
Britain’s vote to exit the EU sends Europe’s space sector scrambling for answers - laktak
http://www.spacenewsmag.com/feature/great-britains-vote-to-exit-the-eu-sends-europes-space-sector-scrambling-for-answers/
======
danielvf
Tldr: Not much changes.

75% of Britain's space funding goes to, and work comes from, the ESA, which is
seperate from the EU. This won't change.

The next biggest chunk is weather satelites, which are also not a part of the
EU.

The possible change is the Galileo GPS system, which is run by the ESA but
owned by the EU. However, given that Britain has been contributing funding for
Galileo, I'm guess those involved in the project would like to see the British
money continue to come in. There will probably be a seperate agreement
covering continued funding from Briain in exchange for continued work on the
satellites. (Other, non-EU countries have such a deal)

------
pieter1976
Wouldn't be any surprise if Tim Peake turns out to be Britain's first and last
official astronaut.

~~~
djaychela
Indeed. Having spoken to a fair few "out" voters in the last week or so, none
of them seem to have thought of the wider implications of an out vote other
than one or two narrow issues they have concentrated on. One voted out because
there have been two EU regulations which he sees as unfairly damaging his
business - one about being unable to sell electronics with a high lead
content, the other to do with the deactivation of firearms. Nothing else
mattered to him, despite being completely unable to articulate what "out"
actually meant. Same goes for all the others - they don't seem to have thought
through the practical implications of their actions, other than "well, we
won't have to put up with those EU ______*s " any more.

The implications, purely from a paperwork point of view, seem immense. While
there may be a strong, independent future for the UK (or, more likely in the
future, England and Wales), it won't come without some considerable cost in
areas that people didn't think about for a second. I'm staggered that the
"remain" campaign made such a bad job of pointing all these issues out.

~~~
Chris2048
> being completely unable to articulate what "out" actually meant

Only those with an omniscient knowledge of the markets, or possibly a degree
in economics, should vote?

If this is a mess to get out of, we shouldn't of gotten into it in the first
place. The longer we'd of been in the EU, the harder to leave. Right now, it's
_painful_ to leave the EU - in the future it may be economy-ending - at least
we've paused asset stripping before the assets run out. Saying "but there's no
exit plan" is lame when that was on purpose - the same way websites make it
easy to sign up, but make you you call them to close an account.

~~~
unfamiliar
>Only those with an omniscient knowledge of the markets, or possibly a degree
in economics, should vote?

Hyperbole aside, on an issue of this importance and magnitude, yes you should
have an pretty solid idea about what you are voting on. If you can't be an
expert yourself, you should at least figure out how to understand the main
points an expert makes. If you can't do that you shouldn't vote, because you
have no idea what you're talking about and no way to judge the consequences.

~~~
Chris2048
How does a non-expert recognise an expert with so many claiming expertise?

> If you can't do that you shouldn't vote, because you have no idea what
> you're talking about and no way to judge the consequences.

Why? Can you assume, then, that only those who _do_ know the consequences will
vote instead? Who _does_ know the consequences - experts?

Also, who's to decide the importance or magnitude of an issue?

Doesn't this mean that the ability to muddy the waters is the power to
restrict votes?

If we, the great unwashed don't understand the EU, or it's importance, how did
our democratic country get into it in the first place? Surely the public
understood it as little then? Or should _we_ do what our _politicians_ tell us
to?

...

~~~
barrkel
You're arguing for direct democracy instead of representative democracy. What
we have is an election of leaders, and then the leaders lead. So yes, we do
what our politicians tell us to, and if we don't like it, we elect different
politicians. That's how the system works. We elect people whose full time
jobs, and their staffs, is to look at the consequences and make the decisions
so we don't have to put in all the redundant work.

The EU referendum was an abnegation of leadership. It was never meant to be
lost, because there was no concrete plan for what to do should it be lost. But
the precise lack of planning meant that a No vote could mean anything to
anybody; any little bugbear they had against the EU could be used as a reason
to vote No, while the Yes case is entirely concrete. It was a choice between
reality and everyone's individual fantasy. In that respect, it's hardly
surprising that fantasy won.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
We can't elect different politicians. The big lie of democracy is that you get
a choice about policy.

You really don't. What if there are no leaders on the ballot who support the
policies you want? What if there are no leaders on the ballot who support very
popular policies?

What if polices are presented dishonestly, so voters don't get a fair choice
on them?

What if policy is monopolised by party machines, so you actually have
democracy twice removed - once from voters to parties, then again from parties
to leaders?

I agree the referendum became a ridiculous exercise in "Are you more or less
happy? Yes/No" \- which is no way to make a decision of this sort, especially
when a lot of people clearly aren't happy at all.

But that just emphasises how badly broken the British system is. _It actively
selects for political dysfunction._ So of course dysfunction is what everyone
gets.

The reality is you could pick a random selection of historically competent
professionals from various fields, parachute them into power, and they'd do a
far better job of picking policy and making sensible decisions than our
professional pols do.

------
danmaz74
The ramifications of Brexit look more and more complicated as time goes by.
Crazy.

~~~
digi_owl
Meh, its fearmongering.

The biggest issue right now is that Brussels won't clarify anything either way
until they get the article 50 declaration from London.

Effectively it has turned into a staring contest, with the hope that London
will brink first.

~~~
allendoerfer
I have to take Brussels side here. They have gotten their special treatment
[0] long enough. We wanted them to stay, they wanted to break up. Now they
want to get out _and_ get a new special deal at the same time. If you want to
stay, great, stay. If you want to leave, leave. Don't wait for us to offer you
a deal.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate)

~~~
marcoperaza
Between sovereign states their is no friendship, no fairness. The UK has
immense interests in keeping trade free with the continent. They also have
immense leverage over Germany and their car industry in particular. It is in
everyone's interests to see a deal that maintains free trade between the UK
and the continent.

Yes, it's not fair that they'll get free access to the single market without
following half of the rules, because they're stronger than Switzerland and
Norway, because Germany and France need British trade more than the other way
around.

Britain has zero obligation to be fair, only to use all of their power to
protect and advance the interests of their people.

~~~
allendoerfer
There is friendship between states. States do symbolic acts for some states,
which they do not do for others. Germany hates getting involved in wars, but
when the US (Afghanistan) or France (Syria) get attacked, it joins
(symbolically) regardless of the NATO definition of attack. There is a long
tradition of friendships between France and German leaders [0]. Of course all
of this is partly because they are dependent on each other, but I think there
is no clear distinction here.

To your second point: I would argue that France and Germany have more to win
of of a hard line here. Yeah, the auto industry will tank, but as this very
article shows, there are many sectors in which Britain might lose to the other
big nations. We should definitely take our slice of that financial industry
pie. We want to avoid an avalanche of exceptions for other countries so let's
not start giving them out too easily. We want to keep the club together.

And final argument: At least Germany or France are not at risk of losing half
of their federal states. Exciting times. Would be a really strange and random
reason after all this years of violence for a more united Ireland.

[0]:
[http://media0.faz.net/ppmedia/aktuell/feuilleton/3725638940/...](http://media0.faz.net/ppmedia/aktuell/feuilleton/3725638940/1.861942/article_multimedia_overview/22-september-1984-kohl-
und.jpg)

~~~
marcoperaza
Shared interests can look a lot like friendship. Looking at the postwar period
as evidence of friendships between Western European powers doesn't help your
point. They were and are unified by strong common interests and common
enemies. Economic integration and cultural similarities also lead to common
interests. Any conflicts they do have stay below the level of military
conflict due to the overwhelming force of American troops keeping peace on the
continent, and nuclear deterrents.

Before the Cold War, Europeans had been slaughtering each other for centuries,
for millennia.

~~~
allendoerfer
Of course some a common enemy and a possible nuclear winter let you think
twice about the next war, but Germany and France have shared interests with a
lot of other countries, too, with whom pictures like this do not exist.

I think I found almost all my friends through common interests and in times of
piece, for which we ourselves had done very little (while I do not share your
point that this is only because 'murica). Does not mean that they are not my
friends.

------
aembleton
SSTL was sold to EADS (Airbus) seven years ago [1]. Airbus is headquartered in
the Netherlands with it's main office in France and so is still part of the EU
[2].

1\. [http://www.sstl.co.uk/Press/EADS-Astrium-acquires-Surrey-
Sat...](http://www.sstl.co.uk/Press/EADS-Astrium-acquires-Surrey-Satellite-
Technology)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Group)

