Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

We had a part in the 1997 Cassini-Huygens project, we had a very important part in the early development of Gallileo (and we should claim our money back from that), and what they will do when they want the software changing I do not know,.

If they need us to change the software then we've done a very bad job of it. They should be able to change it themselves or as a worst case they can import one or more of the engineers to do it from the EU.

We had a very important role in satellites and lead the world in that field. But as said most of the people doing that work don't want to leave, and with such a specialised field they are likely to move with the projects. If we can't get enough of them to stay then we give up that top spot.

I'm not putting down our industry, I'm just pointing out that unless it's managed brilliantly, Brexit is very likely to kill it off. Like most of our remaining industries.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

I personally think micro satellites are the future. Not just cost, but less prone to attack.

I have no doubt that the next major global conflict will spill out into attacking the opponents' satellites.

I certainly think that once the US find other smaller powers satellites a problem they'll start having accidents. I think they already threatened to take down Gallileo.

So we probably need to be looking at satellites that have some survival/defence capability.

Herzlos

Tromking wrote: »

....and to be fair to Herzlos he/she does reside in a region of the U.K. where the British State is regularly derided by a sizeable minority of the population. Let’s call it learned behaviour.

Once the state stops doing disgusting things we'll stop criticising them for it

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

The EU isn't a country and is fair game for criticism.

Much like the UK, which is also a collection of countries in a union?

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

Once the state stops doing disgusting things we'll stop criticising them for it

Yeah, that multi-billion pound subsidy from the U.K. Treasury is really disgusting......for the poor old English taxpayer that is.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm just basing it on every other large government technology project. Almost always years late, double the budget and never quite solving the problem it was intended to. Mucking up IT projects is what you guys do best

How late and how much over budget is Galileo? I'll tell you.

The original estimated cost was €7.7bn and it's currently estimated at in excess of €20bn. It was supposed to be completed in 2010 but still isn't fully operational. It seems that the EU is pretty good at mucking up large technology projects too.

You keep leaving open goals.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

How late and how much over budget is Galileo? I'll tell you.

The original estimated cost was €7.7bn and it's currently estimated at in excess of €20bn. It was supposed to be completed in 2010 but still isn't fully operational. It seems that the EU is pretty good at mucking up large technology projects too.

You keep leaving open goals.

I didn't say Gallileo was any better. Just that our £5bn estimate is going to be closer to £20bn than £5bn by the time we finish.

It's easy to see open goals when you make them up

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

I didn't say Gallileo was any better.

You may not have said it but you certainly implied it by omission.

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

Much like the UK, which is also a collection of countries in a union?

The UK is a sovereign state containing 4 countries. That is why it is the UK leaving the eu and not England, NI, Scotland or Wales. They were never members of the eu, it was always the UK.

The difference is the eu will do anything it's members let them do in it's efforts to become a us of e, they are becoming more and more inward looking and protectionist whilst we are taking the opposite route,

wunferall

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

The UK is a sovereign state containing 4 countries. That is why it is the UK leaving the eu and not England, NI, Scotland or Wales. They were never members of the eu, it was always the UK.

The difference is the eu will do anything it's members let them do in it's efforts to become a us of e, they are becoming more and more inward looking and protectionist whilst we are taking the opposite route,

Herzlos ignores the little fact that nearly every EU country which exists now was formed from an amalgamation - union if you will - of former states and/or countries.
The UK has perhaps allowed it's countries to maintain more of an identity than many others have, and maybe this is why the UK remains the UK.

Maybe a loss of identity might well be why Catalans want independence from their parent Spain; Basques from their parent France/Spain; Lombardy, Sicily, Veneto & South Tyrol from Italy; even Bavarians in Germany.

The EU would like everybody under their umbrella to think of themselves first and foremost as EU citizens, completely ignoring the centuries of history; individuality; and identities of countries and states such as these.
That's without even considering that ethnic Romanians have far different values, beliefs and expectations to those of say Walloons or Corsicans.
Trying to steer such a diverse populace in one direction was never going to work, as history has demonstrated time after time.