UK rebuffed over Galileo sat-nav procurement

**sasguru** · 14 June 2018, 07:44

The UK could always make it's own satellites. Would cost quite a bit though. I doubt even 350 million a week would cover it.

**original PM** · 14 June 2018, 08:07

"There is an option on the table that would benefit both the UK and EU. If that is not accepted by the EU, we are a proud and confident nation and will be looking at all alternatives." Ministers have previously talked about the UK building its own sat-nav system, which could cost £3-5bn.

So why are the EU not interested?

Because it is best for everyone in the EU or because they are a bunch of ignorant ******* who, as we all suspected, are making things difficult because they did not get their own way?

hmmmhmmhm

**darmstadt** · 14 June 2018, 08:09

Let me get this straight, the referendum said:

Now people voted leave so what part of leaving the EU do people not understand?

It seems though that the UK actually want to stay or at least have those parts of it which they need:

Security: The U.K. participates in more than 40 EU measures covering police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters such as the European Arrest Warrant. The U.K. wants to negotiate a new treaty that would keep things much the same as they are now. However, agencies like Europol operate under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice — and May had set leaving the ECJ as a red line in the talks

Medicines: The EMA has moved and U.K. is powerless to prevent it, but doesn’t want to be outside the EMA’s system of regulating medicines altogether. May said: “We will also want to explore with the EU the terms on which the U.K. could remain part of EU agencies such as those that are critical for the chemicals, medicines and aerospace industries: the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, and the European Aviation Safety Agency. We would, of course, accept that this would mean abiding by the rules of those agencies and making an appropriate financial contribution.”

Aviation: Aviation safety is one area where there is no real advantage to diverging from EU rules, so London would like to keep things much as they are. The government wants to remain part of the European Aviation Safety Agency. And, unlike other sectors of the economy, aviation cannot fall back on World Trade Organization rules to keep operating. For its part, the EU has said it will negotiate a bilateral aviation safety agreement but that future membership of EASA is not possible.

Chemicals: The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) owns and maintains the world’s most comprehensive database on chemicals: If the U.K. is no longer part of the agency, deciding who owns the data submitted by British companies would be messy. Without complying with the EU’s chemical regulation REACH, producers will not be able to access the EU market. The EU is constantly updating its lists of banned and restricted chemicals, so the two regimes will diverge unless the U.K. regularly copies ECHA’s decisions on individual chemicals. That may not sound much like the Brexiteer narrative of taking back control, but anything less means producers who want to export to the EU must comply with two sets of rules, increasing red tape and costs. May floated has “associate membership” of the ECHA, but it’s unclear whether the EU will allow that.

Energy: Brexit will almost certainly mean one concrete change: The U.K. will leave the atomic energy community Euratom. That poses some significant problems. The 60-year-old Euratom pre-dates the EU. It makes sure countries don’t use their nuclear materials for weapons, manages nuclear fuel supply, allows workers and equipment to move freely. Those are crucial functions for the U.K., home to the world’s biggest stockpile of civil plutonium and 15 nuclear reactors made up of parts sent from EU members and countries that have nuclear cooperation agreements with Euratom. Without a replacement agreement, the U.K. will run out of nuclear fuel and cancer patients will cease to have access to specialized radionuclides that are used in their care.

Financial Services: In 2017, the financial services sector contributed £119 billion to the U.K. economy (6.5 percent of total economic output) and supported 1.1 million jobs. It also makes up a big chunk of the U.K. government’s tax base (£27.3 billion in 2016-17). Being outside the EU poses problems: London has accepted that businesses based in the U.K. will lose their passport to operate across the EU, but it does not want to settle for the status normally reserved for countries outside the bloc — so-called equivalence. U.K. Chancellor Philip Hammond said equivalence is “wholly inadequate for the scale and complexity of the U.K.-EU financial services trade.” Plus, Brussels could decide to withdraw equivalence with very little notice if it thinks the U.K.’s rules have diverged too much. The U.K. wants financial services to be part of a “comprehensive economic partnership” guaranteeing market access to businesses and consumers in the U.K. and EU, it argued last month.

Broadcasting: U.K. companies provide around 30 percent of the television channels across the EU while 35 channels and on-demand services offered in the U.K. are licensed in EU27 countries. With British creative industries worth around £92 billion annually, the government does not want to lose access to the EU market. May has acknowledged that the rules allowing a broadcasting company licensed by U.K. regulator Ofcom to broadcast across the EU will cease to apply to the U.K.

Frictionless Trade: The U.K.’s future trading relationship is fundamental to what kind of Brexit emerges. The British government has been clear for months about what it doesn’t want — membership in the EU single market and the customs union. The former would mean accepting freedom of movement, something the government calculates was a major driver for Brexit voters, and remaining in the latter would hinder the U.K.’s ability to do trade deals with countries around the world. But those aside, the government gives the impression of wanting to keep things as close to the status quo as possible. Her government will consider sticking with EU state aid rules and its competition regime, but further binding commitments would be in return for “commensurate levels of market access.”

That is just the tip of the iceberg...If you look deeper into all the various white papers and documents produced by the government what you will see is that they basically want to keep everything the EU already provides although once Brexit is finally realised then all cards are off of the table in regards to such touchy subjects as workers rights, environment and so on.

May’s five pillars for a close future economic relationship are: commitments to ensure fair and open competition; an independent arbitration mechanism; an ongoing dialogue with the Brussels; data-protection arrangements; and maintaining the links between “our people.”

To many in EU, that sounds a lot like staying in the club.

**Zigenare** · 14 June 2018, 08:14

Originally posted by original PM View Post

"There is an option on the table that would benefit both the UK and EU. If that is not accepted by the EU, we are a proud and confident nation and will be looking at all alternatives." Ministers have previously talked about the UK building its own sat-nav system, which could cost £3-5bn.

So why are the EU not interested?

Because it is best for everyone in the EU or because they are a bunch of ignorant ******* who, as we all suspected, are making things difficult because they did not get their own way?

hmmmhmmhm

Heav'n has no rage like love to hatred turn'd / Nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorn'd.

Unless of course you're a Sovereign State that has told the rest of the EU that you're leaving.

**Old Greg** · 14 June 2018, 08:16

The UK doesn't need this EUSSR satellite crap. Glue some ZX81s onto Sinclair C5s, network the from Bletchley Park, fly them into orbit on Spitfires, and home in time for macaroons and lashings of lemonade. Hurrah!

**WTFH** · 14 June 2018, 08:20

Originally posted by original PM View Post

"There is an option on the table that would benefit both the UK and EU. If that is not accepted by the EU, we are a proud and confident nation and will be looking at all alternatives." Ministers have previously talked about the UK building its own sat-nav system, which could cost £3-5bn.

So why are the EU not interested?

Because it is best for everyone in the EU or because they are a bunch of ignorant ******* who, as we all suspected, are making things difficult because they did not get their own way?

hmmmhmmhm

The EU are interested, but some people in the UK want the UK to leave ALL institutions.
It's not the EU that are a bunch of ignorant ******* - it's the UK people and UK politicians who want a hard Brexit.

If you want the UK to stay part of some European institutions, then maybe you should have thought about that before voting.

In the same article:

As it stands, no deal has been agreed between London and the EU-27 to allow Britain continued participation.

If the UK can't agree a deal because UK people and UK politicians want a hard Brexit, then UK people and UK politicians are going to have to learn to accept responsibility for this and stop whinging like snowflakes, trying to blame the EU for the UK's decision.

The option put on the table was for the EU to delay making a decision until the UK government had completed negotiations on Brexit. Now if the UK government had triggered Article 50 on 26th June 2016 (as the UK government had promised), then that would have meant the decision could have been made in 12 days time.
As it is, Brexit is going to drag on until December 2020, so that would be a 30 month delay, with no guarantee what's going to be the outcome.

**sasguru** · 14 June 2018, 08:26

Originally posted by original PM View Post

"There is an option on the table that would benefit both the UK and EU. If that is not accepted by the EU, we are a proud and confident nation and will be looking at all alternatives." Ministers have previously talked about the UK building its own sat-nav system, which could cost £3-5bn.

So why are the EU not interested?

Because it is best for everyone in the EU or because they are a bunch of ignorant ******* who, as we all suspected, are making things difficult because they did not get their own way?

hmmmhmmhm

Originally posted by Zigenare View Post

Unless of course you're a Sovereign State that has told the rest of the EU that you're leaving.

And in other news thick Brexiters who voted to become a "3rd country" complain when they are treated as such.
There must be some intelligent Brexiters somewhere, but I haven't come across a single one yet.

**Old Greg** · 14 June 2018, 08:34

Originally posted by sasguru View Post

And in other news thick Brexiters who voted to become a "3rd country" complain when they are treated as such.
There must be some intelligent Brexiters somewhere, but I haven't come across a single one yet.

The disaster capitalists have their heads screwed on.

**darmstadt** · 14 June 2018, 08:35

I don't think Brexiteers realise that 'Brexit means Brexit' also means 'Leave means Leave'

UK rebuffed over Galileo sat-nav procurement