UK wants their own GPS system šŸ›°ļø

What Iā€™m getting here is the UK has quit its job at the EU but still owns part of it and therefore still has voting rights like all the other shareholders and is still entitled to dividends until such time as it decides to sell its shares for whatever price it deems fit.

Thatā€™s not how it works.

Exactly. :+1:

And besides, if any country that invested in a group project way back when deserves to benefit from it later on, do the countries that didnā€™t invest in it way back when (because they werenā€™t in the group at the time) deserve not to benefit from it? I donā€™t think that was in the terms of their accession treaties.

As for the UK, are they even asking for a payout?

If they really feel ripped off, they should take it to the ICJ, shouldnā€™t they?

Billion.

Donā€™t forget the projects the EU paid for in the UK, thatā€™s going to be on the UK now.

How much has the UK given to the EU?

Between 2000 and 2017 the UK gave the EU around Ā£122 billion more than it received in return, once you factor in inflation. If you donā€™t factor in inflation it amounts to around Ā£109 billion over the 17 years.

This is calculated by looking at the money the UK pays into the EU budget, including the rebate or discount that we get on that payment, and subtracting the money that comes back to the UK public sector again from the EU.

2 Likes

The savings will be even bigger if the EU decides to go to debt sharing to bail out countries like Italy.

AFAIK these satellites arenā€™t geostationary - and in any case ā€˜geostationaryā€™ is an approximation.

At any given moment a certain number of them are ā€œvisibleā€ from any given point on the ground. Iā€™m a bit hazy on the details, but I believe the key to making it work with a constellation of ā€œmovingā€ satellites is super-accurate timekeeping.

Aaaanyway, completely agree with @Andrew0409 that this is just another example of EU pettiness from which the UK was trying to escape. The UK did fund the project and presumably it requires minimal ongoing maintenance (a couple of data centres with atomic clocks?). Why not just bill the UK for shared usage? Simple. But of course the EU just wants to punish the UK at every possible opportunity.

Exactly, non EU states like Switzerland does that and have contributed far less than the UK. I can understand trade push backs, but to do this to UKā€™s defense capability is a move to punish.

The obvious UK response, it seems to me, would be to make overtures to Commonwealth countries which might be interested in a joint project. India, Canada and Australia spring to mind. A shared GPS system would necessarily mean closer military co-operation too, and that might be a good thing if the EU turns really nasty.

This sort of thing is really quite worrying. The EU has its origins in a desire to prevent wars, and the UK have not forgotten that. Theyā€™ve been keen to co-operate in that spirit. It seems that some member states are using the EU as a substitute for starting wars, instead of a deterrent to doing so.

Thereā€™s enough space junk.

1 Like

The part that other Countries including the USA tend to forget.
A unified Armed forces to combat a start to worldwide warfare (cold war at the present time) excluding the USA of whom Europe had no trust.

I may also add that Emmanuelle Macron is a little man with small man syndrome. Like a jack russell dog, little but thinks heā€™s big.
And his Wifes a Dog.

1 Like

They are not alone in that.
China wants the same:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/22/beidou-china-aims-to-complete-gps-system-that-rivals-us.html

You fail to grasp that Norway and Switzerland are members of EFTA and for Norway, also the EEA. Which means they share de facto most of the same rights and privileges of EU members while having little or no say.

So, they can in no way be compared to the UK which has decided to cruise towards a no-deal Brexit.

1 Like

The UK is still part of the EEA through this transitional period. The UK could also seek to continue to be a member of the EEA through mechanisms available to members of the EFTA if they can agree. The EU should push back in trade, as negotiations are a give and take, that is obvious. But I do think itā€™s petty to go after UKs defense capability on a system they were one of the biggest financial and tech contributor of. Even more so since as @finley mentioned, the main selling point of the EU is peace and defence as a united Europe.

1 Like

Remaining in EFTA/EEA would indeed be a sane response, and lest we forget, leave.eu spokesmen repeatedly announced that in ā€œno way was anyone contemplating leaving the single marketā€.

But, the UK gov has not chosen the sane response, but instead careening towards a no-deal Brexit.

you should add that they share the same obligations and duties. they mostly follow eu regulations, they are part of schengenĀ“s freedom of movement which the uk never was.

rights and obligations go hand in hand. this is something the brexiters canĀ“t seem to get into their heads.

1 Like