise is a dangerous delusion.
Parliament is really all about collecting and spending revenues. It really should not be a shock that some spending was a bit wasteful. It is something that happens in every household.
A major difference is that in every household some persons are accountable for it - at all if not most levels of accountability. The shame about UK system is that those people are not held accountable and that really is a shocker?
"I can't believe it's not butter"
There will be chlorinated chicken and growth-hormone beef. Our own farmers will be offered small subsidies to keep the countryside looking suitably theme park bucolic for US tourists. Villages will have their ragged barefoot urchins and smocked farmhands available for selfies.
The middle classes ( mostly Remainers) will be buying organic chickens, guaranteed no chlorine etc. from Waitrose. And Organic veg for the vegetarians
The poorer folk, more likely to be Leavers, will be eating rats' hairs (to the permitted maximum number per portion ) and chlorinated chickens.
'Twas ever thus.
'will be eating rats' hairs (to the permitted maximum number per portion)'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Realistically, it is almost impossible, as well as very inefficient, to try to keep all rat hairs, mouse droppings, insect parts, and similar materials out of the food chain.
A small amount of this is of no import, particularly if you are cooking whatever it is to a temperature that will kill bacteria.
Better to be honest, and set reasonable levels for such things.
Thus teaching possibly the most valuable lesson of all.
"Never trust a Tory posh boy."
They say "Experience is a hard task master, but some people won't learn any other way."
True that.
Bon appetit to your pullet chlorine mon amis.
There will be chlorinated chicken and growth-hormone beef.
There already is. Plenty of it. You are just not reading the news carefully.
1. Chlorinated chicken and hormone beef are allowed in a number of countries from ex-USSR.
2. They are shipped via 3 Eu countries(*) where embargo-busting is a major GDP contributor on par with the way it was in Bulgaria during the Yugo conflict. They collectively imported 260M worth of Eu fruit and other foodstuffs last year and exported 260M of "African" fruit, wine and foodstuffs(**). African pears and Camembert. Bwahahaha... They laundered 100Bn worth of money laundry fund transfers in last year alone.
3... 4... 5... 6...
So, back to the chlorinated chicken. As of beginning of November all permits for shipping Chlorinated Chicken and Hormone Beef across Russia to Kazahstan, Uzbekistan, etc have been withdrawn. Bonus question - where is all the Chlorinated chicken which was supposed to go there. IT IS NOT IN THE COUNTRIES IN QUESTION - they do not have the storage capacity and they specialize in falsifying documents on goods. I would suggest you carefully examine what you are eating, especially if it is ready made food... It is not the first time too - it is a recurring event.
(*)The economies of these countries get close to 25% of their GDP from sanctions busting, embargo avoidance and money laundry. Key figures in their politics are involved too - up to relevant ministers and families of the president(s). They are as addicted to this as Bulgaria was in the 90-es (it took a decade to clear the grey economy there).
(**)Data published by one of Belgian broadsheets 2 weeks ago
The idea was that it’s better to reach out help bring the destitute former Communist countries up to a much higher standard, rather than left them fester in misery.
Meanwhile doing that was a pretty good insurance policy to avoid another destructive war in Europe since we’re all in the EU club.
The cost of mutual help is far less than fighting wars and rebuilding from them, that’s just in economic terms, but what about the human benefits.
Unfortunately sociopathic Brexteers can’t fathom this apparently.
I see it was to help stop another destructive war in Europe ?
Hmmm.
So what happened when the EU funded the Ukrainian war then ?
5 Billion Euros given to party not elected in Ukraine .. which then caused a civil war .. with the only Russian naval base in the Mediterranian .. Russia being the second most powerful Nuclear Super Power.
I applaud your moronic attitude .. how about getting a reality check. I don't an EU funded war with Russua.
Never mind the hypocrasy of Germany giving Russia money whilst getting military support and financial support from the USA and the rest of Europe .. against Russia.
What would you call a mutliple layer of Morons ? Schizo morons ?
Georgia, Moldavia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Estonia cyberattacks. Gay rights snafus. Dead Russian opposition politicians. bogus elections. MH 217. Magnetsky.
All funded by the EU.
Do go on, Herr Putain.
one thing I grant you, NATO-near-border is way too provocative, except for Baltics. But actually probably suits Vlad just right, more enemies abroad to sell.
brexit thing has been a clusterfuck of unimaginable proportions.
Take migration... (actually migration problems are really caused by westminister doing things such as not bothering to check how many people are coming here vs the expansion in services/housing to cope...BOTH parties are equally as guilty of this as the other.)
What should have been said is "EU nationals working here pre-brexit have an unlimited time to remain here, post brexit, EU nationals get the same rights as the rest of the world"
If the EU wanted to play silly buggers around that, we restate the 1st phrase
Sadly the 'government' (read 300 cats in a sack) decided to do things differently, then have a leadership election.... then an actual election (needing the support of some northern irish throwbacks.. when will they realise its not 1689 anymore!!) hence we're in clusterfuck.
I like tables so I put together this handy guide to satellite navigation in the top 10 economies of the world.
country global nss regional nss gdp 2017 (ppp) share %
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 China BeiDou-2 (2020) BeiDou-1 23159.107 18.2
2 U.S. GPS 19390.6 15.3
3 India NAVIC 9459.002 7.45
4 Japan QZSS 5428.813 4.27
5 Germany Galileo (2020) 4170.79 3.28
6 Russia GLONASS 4007.831 3.15
7 Indonesia 3242.771 2.55
8 Brazil 3240.319 2.55
9 U.K. #Brexit ? 2914.042 2.29
10 France Galileo (2020) DORIS 2835.746 2.23
So? It will be at least 8 years before we are a member of the WTO and legally covered by those rules - according to the WTO, That is assuming we are allowed to join - the US wants us to sell them the NHS on the cheap before they give their agreement and Argentina is looking at some islands just off their coast...
And then that trade deal with the EU: Spain will have the opportunity to veto it, if they don't get what they want over Gibraltar, Greece likewise will naturally request the Elgin Marbles or veto it...
Expect the UK to get a good kicking in the coming years, all because the UK decided to open Pandora's box...
Tom,
The UK already is a member of the World Trade Organisation.
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/united_kingdom_e.htm
We are already covered by WTO rules (as is the EU) and hence we already trade in accordance with WTO rules, either in accordance with trade agreements negotiated by the EU, or under the normal 'most favoured nation status' for nations with which we have no deal.
If we revert to trading with the EU under WTO rules (the 'No deal' option) no doubt there will be some issues that need to be sorted out, but we will nevertheless be legally covered by the WTO rules.
Additionally, a number of the nations with trade deals with the EU have already stated publically that, for their part, they intend those trade deals to be rolled forward such that they continue to apply to the UK once outside the EU.
We're not a WTO member. We have associate membership as part of our EU membership.
We will need to negotiate with the WTO to join in our own right and hope to transfer our existing quotas etc from the EU membership umbrella out into our own rain.
This should be relatively easy, so will probably only take two to three years.
Richard 12,
From the WTO page on the UK:
"This page gathers information on the United Kingdom's participation in the WTO. The United Kingdom has been a WTO member since 1 January 1995 and a member of GATT since 1 January 1948. It is a member State of the European Union (more info). All EU member States are WTO members, as is the EU (until 30 November 2009 known officially in the WTO as the European Communities for legal reasons) in its own right"
No mention of associate membership there.
And later, in discussing groups of countries:
"The largest and most comprehensive group is the European Union and its 28 member states. The EU is a customs union with a single external trade policy and tariff. While the member states coordinate their position in Brussels and Geneva, the European Commission alone speaks for the EU at almost all WTO meetings. The EU is a WTO member in its own right as are each of its member states."
So the WTO clearly thinks that the UK is (already) a member in our own right.
The UK already is a member of the World Trade Organisation.
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/united_kingdom_e.htm
We are already covered by WTO rules (as is the EU) and hence we already trade in accordance with WTO rules, either in accordance with trade agreements negotiated by the EU, or under the normal 'most favoured nation status' for nations with which we have no deal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not exactly. You are part of the WTO as part of the EU.
When you leave the EU, you will no longer be part of the WTO.
The UK has attempted to fast-track re-entry to the WTO, which can only happen if no WTO members object.
At this point about 20 WTO members have objected to fast-tracking, including the United States, Australia, and New Zealand (all Leaver targets for fast, easy, profitable trade deals).
Welcome to reality.
Sorry, which part of the WTO's own statement that:
"The EU is a WTO member in its own right as are each of its member states."
leads you to think that the UK is not a member of the WTO in it's own right?
I like reality, it has less Zombies in it than the worlds that some pro-remain people seem to inhabit.
Sorry, which part of the WTO's own statement that:
"The EU is a WTO member in its own right as are each of its member states."
leads you to think that the UK is not a member of the WTO in it's own right?
I like reality, it has less Zombies in it than the worlds that some pro-remain people seem to inhabit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you may be having trouble parsing this.
The EU is a member in its own right - recognized as a member.
The EU member states are members and recognized as such.
The UK will remain a member until 2300 on March 29 2019 with all the WTO rights and privileges that go with that status. The fact that some of those cannot be exercised due to EU rules has nothing to do with the WTO.
At that point, the UK will no longer be a member of the WTO as an EU member state. While technically a member of the WTO, it is no longer party to tariff and quota deals via the EU, and its membership needs a new document setting out UK tariff and quota rules. That document can only be quickly finalized with universal WTO member agreement. Twenty countries have objected so far, because of the detriments of trading with the UK out of the EU context, which is not as advantageous as having a quota that can be freely redirected among 28 countries.
One also suspects that the current trading partners see a chance to renegotiate for more advantageous terms with a less powerful and desirable UK market. Furthermore, any changes that affect EU quotas will in essence be three way deals involving the UK, another WTO member, and the EU. That should be fun, in and of itself.
Among the countries raising concerns were Moldova, the US, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, Canada, Australia and Israel. One should note that one of the issues was faster and better access to visas. And we already know that India wants improved immigration access to the UK. Have fun taking control, guys.
If you want more data, try searching 'uk fast track wto membership objections'.
No problem at all with the grammar.
The UK is a member of WTO
On leaving the EU, we are still a member of WTO.
We then find ourselves without agreed schedules, so need to submit these for WTO approval, as per the WTO rules. These will be reviewed in accordance with the rules of the WTO. Other countries may object, but fortunately, WTO is a rules based organisation, so the objections have to be based on something other than an attempt to gain an unfair advantage.
What you forget to mention is that proposed fast track schedules for the UK are also accompanied by the EU attempting to reduce the quantities listed under their schedule - the proposal is that the current EU schedules are divided between UK and EU (that's already agreed between UK and EU).
If you are correct that this somehow renders the UK not party to WTO, then the same logic means the EU is also no longer party to the WTO.
It's also a lot more likely that the UK will simply agree to up the quantities permitted under the UK schedules, thus immediately addressing the concerns raised by third party countries, than it is that the EU will agree to keep the quantities listed in its schedule unchanged following the UK departure.
"Simple answer, no access, take £1Bn out of the devource payment, what is the EU going to do ?"
Then countries all round the world will see we don't stick to our end of the bargain when we make an agreement and no longer consider us a good-faith negotiating partner. Just what we need when we're trying to negotiate trade deals for "Global Britain."
Add screw our credit rating, massively increase the cost of our international borrowing and lose any goodwill and trust from any trading negotiations for decades to come.
Wouldn't affect credit rating at all. This isn't a retail banking operation whereby your credit score on Experian is marked down FFS.
As for a long non-EU queue when we go to Majorca etc for our two weeks of sun - there's plenty of sunny places on the planet and a bit of exploring will show you that the Med is a bit of a shit-hole really.
Conservative party is viewed as the cause of this chaos (as in fact it was) this might make them unelectable
And my private opinion is that quite a few moderate Conservatives and Labour types will end up either forming a new centrist party or joining the Lib Dems.
PRS access - the high precision encrypted channel, which is presumably what the angst is all about, is apparently under consideration for the US and Norway, and the EU has apparently made provisions for non EU nations to be permitted access,
https://spacenews.com/u-s-norwegian-paths-to-encrypted-galileo-service-open-in-2016/
http://insidegnss.com/delay-continues-for-effort-to-add-galileo-signal-to-u-s-military-receivers/
Norway is needed for Galileo to work at high latitudes - its only technical advantage over GPS.
If Norway takes its ball (or its ground stations) and goes home - Galileo's military signal doesn't work for that bit of the world where all the Russian boats and planes come from.
The UK doesn't have quite the same bargaining power
re: Norway
However, Norway's role is to host facilities.
Likewise other non-EU states have access (to PRS signals)
The UK is wanting to not only have access - solvable, but also continue being an insider on the development of the PRS service ie. Norway, USA get to use the blackbox, the UK wants to build the blackbox and thus be privy to all its inner-workings.
"Sir William Cash piled in, suggesting that the UK could simply knock the Galileo £1bn off the eventual divorce bill."
Yes, and next time we change our minds in the middle of remodeling our home and want the old look back, we'll complain bitterly when it turns out we're still on the hook for commitments made to contractors, and them even spitefully refusing to put it all back together for free.
Could it be Maybot knows that parliament will vote the evil plan down and force a peoples vote?
What? Have you forgotten she fought tooth and nail to keep even Parliament out of any further say from just after taking top office after the referendum?
I think she believes she's another Thatcher. If Parliament reject it, she's most likely finished.
The UK is not the likes of Switzerland or Ireland, such plebiscites are few and far between in the Uk. Which goes a long way to explain how badly handled the last one was.
Could it be Maybot knows that parliament will vote the evil plan down and force a peoples vote?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or the deal will be voted down, someone will go to the EU and discover to their surprise that the only changes will be EU countries getting more of their wish list because they feel that the UK got away with too much, and, if they can, then passing the EU approved deal.
Various EU countries aren't really any happier than the assorted UK factions... they are just better at being willing to compromise to see if a deal can be reached... but I think they have been pushed as far as they can be and they are tired of making concessions.
I've learned a lot about remoaners, they appear to have no back bone, are afraid of not being 'in a group', maybe because that way they feel safe, are quite OK being *ucked up the a**, as long as they can still be in the club. Either that or the EU is a nice little earner for them & fuck everybody else.
For fuck sake, have a bit of respect for yourself.
Being a remoaner appears to be much like voting labour, those that do vote labour make a load of noise about it, while those that don't vote labour say nothing.. And guess what, to the surprise of labour voters the conservatives got in.
Neither party admits to having the clap or giving it to the other, and both want the dog, even though they only ever walked it the first time when they got it, then both were too busy and got their neighbor to do it, although it did cost them a lot to purchase.
Seems the UK-EU prenups weren't in place or sufficient to sort this out post divorce. {sigh}
Know for next time then, hmm.
But I just learned a new word.
"Kwitter"
That sounds an admirable description of the people who want Brexit.
They want to give up on the EU and they want to tell you about it. A lot.
Kwitter sounds about right for most of them.
Brexit looks increasingly unlikely as there is no deal imaginable that will get through the house of commons, and none of the politicians saying that "no deal is better than a bad deal" actually have the balls to do it. They are quite keen on someone else doing it, but Boris and Gove would never do it. JRM might just, but he's a few nannies short of the full Norland's College to be honest.