Read more.Quote:
And some are already pushing for the UK to rejoin the EU's Galileo system.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
And some are already pushing for the UK to rejoin the EU's Galileo system.
Not like the UK Government to sink astronomical sums of money into something fanciful, then perform a complete 180 with no return on the investment... but this could end up being a double or triple whammy of incompetence (or maybe also interpreted as lining the pockets of wealthy Tory backers - if you've been around long enough to develop a healthy sense of scepticism about such things).
"The UK previously invested heavily in Galileo and as an EU member pushed for it to not be open to third party military use"
The latter part of that is a detail I hadn't been aware of before. Makes more sense why the go-it-alone approach had been pursued now; it never made sense to me before.
I'll chalk it up as another example of why it's stupid to put decisions with major long-term importance up to a simple 50% + 1 majority vote (as well as to act like the results of an advisory vote are binding when they are not).
I really need to set myself up as a government consultant. I could have told them all this even though I'm not a subject 'expert'. I'm sure I'd have a hot less than £92m. I'm sure I could have done it for a 100th of that and been very happy ;)
Now just need to get my head round the boneheaded decision to purchase oneweb when 100% of the UK could have been fibred for less than £400m...
Almost makes you wonder if this entire Brexit thing was worth doing in the first place. </heavy sarcasm>
So, what would you suggest? That a supposedly democratic government in a supposedly democratic country holds a referendum on a subject, and forget Brexit for a moment, with the Prime Minister publicly promising that it will be implemented, and then when they get a result they and a minority don't like, they simply ignore it? A vote, by the way, labelled as having been the biggest in UK history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Core2Extreme
So, after a load of Parliamentary faffing about, legal challenges and so forth, we then have a general election widely regarded, including by many Remain supporters, as a de-facto Referendum v2.0 and we all saw the result of that.
Given the results, not once but twice, just how do you come up with a decision-making process that completely ignores both votes and somehow justify staying in, and still call it a democracy?
What decision of the people does the government ignore next, because it doesn't like it? A general election result, maybe? Be careful what you wish for, lest you get it.
Oh, and while the vote may not be legally binding, explain how it could have been? The referendum was, and had to be, an Act of Parliament. Any subsequent voting process by MPs could simply revoke, or override that act, given parliament's sovereignty and inability to bind future parliaments. So how could it be legally binding, when parliament can simply change the law?
The "not binding" argument is merely a distraction by those that didn't like the result of the vote, most of whom I'd bet my left gonad would be insisting it was entirely binding, had the vote been to remain.
I'll chalk it up to Whitehall (non-elected Civil Servants) being incompetent at pricing out and implementing any form of infrastructure plan, without those costs either spiralling out of control, or the project being cancelled after spending large sums of money on it to realise that it isn't going to work without significantly more money, or for it to be pushed out to contractors who then decide it'll cost even more money (or they'll loan it and then charge double for it to be paid back etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by Core2Extreme
As for blaming something on the general public? I'm fairly sure they were not the ones requesting our own GPS system.
I just find it ironic that half the reason for voting leave was to return sovereignty back to the UK and to actually exercise that sovereignty they had to vote on the result of the referendum in Parliament, but instead of just getting on with it they wasted chuff knows how much tax payers money (double irony when another reason to vote leave was wasting money on the EU) fighting court cases about ensuring Parliament acted in a sovereign manner and had to vote on it in the end anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen999
Bloody hell, UK governments can't get new computer systems right when they are just land based, that they might make a system like a national GPS system work properly, is inconceivable, especially if the present government has anything to do with it. Rejoin the EU system already and, do it soon.
I take the point, though "returning sovereignty too the UK" does actually imply returning decision-making powers to Westminster (and, where relevant, devolved governments) rather than have those those powers sitting in Brussels. It has, or rather, will achieve that after "transition".Quote:
Originally Posted by ilh
But of course, almost anything government does can be challenged in court. It's not anything like as partisan here as the US but the government is still, up to a point, subject to the courts. And to be honest, so it should be. But it does mean they don't get to determine who can challenge them in court, and can't control the volume.
A lot of the legal issues with Brexit revolved around the fact that the UK doesn't have a written constitution, and even the EU treaty was written with only a half-baked and insufficiently detailed "escape" clause, because it was never intended or expected to be used. Thus, due to so many issues not being clarified in either, it was wide open to challenges as to both fundamental meaning of some of it, and detailed implementation.
It would have been better, having voted for it, to have just got on with it not dither about for 3 years, which frankly did neither the UK nor EU any favours. But while the referendum pulled the trigger on the process, that lack of legal clarity left the door wide open for challenges.
The empire have suddenly realized,,,,, it is just a country like any other country. :-)
Still with all the problems of Brexit, i wish we Danes would join the UK, rather that than the insanity of the EU.
If it dont pan out we can go down in flames together, and i would rather do that too than EU.
Is there any realistic technical benefit we will see from setting this huge amount of money on fire as opposed to joining the EU Galileo System? Or like with many of our big post-brexit plans is this a thinly disguised vanity exercise to get away from the EU...
Although the UK has a long and inglorious habit of gross ill-governance, the present incumbents really have plumbed the depths of incompetence, greed and corruption.
They are going to spend £100bn on HS2 in order to shorten journey times from Birmingham to London by 40 minutes. A fraction of that humongous sum would fibre the whole nation AND build a world class GPS system.
Presumably, what you meant to say was New Labour really plumbed the depths, and the Tories carried it on. HS2 was a Labour project. As was HS1.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmaheid
While I agree on HS2, you can't dump it all on the "current incumbents" as solely responsible when it was a Labour project.
Or was it a good idea when Labour wanted to do it, and only incompetence, corruption and greed when the Tories carry it on?
If the current incompetent greedy and corrupt mob had cancelled it, what would the cost of all those broken and breached contracts have been, given the benefits then would have been naff all?
It most definitely was, if you've got lots of cash hidden away in tax havens and you were worried the EU might make you pay your taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonpreston
Is there something that Theresa May has done right?
I just find it ironic that we have a military and no GPS, while the EU have a military GPS and not much of an army.
I seem to recall both Labour and the Tories can share the blame for HMS White Elephant and her sister ship Prince Chas too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen999
I really don't see why we need to build our own GPS netowrk though, surely the yanks will let us use theirs in the unlikely event we're at war with anyone advanced enough to need to use it.
In exchange for chlorinated chicken, access to the NHS and planning permission for half a dozen new golf courses/luxury resorts...Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
But yeah, we're a small country without any real space capability - time to buddy up.
I'm not entirely sure I read that right, but if it's a direct poke at the costs of the Royal family, it's worth pointing out the other side, which is the value and income from the estates that were given up in exchange for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
If it's a poke at HS2 and similar white elephants, like two aircraft carriers .... well, those were Labour projects too. But, that said, both parties are culpable in numerous ways, on numerous projects, over many decades. Neither have a good track record.
My point was that to attribute the blame for HS2 on the "current incumbents" is a smidge unfair. There's plenty we can lay at their door, but not that. Or at least, not entirely.
I would similarly assume that to be likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
But not guaranteed.
Firstly, it will depend in part on exactly who is in the Whitehouse. Both Bushes were pretty UK-friendly, but Obama? Much less overtly so.
And, unsurprisingly, the US puts the US first, second, third, and so on. We come some way down the list. We could not, for example, rely on unstinting support even in the Falklands. US interests and ours may often be similar, but by no means always correlate identically.
Do we want to rely on the US for what is an even more critical capability now than it was in the Falklands? Especially one they can turn on, off, or degrade, more or less instantly?
I'm no military expert but how would that affect .... oh, fighter air cover, seaborne or undersea missile targeting, etc? How effectively could we even use those stupidly expensive carriers, or even cruise missiles, without GPS? Assuming we wanted/needed to, of course.
Do we really want to have to go cap in hand, pretty please, can we use our own damn military to protect our own interests, Mr. President, if that's okay with you?
And by "Mr President", I mean either the US or even EU president.
Hey bud.. we haven’t had two votes on the matter. We had ONE referendum. (Actually two but that was a “yes” for joining). As for everything else you’ve said... wow. How can you possibly ignore the lies we were told and what has been revealed about brexit since that vote? There’s nothing democratic about accepting the result of a referendum that was essentially voted on blind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen999
And no, the referendum should never have existed in the first place. The subject of the EU is too complicated and anyone that hasn’t worked within it for a lifetime that claims to understand it is a total liar. Any claims that “x y and z” are simple are foolish. We’ve had nothing but lies from our government, bullrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish promises that have been forgotten (oven ready deal my rear end) and now we’re fine with breaking international law? And you think we should accept that because of democracy? I hate to invoke Godwin’s law, but you’re aware Hitler was elected right?
Poor attempt at Whataboutery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen999
The Tories have been in power for 10 years - So Labour have little to do with it.
I singled out the Present Incumbents, because their leader has form for this sort of splaffing.
The Garden Bridge across the Thames, where £120m of taxpayers cash went missing on 'consultancy fees'
Similarly, a useless zipwire across the Thames. The infamous London Estuary Airport. And his latest folly - The bridge to Ireland.
But, back to HS2 and a GPS system. I would've thought that 'British Sovereignty' would require an independent GPS system.
As for HS2...The price has doubled in 8 years, and the spiralling costs are purely down to handing eye-watering sums to already rich Tory landowners on the HS2 route.
There is no amount of taxpayers cash the PM won't spend on his vanity projects. Simple As.
Oh lol
I meant the carriers, I think the monarchy will sort itself out when the monarch is Charles, he's got nowhere near the goodwill QE2 has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen999
I know that Trident doesn't rely on GPS but it does rely on the USA continuing to lease us the warheads. If we trust them for the ultimate defence of the realm why not GPS too?
Agreed on Charlie.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
As fo GPS if we assume (for sake of discussion at least) we can do the GPS, then in order to use Trident as a precedent for doing our own or using US supply, we'd have to assume we could do our own warheads. If not, there's no equivalence between the two cases.
As for leasing warheads, I'm far from an expert on strategic defences but as I understand what little government's are prepared to say, we have operational control of ou tridents. Long-term support might rely on the US, but that was why I said GPS could be turned down, or off, more or less instantly. As I understand it, that's not the case with Trident. Therefore, again, a marked lack of equivalence.
The fact that we, arguably, can't do Trident without the US doesn't imply we shouldn't do GPS, if we can do it.
Note: There's some Devil's Advocate in these points. Don't take this as what I think we should do, in either case. I carefully tried to imply neither support nor opposition, merely to make the points.
I wasn't aware of that point either. If I wasn't living on this damn island I'd find it funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Core2Extreme