Britain’s vote to exit the EU sends Europe’s space sector scrambling for answers

Your right that many governments will sign it away happily and again only back how out of touch many governments in countries as well as the EU collective are with the people.

May be they need to communicate more about matters as currently what people do know and even those who looked deeper into it that it was not good for them overall.

Easier when trade deals were more focused and case of we sell you this and you sell us that and we will balance out import tariff's and save grief and paperwork. Today trade deals seem to want to be a catch everything in one hit style documents and run to encyclopedia style lengths that the ability to game them or abuse them is more open as more of them. After all documents written by humans just as prone to bugs as software when you get into large tomes as most trade deals are these days.

Which for me is sadly like trying to design a shoe for everybody no matter that people are different sizes and needs of there footwear.

People moot rude awakening but seriously brexit has become the go to blame scapegoat for lots. But when the global economy loses on stock markets more than the UK's total economy for a year in one day, then you know it is far removed from reality and all speculation driven as markets are these days. Indeed somebody sells lots of something they can create the problem that was the reason for them selling and somewhat self-fulfilling.

Only come 10 years time can we truly get a gauge of change as by then things would of changed and be no change for least 2 years from now. Indeed Europe as a collective has too many weak links members wise and when just 4 of its members were net contributors into it with the other staking more out than paid in, and the UK one of them, then is it a bad thing for the UK, probably not at all once the market FUD and settles down and plans outlined and formalised as currently it is somewhat under-pant gnomes: 1) Referendum 2) ?????????? 3) Profit

with us at stage two currently. So can accept the markets having fun. Indeed whatever happens it is those who get commissions (brokers) that always win out.

But corporations issue with EU is that they have paid lobbyists at the MEP's in Brussels all the time that the MEP's saturated time wise by them and the public interaction with MEP's is not great at all and indeed, many cases not as accessible. This along with Brussels centric and UK being Island does remove the level of access many would expect and still the EU does not have its own portal for communications to engage the people in a two way process. But so many things that could be improved it is what I call: QWERTY politics and any other arrangement would work out more efficiently, just everybody stuck with what seems to work, even if the most inefficient form. Alas today, that lack of change creates divides. But that is equally a global issue in many countries more than many realise.

We live in interesting times, but heck, when is it not interesting.

Issues have been reduced to opinions - often argued dishonestly, at the expense of basic facts - which in turn have been reduced to emotions.

It's one thing to think about how an issue affects you personally. It's something else entirely to utterly fail to understand that your hot-button feelings about one or two issues can have huge consequences.

Culture works through connections that increase the degrees of freedom of the system as a whole, not through individual moods and biases.

You can't run a 21st century economy without understanding this, and being able to make pragmatic choices based on it.

Given that sovereignty is fairly synonymous with control, it seems difficult to argue that giving up control is not a loss of sovereignty.

Market segmentation applies.

At the moment, if you want to sell a product to the 'west', depending precisely what industry you're in, you need (a) CE marking for the EU AND (b) UL or similar approval for the US. That's two sets of certifications, which can share some but not all lab reports. There are then sub-modifications required for the UK: left-hand-drive cars, BS1363 plugs, etc.

If the UK starts to deviate from that such that CE marking is no longer sufficient, then we're likely to see either manufacturers not bothering or just passing the extra compliance costs on to the customer.

This is before you get onto the question of trade in services, such as the UK's major financial services industry.

(I'd argue that the big undemocratic TPP, TTIP, and WTO agreements are more of a sovereignty impairment than the EU, but that's not a view with much traction)

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.

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

This is a pointless hyperbolic question. The magnitude of the issue we are discussing is not really in question. When you get into the grey area of whether it is a "big issue" you also get into the grey area of whether it even matters.

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

Again, if you're someone who is easily confused by the calibre of smoke-screens we've seen, you probably shouldn't be voting. Sophisticated deception does happen, but it didn't in this case. It was all pretty blatant.

> 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?

You might as well ask the question of how did we become the UK in the first place. It is entirely irrelevant to what we decide to do next.

[citation needed] - preferably with a check that it's not on the Euromyths list: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

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

As to whether Britain can win, I think the next Conservative government is likely willing to walk away from the table. Shifting to a more Atlantic-oriented vs. European-oriented position would be a somewhat painful economic transition, but it's what a lot of Tories want at heart anyway, so it's not an infeasible outcome if the continent proves unyielding.

And don't forget that Merkel and Hollande cannot afford to be seen allowing hundreds of thousands of job losses in some effort to punish Britain and deter the further crumbling of the EU, which is increasingly unpopular in their countries as well. Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the National Front (FA) are biting at their heels, and FA might actually win the presidency in France next year, which would almost certainly be the end of the EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/what-is-article-50-the-onl...