BREXIT Mega Thread (The Saga Begins?)

[Eredion]

it's really weird how the longer this goes on the more the major leave figures backtrack and the more remain lies actually turn out to have been spot on or at least on the right track

But at least you are not doing the pledge to the EU everybody in mainland does nowadays. amirite?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjaXwkUpDtg

[Proctopeo]

it's really weird how the longer this goes on the more the major leave figures backtrack and the more remain lies actually turn out to have been spot on or at least on the right track

But at least you are not doing the pledge to the EU everybody in mainland does nowadays. amirite?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjaXwkUpDtg

It's worth it if it's not as good as the American or British ones. Which is likely, even though the latter doesn't set the bar as high as the former.

[Eredion]

But at least you are not doing the pledge to the EU everybody in mainland does nowadays. amirite?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjaXwkUpDtg

It's worth it if it's not as good as the American or British ones. Which is likely, even though the latter doesn't set the bar as high as the former.

Nah, it´s like the one from Man in the High Castle but with Merkel instead of Addi.

[Proctopeo]

It's worth it if it's not as good as the American or British ones. Which is likely, even though the latter doesn't set the bar as high as the former.

Nah, it´s like the one from Man in the High Castle but with Merkel instead of Addi.

So,

Code: Select all

I SWEAR I WILL OBSERVE THE LAW CONSCIENTIOUSLY FULFILL MY DUTIES AT HOME AND SCHOOL. BE FAITHFUL AND OBEDIENT AND PLEDGE ABSOLUTE ALLEGIANCE UNTIL DEATH TO THE LEADER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION - ANGELA MERKEL

?

[Eredion]

Nah, it´s like the one from Man in the High Castle but with Merkel instead of Addi.

So,

Code: Select all

I SWEAR I WILL OBSERVE THE LAW CONSCIENTIOUSLY FULFILL MY DUTIES AT HOME AND SCHOOL. BE FAITHFUL AND OBEDIENT AND PLEDGE ABSOLUTE ALLEGIANCE UNTIL DEATH TO THE LEADER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION - ANGELA MERKEL

?

Yeah pretty much, if you believe in Leave rumours.

[Great Nepal]

So as it turns out the aerospace industry is quite reliant on EU and leaving the EU single market could result in tariff and non tariff barriers on aircraft parts produced in UK and is already resulting in UK based companies producing satellite components manufacturers being effectively frozen out of bids; all in all giving quite an incentive for companies to relocate high tech manufacturing from UK to EU.
Wasn't the plan that UK was going to shun all the destructive banks, reorient its economy towards real making shit group of jobs?

---

UK companies face being frozen out of lucrative European space contracts after Brussels laid out new terms for the latest phase of work on the €10bn Galileo satellite navigation system.

The European Commission is demanding the right to cancel existing contracts without penalty if a supplier is no longer based in an EU member state.

It is also insisting that any supplier ejected from the programme should repay all costs to the EU of finding a replacement, according to companies that have been asked to agree to the conditions.

Europe’s global satellite navigation system is an EU-funded project, managed by the European Space Agency, with work shared out between member states. To retain access to Galileo after Brexit, the UK would have to negotiate a new security relationship with the EU.

However, the break clause has raised concerns in government and industry circles because it in effect rules out UK access to work on Europe’s global navigation system even while it remains an EU member. Contracts under the Galileo programme are designed to run for several years but under the new terms could be cancelled with immediate effect at any time after 2019, when the UK is set to leave the EU.

The clause “makes it quite difficult for a company in the UK to contemplate bidding”, said one supplier who has been asked to agree to the new terms. The risks presented by a potential ejection from an existing contract were unacceptable, he said. His comments were echoed by other sector players.

The clauses have been presented as a condition for winning work on the final eight satellites to complete the Galileo constellation, a tender that is already overdue and could be worth €400m to UK companies. Jo Johnson, UK science minister, recently met EU commissioner Elzbieta Bienkowska to voice the government’s concern over the implications of the proposed new conditions.

The clause now threatens to spur a flight of high-tech space companies from the UK, jeopardising the British government’s ambition to take 10 per cent of the £400bn a year global space market.

Executives from two space companies said they were considering whether to relocate their UK activities to EU member states, or to choose different partners in a bid to ensure eligibility for future procurement. The tender for the next generation of satellites is set to be launched later this year, while the industry estimates that Galileo-related services and applications could be worth up to €6bn by 2025.

“We may be forced to consider withdrawing from our UK market operations,” said a senior executive from a UK-based space systems company.

“We will be looking at . . . who is best placed to participate,” said another. “If you have the option not to do work from the UK this gives you a reason to think that is safer.”

EU officials argue that the clause is “a standard and well-established practice” in contracts. However both UK companies and government officials see its recent introduction as a move to squeeze them out in favour of continental rivals, who do not face the same prospect of suddenly becoming ineligible.

“It feels like the UK is being targeted,” said a UK government official. “We have been fighting to stay involved in Galileo whereas some European partners are working to push us out.”

The majority of Galileo’s existing satellites have been provided by a consortium of the UK’s SSTL, a subsidiary of Airbus which integrates the payload on the constellation’s spacecraft, and Germany’s OHB. Other companies with UK interests that could be affected include Qinetiq, CGI, Airbus and Scisys.

The commission was unavailable for comment. However, people familiar with the EU’s position said the clause was aimed at protecting classified information, for example in the event of a UK contractor being acquired by a company from a non-EU country such as China.

Galileo’s navigation services include a heavily encrypted, jam-resistant capability designed for government use that is reserved for EU member states and where UK industry has had a significant role. However, without a security agreement dictating the relationship between a post-Brexit UK and the EU, British companies could not be involved in work that touched on classified information, one person with knowledge of the situation said.

“The issue for the moment appears to be the absence of agreements on security,” the person said. “The commission may be forced . . . not to accept UK companies. It was always clear there would be a price to pay for Brexit and this is the price.”

[Vassenor]

So as it turns out the aerospace industry is quite reliant on EU and leaving the EU single market could result in tariff and non tariff barriers on aircraft parts produced in UK and is already resulting in UK based companies producing satellite components manufacturers being effectively frozen out of bids; all in all giving quite an incentive for companies to relocate high tech manufacturing from UK to EU.
Wasn't the plan that UK was going to shun all the destructive banks, reorient its economy towards real making shit group of jobs?

---

UK companies face being frozen out of lucrative European space contracts after Brussels laid out new terms for the latest phase of work on the €10bn Galileo satellite navigation system.

The European Commission is demanding the right to cancel existing contracts without penalty if a supplier is no longer based in an EU member state.

It is also insisting that any supplier ejected from the programme should repay all costs to the EU of finding a replacement, according to companies that have been asked to agree to the conditions.

Europe’s global satellite navigation system is an EU-funded project, managed by the European Space Agency, with work shared out between member states. To retain access to Galileo after Brexit, the UK would have to negotiate a new security relationship with the EU.

However, the break clause has raised concerns in government and industry circles because it in effect rules out UK access to work on Europe’s global navigation system even while it remains an EU member. Contracts under the Galileo programme are designed to run for several years but under the new terms could be cancelled with immediate effect at any time after 2019, when the UK is set to leave the EU.

The clause “makes it quite difficult for a company in the UK to contemplate bidding”, said one supplier who has been asked to agree to the new terms. The risks presented by a potential ejection from an existing contract were unacceptable, he said. His comments were echoed by other sector players.

The clauses have been presented as a condition for winning work on the final eight satellites to complete the Galileo constellation, a tender that is already overdue and could be worth €400m to UK companies. Jo Johnson, UK science minister, recently met EU commissioner Elzbieta Bienkowska to voice the government’s concern over the implications of the proposed new conditions.

The clause now threatens to spur a flight of high-tech space companies from the UK, jeopardising the British government’s ambition to take 10 per cent of the £400bn a year global space market.

Executives from two space companies said they were considering whether to relocate their UK activities to EU member states, or to choose different partners in a bid to ensure eligibility for future procurement. The tender for the next generation of satellites is set to be launched later this year, while the industry estimates that Galileo-related services and applications could be worth up to €6bn by 2025.

“We may be forced to consider withdrawing from our UK market operations,” said a senior executive from a UK-based space systems company.

“We will be looking at . . . who is best placed to participate,” said another. “If you have the option not to do work from the UK this gives you a reason to think that is safer.”

EU officials argue that the clause is “a standard and well-established practice” in contracts. However both UK companies and government officials see its recent introduction as a move to squeeze them out in favour of continental rivals, who do not face the same prospect of suddenly becoming ineligible.

“It feels like the UK is being targeted,” said a UK government official. “We have been fighting to stay involved in Galileo whereas some European partners are working to push us out.”

The majority of Galileo’s existing satellites have been provided by a consortium of the UK’s SSTL, a subsidiary of Airbus which integrates the payload on the constellation’s spacecraft, and Germany’s OHB. Other companies with UK interests that could be affected include Qinetiq, CGI, Airbus and Scisys.

The commission was unavailable for comment. However, people familiar with the EU’s position said the clause was aimed at protecting classified information, for example in the event of a UK contractor being acquired by a company from a non-EU country such as China.

Galileo’s navigation services include a heavily encrypted, jam-resistant capability designed for government use that is reserved for EU member states and where UK industry has had a significant role. However, without a security agreement dictating the relationship between a post-Brexit UK and the EU, British companies could not be involved in work that touched on classified information, one person with knowledge of the situation said.

“The issue for the moment appears to be the absence of agreements on security,” the person said. “The commission may be forced . . . not to accept UK companies. It was always clear there would be a price to pay for Brexit and this is the price.”

So we're just waiting for Airbus to pull out then?

[Great Nepal]

So as it turns out the aerospace industry is quite reliant on EU and leaving the EU single market could result in tariff and non tariff barriers on aircraft parts produced in UK and is already resulting in UK based companies producing satellite components manufacturers being effectively frozen out of bids; all in all giving quite an incentive for companies to relocate high tech manufacturing from UK to EU.
Wasn't the plan that UK was going to shun all the destructive banks, reorient its economy towards real making shit group of jobs?

---

So we're just waiting for Airbus to pull out then?

Probably or at least move significant operations to Europe so they're eligible for EU contracts and tariff free access
...also obviously the whole thing about skills shortage and needing free movement to get engineers for their factory doesn't help.

[Vassenor]

Irish Times: British government realises Brexit is a mistake, official says

The British government is slowly realising Brexit is “an act of great self-harm” and that upcoming EU-UK negotiations must seek to limit the damage, the State’s top Brexit official has said.

The official, John Callinan, said on Thursday: “I see signs in the contacts that we’re having, both at EU level and with the UK, of a gradual realisation that Brexit in many ways is an act of great self-harm, and that the focus now is on minimising that self-harm.”

Oh boy, here we go.

[Souseiseki]

Irish Times: British government realises Brexit is a mistake, official says

The British government is slowly realising Brexit is “an act of great self-harm” and that upcoming EU-UK negotiations must seek to limit the damage, the State’s top Brexit official has said.

The official, John Callinan, said on Thursday: “I see signs in the contacts that we’re having, both at EU level and with the UK, of a gradual realisation that Brexit in many ways is an act of great self-harm, and that the focus now is on minimising that self-harm.”

Oh boy, here we go.

just so it's clear it's the irish government saying this

(they've always known it was a bad idea)

[Great Nepal]

Trump could learn a lot from the Brexit department wrt to tweeting; he merely tweets bullcrap whereas the Brits have the courage of conviction to tweet bullcrap while including evidence against the bullcrap in same tweet. For example...

"We have a long and successful history as a trading nation. We've seen steady growth in trade as a percentage of GDP in the post-war period'

[Costa Fierro]

So, is it fair to say that Britain is finally learning the problems of the pull-out technique?

[Hydesland]

real talk britain should be excluded from intelligence sharing and policing cooperation until it reiterates and proves it commitment to defending human rights and the rights of its people and any deal with the EU will involve a strict "don't you dare do that shit to our people" privacy shield similar to the one that is being negotiated with the US

one wonders whether it says anything about us that the best things we have to offer is the expansiveness of our surveillance state and our excellence in the field of killing

Given the unprecedented access Germany's BND gave the NSA, maybe they should be prohibited from sharing intelligence with us until they can prove its commitment to defending human rights.

[Souseiseki]

real talk britain should be excluded from intelligence sharing and policing cooperation until it reiterates and proves it commitment to defending human rights and the rights of its people and any deal with the EU will involve a strict "don't you dare do that shit to our people" privacy shield similar to the one that is being negotiated with the US

one wonders whether it says anything about us that the best things we have to offer is the expansiveness of our surveillance state and our excellence in the field of killing

Given the unprecedented access Germany's BND gave the NSA, maybe they should be prohibited from sharing intelligence with us until they can prove its commitment to defending human rights.

sure

[Hydesland]

So let's say you're a progressive leader, and part of a union of countries. On what terms should a country be allowed to leave this union, that is most consistent with progressive values?

[Hydesland]

No one? Never-mind then. Meanwhile: Recent polling conducted across Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom has shown significant support for freedom of movement between the CANZUK countries.

[Great Nepal]

So let's say you're a progressive leader, and part of a union of countries. On what terms should a country be allowed to leave this union, that is most consistent with progressive values?

It should be allowed to leave the union after settling the net obligations there may be; if it wants an trade agreement in future it is quite free to pursue it within the existing framework, as is every other nation.

[Olivaero]

So let's say you're a progressive leader, and part of a union of countries. On what terms should a country be allowed to leave this union, that is most consistent with progressive values?

It's not about being progressive. The US is not what I would call a progressive nation and yet any major constitutional change requires a greater margin victory than >50% of the people wanting it. to ensure that any such movement to leave had a real continuing majority of support that was not just going to turn into regret either a majority of your countries regions should get above 50% in the vote or to achieve any change a super majority of %66 of the vote should be required. I should note once again this is not a progressive measure, if anything it's a conservative one as it ensures slow change. "Progressive values" say nothing about whether a country should leave or should stay or how they should do so, progressive only really makes sense in a social context.

[Hydesland]

So let's say you're a progressive leader, and part of a union of countries. On what terms should a country be allowed to leave this union, that is most consistent with progressive values?

It should be allowed to leave the union after settling the net obligations there may be; if it wants an trade agreement in future it is quite free to pursue it within the existing framework, as is every other nation.

So the progressive policy is to have a country leave on the worst possible terms, doing the maximum damage to their economy, gotcha.

[Hydesland]

to ensure that any such movement to leave had a real continuing majority of support that was not just going to turn into regret either a majority of your countries regions should get above 50% in the vote or to achieve any change a super majority of %66 of the vote should be required. I should note once again this is not a progressive measure, if anything it's a conservative one as it ensures slow change. "Progressive values" say nothing about whether a country should leave or should stay or how they should do so, progressive only really makes sense in a social context.

I agree, but this isn't what I'm talking about here. Right now I'm treating that brexit is a given, and the only thing people have any control over is whether we exit amicably or not.

[Great Nepal]

It should be allowed to leave the union after settling the net obligations there may be; if it wants an trade agreement in future it is quite free to pursue it within the existing framework, as is every other nation.

So the progressive policy is to have a country leave on the worst possible terms, doing the maximum damage to their economy, gotcha.

We could send foreign aid if required.
The ball is entirely with the country; this wasn't some hidden knowledge secreted in an ancient vault kept from the leaving country and the country isn't under any sort of duress to take any decisions - the country rather obviously believes it'll be in an stronger position subsequently.
It is like someone who in their right mental state want to start taking heroin, you can point out what will happen if they do etc but if they consciously decide to take that injection - ultimately it's their choice.

[Olivaero]

to ensure that any such movement to leave had a real continuing majority of support that was not just going to turn into regret either a majority of your countries regions should get above 50% in the vote or to achieve any change a super majority of %66 of the vote should be required. I should note once again this is not a progressive measure, if anything it's a conservative one as it ensures slow change. "Progressive values" say nothing about whether a country should leave or should stay or how they should do so, progressive only really makes sense in a social context.

I agree, but this isn't what I'm talking about here. Right now I'm treating that brexit is a given, and the only thing people have any control over is whether we exit amicably or not.

Oh okay, well it should be as openly quid pro quo as possible. There will be a bill, for things that were already pledged to by said country a referendum doesn't undo obligations already made. It shouldn't be punitive but, realistic. an FTA should be on the table but not one that would amount to the priviledges the countries traders had whilst they were in the union but getting it should be on the understanding that they pay their bill as it were. That's what I would push for as this hypothetical leader of the the union. Of course the EU doesn't have one leader, it's easy for one person to make moral decisions but any deal the EU comes to will need to meet approval of all the member countries, some who will be understanding others who will be punitive. It also doesn't matter in what proportions these opinions are held, as long as one national legislature feels it's being wronged its possibly game over.

[Hydesland]

The ball is entirely with the country; this wasn't some hidden knowledge secreted in an ancient vault kept from the leaving country and the country isn't under any sort of duress to take any decisions - the country rather obviously believes it'll be in an stronger position subsequently.
It is like someone who in their right mental state want to start taking heroin, you can point out what will happen if they do etc but if they consciously decide to take that injection - ultimately it's their choice.

Right at this present moment, the ball is now entirely in the EU's court; they have most of the leverage, they are the ones that dictate the terms. It's not going to take 2 years to decide on net liabilities, a simple accounting exercise. The whole point of the two years is to decide "the country's future relationship with the Union", the point is to make a new deal that sets the terms of our post Brexit relationship with the EU. Apparently the ""progressive"" policy is to completely refuse to make any sort of deal, ensure the United Kingdom leaves in a situation of practical autarky - and then after we have left, while we're experiencing the econopocalypse, then we're allowed to initiate trade relationships with the rest of Europe - I suppose somewhere in the queue behind Burkina Faso and Vietnam, so how many decades will that take?

[James_xenoland]

Wow. Reading through a good number of pages... This is going to be a long few years.


and lol at all the still sore globalist/EUist butts in here acting all passive aggressive and pompous.

[Vassenor]

Wow. Reading through a good number of pages... This is going to be a long few years.


and lol at all the still sore globalist/EUist butts in here acting all passive aggressive and pompous.

Considering things are unfolding pretty much exactly how we said they would only to get shouted down with accusations of fear mongering...