Brexit and the Consequences

[Signalcalc]

Take the Americans, they have always looked to the UK as a bastion of democracy and free speech, they have been watching what is happening here and in Europe with great interest, they see what happens here as happening in the USA. I think there is a genuine fear that if democracy and the rule of law is lost here, then there is a possibility of civil outbreak in the USA, with guns n all, that could get nasty. At least we only have knives, mopeds and acid to deal with here.

I swear Trump is reading my posts, there's be more than one occaision where I've written something only for Trump to confirm my suspicions

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/trump-warns-u-s-could-follow-path-of-germany-on-immigration

 

[Atilla]

Wrong and clarification needed.

Wrong because EU military unification is happening apparently with no public consultation or debate in parliament.

https://www.ukcolumn.org/series/eu-military-unification

Clarification because the Galileo narrative is concocted rather than fake, (although I'm not sure what the difference is really). The EU are trying to use it as a Brexit lever.

Answer me this, how is the EU going to perform UK military unification with the EU if the EU doesn't provide Galileo to the UK military and the UK decides to go it alone? Davis is correct to say that the EU are shooting themselves in the foot with their concocted narrative, however he concentrates on the monetry/development aspects and conveniently avoids mentioning military unification.

Both of which could be considered conspiracy, the evidence doesn't suggest so, you decide.

You are too focused on the army barmy bit which is no secret agenda. EU would like to have some joint force in place yes. However, we are all far away from that.

Galileo and space research satellites etc is a joint business venture much like Airbus or joint European Typhoon fighter jet program.

It has the potential to open up driver less cars, farm machines, trains the lot.

Standards will be created and new transport revolutions will take place.

Instead of depending on US or other nations satellite systems EU and UK will have their own. GPS technology originally used by the military is now a mass consumer driven feature rich utility on our phones. You can track where your mates are in a marathon race. You can map your run. All sorts. New products will be released along with new technologies.

This is what UK is walking away from.

Can UK do this alone? Why? Why not develop in EU benefiting from a much bigger market place?

Magnitude of potential markets in billions and trillions here. Average Brexit punter does he know or care or have any awareness of what's coming round the corner?

I've mentioned new silk road/railway line before and that's another mammoth project which seems to find no visionaries in the UK to exploit potential for business.


Instead just heard some task force asking for £1bn to make car parks for lorries on the way to Dover. What productive benefit will this provide for the UK? Delay in delivery of shipment, eye sore to the eye and lungs. Noise and what a dreadful way to use up green belt? Courtesy of Brexit coming to a home near you in the garden of England Kent.

 

[Atilla]

Not us were are trying to convince. We know we are right

You are right about migration and immigration.

Totally wrong about free movement of labour within EU and your silver bullet. :whistling

 

[counter_violent]

This leftie expert's a professor doncha know !

 

[sminicooper]

This leftie expert's a professor.

I watched that interview live as it was broadcast and it was totally cringeworthy! It's bad enough listening to politicians who think they can bamboozle your average voter with obfuscation, hesitation, repetition and deviation. But Grayling – "a respected academic" sat there and couldn't even match the low standards of your average politician. Nevertheless you shouldn't be surprised – Grayling has form on this sort of thing. Andrew Neil is one of the few interviewers who effectively confronts this sort of thing – why people like Grayling think they can get one over him I just do not understand. (Neil always does his homework and it doesn't pay to put yourself in front of him if you haven't done yours).

 

[mike.]

What an absolute tool.

 

[Signalcalc]

You are too focused on the army barmy bit which is no secret agenda. EU would like to have some joint force in place yes. However, we are all far away from that.

Galileo and space research satellites etc is a joint business venture much like Airbus or joint European Typhoon fighter jet program.

It has the potential to open up driver less cars, farm machines, trains the lot.

Standards will be created and new transport revolutions will take place.

Instead of depending on US or other nations satellite systems EU and UK will have their own. GPS technology originally used by the military is now a mass consumer driven feature rich utility on our phones. You can track where your mates are in a marathon race. You can map your run. All sorts. New products will be released along with new technologies.

This is what UK is walking away from.

Can UK do this alone? Why? Why not develop in EU benefiting from a much bigger market place?

Magnitude of potential markets in billions and trillions here. Average Brexit punter does he know or care or have any awareness of what's coming round the corner?

If the MSM reporting is to be believed then Galileo is just one more reason to add to the long list of reasons why Brexit is such a good idea because it highlights the ridiculousness of the EU!

Here's my supposition: the UK alongside it's EU partners have invested billions in Galileo. The UK is a global leader in cybersecurity (alongside the Israelis), so I would guess that a large part of the UK contribution will have been in developing the Secret squirrel super secure signal channels, technologies and methods to enable access to Galileo codes at different levels of security for military and civilian 3rd parties. The ultimate control of the codes will be held by a central command of the EU, not by the UK. The whole program is not yet finished.

From the MSM reporting so far it appears that the UK contribution is only partially complete, hence DDs comments, my questions are, who owns the secrets (possibly shared) and who owns the Intellectual Property, these are key elements to the system. The EU is threatening to withhold the secure codes that will not allow UK military and 3rd parties access to the system.

Where is the EU going with this exactly? They are completely destroying any trust, now at a military level, that we, or any other EU military partner may have in the EU. When we have already invested our £billions and intellectual property and just as UK military unification with the EU is finalising. It's fine to posture over trade, but to threaten military and security stability is childish and foolish.

The ramifications of the EU restricting Galileo to the UK has a far greater impact for the EU over the long term because of the lack of trust, how many other governments will willingly invest in EU programs knowing what punishment has been meted out to the UK, it goes far beyond trade deals and any perceived 'new technology' benefits.

We have the capability of developing our own systems, have done for decades (regardless of the globalisation of defence companies) we would thrive without Galileo, obviously not the preferred option however. The EU will suffer as a result of remaining intransigent (we both would). Looks like we will be headed into a cold war with the EU if they are not careful.

No wait, aren't cold wars reserved for communist type dictatorships only? Ah, silly me of course, keep calm and Brexit on....

 

[Atilla]

If the MSM reporting is to be believed then Galileo is just one more reason to add to the long list of reasons why Brexit is such a good idea because it highlights the ridiculousness of the EU!

Here's my supposition: the UK alongside it's EU partners have invested billions in Galileo. The UK is a global leader in cybersecurity (alongside the Israelis), so I would guess that a large part of the UK contribution will have been in developing the Secret squirrel super secure signal channels, technologies and methods to enable access to Galileo codes at different levels of security for military and civilian 3rd parties. The ultimate control of the codes will be held by a central command of the EU, not by the UK. The whole program is not yet finished.

From the MSM reporting so far it appears that the UK contribution is only partially complete, hence DDs comments, my questions are, who owns the secrets (possibly shared) and who owns the Intellectual Property, these are key elements to the system. The EU is threatening to withhold the secure codes that will not allow UK military and 3rd parties access to the system.

Where is the EU going with this exactly? They are completely destroying any trust, now at a military level, that we, or any other EU military partner may have in the EU. When we have already invested our £billions and intellectual property and just as UK military unification with the EU is finalising. It's fine to posture over trade, but to threaten military and security stability is childish and foolish.

The ramifications of the EU restricting Galileo to the UK has a far greater impact for the EU over the long term because of the lack of trust, how many other governments will willingly invest in EU programs knowing what punishment has been meted out to the UK, it goes far beyond trade deals and any perceived 'new technology' benefits.

We have the capability of developing our own systems, have done for decades (regardless of the globalisation of defence companies) we would thrive without Galileo, obviously not the preferred option however. The EU will suffer as a result of remaining intransigent (we both would). Looks like we will be headed into a cold war with the EU if they are not careful.

No wait, aren't cold wars reserved for communist type dictatorships only? Ah, silly me of course, keep calm and Brexit on....

I think you want your cake and eat it.

By your very own argument these projects entail billions of investment shared amongst the members over a 10-20 year period.

Commitments are taken on and contracts signed.

So when one member chooses to leave what happens to those commitments, obligations and how does the current cake get divided.

So you want the UK to leave, have full access to all past agreements and future rewards and R&D grants but no part in membership fee or how those rules and regulations are to be met.


The problem is far more complex then we are leaving and taking our intellectual property rights with us, this bit belongs to us and that's yours. Sadly, you are approaching the matter from limited and finite UK Brexit perspective.

Also, missing the consumer, investment, development of new strategic and technological revolutions that are ahead of us.

 

[sminicooper]

I think you want your cake and eat it.

By your very own argument these projects entail billions of investment shared amongst the members over a 10-20 year period.

Commitments are taken on and contracts signed.

So when one member chooses to leave what happens to those commitments, obligations and how does the current cake get divided.

So you want the UK to leave, have full access to all past agreements and future rewards and R&D grants but no part in membership fee or how those rules and regulations are to be met.


The problem is far more complex then we are leaving and taking our intellectual property rights with us, this bit belongs to us and that's yours. Sadly, you are approaching the matter from limited and finite UK Brexit perspective.

Also, missing the consumer, investment, development of new strategic and technological revolutions that are ahead of us.

One of the problems with EU joint military projects (that we've joined mainly because we are afraid to go it financially on our own even though we pour billions down the drain in other directions) is that it becomes design and specification by large committee and the resulting product doesn't meet the military requirements satisfactorily (though don't be fooled: the politicians will force the military to re-designate the requirements so as to make it all okay). As with many things military the EU doesn't have that much of a clue (that's why the French to a large degree do their own thing) and one of the main reasons for their projects is to establish a large and ongoing job employment scheme – though you wouldn't think so judging by some of the low levels of employment in the EU.

A UK version of Galileo is quite feasible bearing in mind how much technology we've already contributed as part of the EU version. That is the sort of industry we now need to invest in – metal bashing days of the Victorian/20th-century era now belong in the past.

 

[Signalcalc]

I think you want your cake and eat it.

By your very own argument these projects entail billions of investment shared amongst the members over a 10-20 year period.

Commitments are taken on and contracts signed.

So when one member chooses to leave what happens to those commitments, obligations and how does the current cake get divided.

The solution is straightforward - renegotiate contracts, it's the method around how these contracts are renegotiated that is difficult. From MSM reporting it looks like the EU are refusing to negotiate, that leaves one choice, end the contract and initiate our own program if needed. That leaves Galileo floundering because the UK contribution is lost part way through, the EU has the problem of picking up the pieces (which will all be mostly UK secret and IP).

The loss of trust will be the biggest impact all round, especially in military circles.

So you want the UK to leave, have full access to all past agreements and future rewards and R&D grants but no part in membership fee or how those rules and regulations are to be met.

Any future contract negotiation would include terms to maintain development funds as required, the various schedules cover the requirements and terms of service, I don't see why there needs to be a membership fee? A membership fee in a contract must be a rare thing indeed. Nothing difficult about contract terms.

The problem is far more complex then we are leaving and taking our intellectual property rights with us, this bit belongs to us and that's yours. Sadly, you are approaching the matter from limited and finite UK Brexit perspective.

No, sadly the EU are approaching it in a limited manner by wanting to exclude the UK. The UK wishes to remain a contributer to the program and to receive services, just as the EU will extend Galileo services to non-EU partners elsewhere.

Also, missing the consumer, investment, development of new strategic and technological revolutions that are ahead of us.

Why? We have developed many new technologies and services before, during and will do after the EU, what exactly is holding us back, we have global partnerships with various defence and technology companies that enables us to develop new technologies also, why do we specifically need the EU?

 

[Signalcalc]

One of the problems with EU joint military projects (that we've joined mainly because we are afraid to go it financially on our own even though we pour billions down the drain in other directions) is that it becomes design and specification by large committee and the resulting product doesn't meet the military requirements satisfactorily (though don't be fooled: the politicians will force the military to re-designate the requirements so as to make it all okay). As with many things military the EU doesn't have that much of a clue (that's why the French to a large degree do their own thing) and one of the main reasons for their projects is to establish a large and ongoing job employment scheme – though you wouldn't think so judging by some of the low levels of employment in the EU.

A UK version of Galileo is quite feasible bearing in mind how much technology we've already contributed as part of the EU version. That is the sort of industry we now need to invest in – metal bashing days of the Victorian/20th-century era now belong in the past.

My guess is that Galileo could be a dead duck without UK involvement, EU has much more to lose over this than UK.

Also have to bear in mind that because of EU military unification, there will be other joint projects at secret level for the security, military and intelligence services, all of those will be at risk without renegotiation. Galileo will be one of the few that is allowed to be publicised.

Security, military and intelligence are a few of the UK's specialities

 

[Atilla]

]One of the problems with EU joint military projects (that we've joined mainly because we are afraid to go it financially on our own [/COLOR]even though we pour billions down the drain in other directions) is that it becomes design and specification by large committee and the resulting product doesn't meet the military requirements satisfactorily (though don't be fooled: the politicians will force the military to re-designate the requirements so as to make it all okay). As with many things military the EU doesn't have that much of a clue (that's why the French to a large degree do their own thing) and one of the main reasons for their projects is to establish a large and ongoing job employment scheme – though you wouldn't think so judging by some of the low levels of employment in the EU.

A UK version of Galileo is quite feasible bearing in mind how much technology we've already contributed as part of the EU version. That is the sort of industry we now need to invest in – metal bashing days of the Victorian/20th-century era now belong in the past.

What you say here isn't supported by past experience.

Agree on the whole but as said before UK is poor in delivery of anything remotely marketable.

Also useless in converting R&D and military techknow into consumer products. It's all secret hush hush tosh.


So when you say we can do this and that provide evidence or look for past experience and delivery. Rolls Royce comes to mind. They too are shrinking.

 

[sminicooper]

What you say here isn't supported by past experience.

Agree on the whole but as said before UK is poor in delivery of anything remotely marketable.
Often due to political interference

Also useless in converting R&D and military techknow into consumer products. It's all secret hush hush tosh.
Unfortunately only too typical - why do so many UK businesses put short-term profit before long-term investment? And the politicians don't like putting money into R&D.

So when you say we can do this and that provide evidence or look for past experience and delivery. Rolls Royce comes to mind. They too are shrinking.
Rolls-Royce have just discovered a huge technical problem – goes with the territory. Their "shrinkage plan" involves overhead and administrative staff and is the right thing to do – should get them in to do the same to the NHS.

.

 

[Atilla]

.

Rolls Royce have a bad experience at over promising and under costing if I recall.

Yes produce excellent quality and super products at not very competitive prices.

Management layer overhead could be the answer. We live in hope.

Same can be said about the Lords Parliament and many other institutions.

This really boils down to unequal distribution of income in the UK.


POS management highly rewarded whilst workers under paid, under trained and skewered.


You'll only get the revolution you want under Labour or LibDems imho. Tories are the curse.

 

[counter_violent]

What you say here isn't supported by past experience.

Agree on the whole but as said before UK is poor in delivery of anything remotely marketable.

Also useless in converting R&D and military techknow into consumer products. It's all secret hush hush tosh.


So when you say we can do this and that provide evidence or look for past experience and delivery. Rolls Royce comes to mind. They too are shrinking.

Rolls Royce are re-structuring in line with their competitors. 11 tiers of management being reduced to 7.

Also, they are diversifying and investing in technologies of the future, developed by other advanced engineering companies like, Reaction Engines. (why am I not surprised you haven't heard of them )

Anyway, one thing for sure, we will certainly stay at the top of the pile as we move on from here. EU is no match

 

[Atilla]

Rolls Royce are re-structuring in line with their competitors. 11 tiers of management being reduced to 7.

Also, they are diversifying and investing in technologies of the future, developed by other advanced engineering companies like, Reaction Engines. (why am I not surprised you haven't heard of them )

Anyway, one thing for sure, we will certainly stay at the top of the pile as we move on from here. EU is no match

I'm delighted and thrilled to hear that.

 

[sminicooper]

This really boils down to unequal distribution of income in the UK.

You'll only get the revolution you want under Labour or LibDems imho. Tories are the curse.

Hmmm .... I don't think I would like that sort of revolution!

The only thing I know for sure about socialism and socialistic policies is that they don't work – and I don't buy the old canard that socialism has never been properly put into practice (though I've no doubt that Jezza would give it a go).

 

[Splitlink]

Hmmm .... I don't think I would like that sort of revolution!

The only thing I know for sure about socialism and socialistic policies is that they don't work – and I don't buy the old canard that socialism has never been properly put into practice (though I've no doubt that Jezza would give it a go).

I don't think that anything works. I've been conservative all my life and that doesn't work, either.

Liberals aren't big enough to govern, or I might have given them a try.

After Franco, Spain has based it's democratic process, more or less, on the UK's.
We have, in recent years, had a right wing government. Much like Cameron and Osbourne, Mariano Rajoy has gone for the economy and left the rest of the problems to sort themselves out. The result? Discontent all over. Even I was unhappy with him. Now, a vote of confidence has give the socialists , under Pedro Sanchez, a chance. He has two years before the next elections. I'm willing to give him that much rope to see what he can do. My bet is that he will do his best to make the electorate as happy as possible, to win the elections. Don't you? IOW, someone, he hopes the minority, will be worse off than before.

 

[Signalcalc]

I don't think that anything works. I've been conservative all my life and that doesn't work, either.

Liberals aren't big enough to govern, or I might have given them a try.

After Franco, Spain has based it's democratic process, more or less, on the UK's.
We have, in recent years, had a right wing government. Much like Cameron and Osbourne, Mariano Rajoy has gone for the economy and left the rest of the problems to sort themselves out. The result? Discontent all over. Even I was unhappy with him. Now, a vote of confidence has give the socialists , under Pedro Sanchez, a chance. He has two years before the next elections. I'm willing to give him that much rope to see what he can do. My bet is that he will do his best to make the electorate as happy as possible, to win the elections. Don't you? IOW, someone, he hopes the minority, will be worse off than before.

Aren't the Spanish socialists going down the same route as every other EU country that's ended up with a populist government so far? Letting in everyone elses unwanted migrants and upsetting the locals, leading to discontent and a change of regime?

 

[Signalcalc]

Rolls Royce are re-structuring in line with their competitors. 11 tiers of management being reduced to 7.

Also, they are diversifying and investing in technologies of the future, developed by other advanced engineering companies like, Reaction Engines. (why am I not surprised you haven't heard of them )

Anyway, one thing for sure, we will certainly stay at the top of the pile as we move on from here. EU is no match

Rolls Royce posturing for a takeover......incoming.