Brexit From ESA?
Brexit Does Not Mean the UK Will Leave the European Space Agency, Right?, Inverse
“The resources and partnerships that UK-based companies rely on are now hanging in the balance as the vote moves forward. However, a UK exit from the EU should not affect the country’s involvement with ESA. The ESA and EU are two separate entities with different goals and member states.”
‘Brexit’ leaves lingering questions about involvement in European Space Agency, WRAL
“In a May CNN interview from the ISS, Peake commented on how leaving the EU might impact the UK: “The UK will still be part of the European Space Agency, that won’t change at all. The European Space Agency is still part of this international partnership here with the International Space Station.” Peake added “it really cuts through all barriers, its such a strong partnership.”
RAS Statement on the Outcome of the EU Referendum in the UK, RAS
“UK and European science benefit from the free movement of people between countries, something that has allowed UK research to become world leading. Although for example membership of the European Space Agency and European Southern Observatory is not contingent on EU membership, these organizations depend on international recruitment made easier by straightforward migration between countries. We therefore urge the Government to ensure it remains straightforward for UK scientists to travel and work in EU countries, and for EU scientists to come to the UK.”
Happily, as these items point out, Brexit will not impact the UK’s membership in ESA directly. However, there are a few issues to consider.
1. Any rancor in intra-European diplomatic relations that arises during the Brexit negotiations will affect high-level decision making at ESA.
2. ESA is currently establishing a center (ECSAT) at Harwell near Oxford. The success of ECSAT and its commercial incubation activities will depend on the trade privileges and immigration regime of a Brexited UK.
3. A Brexited UK has uncertain status in research funding from the EU. A good deal of funding for planetary science in the UK comes from program elements under Horizon 2020. There is great uncertainty about how long that funding will flow or whether UK researchers will be able to apply to these programs after formal EU departure. The UK itself may make up the funding shortfall, but current UKSA funding for research and analysis does not suggest the UK considers planetary science much of a priority. Moreover, Horizon 2020 (and previous programs) have supported important cross-national efforts. To give you one example: Horizon 2020 (not ESA) is currently funding: https://www3.open.ac.uk/med…
It should be noted membership in the EU is not free. The UK paid 13 billion pounds to the EU in 2015 but only got 4.5 billion pounds back in various EU payouts for a net lost of 8.5 billion pounds, so in theory UK researchers actually could be better off since the UK will have more to spend afterward. So instead of worrying about the money they are losing from the EU perhaps those researchers should be lobbying to get some of that windfall.
http://www.express.co.uk/ne…
BTW the contribution of the UK represents about 10% of the EU budget, so it means the other members will need to pay more once the UK leaves. It probably explains a lot about why those EU ministers are so unhappy 🙂
The financial situation is a real mess. The UK does pay over ten billion to fund the EU. But it isn’t clear that will stop when the UK leaves. According to the press, Norway and Switzerland, neither of which are members, pay billions to the EU in return for getting a trade status similar to EU member states. The UK may end up doing the same.
It sounds like someone left a copy of “Chicago Mobs of the Twenties” that the EU ministers are using for guidance. That would explain a lot. 🙂
I’ll see your excellent Star Trek reference but raise you a TANSTAAFL.
Except goods being allowed to flow freely across boundaries without barriers benefits everyone. Requiring EU non-members to pay for the privilege is actually a formof imperialism, as in the days of the old empires when you had to pay tribute to the Emperor for the right to trade with their subjects. It was suppose to be a relic of the when democratic nation states emerged.
Could be a natural first step in the transition to some sort of world government, one supposes. This is the kind of thing that brings some out of caves swinging, but the future of our planet depends on more cooperation, not less; and any sort of governing agency must be funded.
I prefer the term world governance as world government implies a centralized authority whereas governance indicates it will instead take more of a network format. The difference is key to ensuring economic scientific progress. Progress, as numerous writers from Jared Diamond to Eric D. Beinhocker have noted, comes from competition. One reason empires decay and die in revolution is the centralization of power replaces progress with stagnation.
The key is to set up a framework of rules that allow that competition to continue while preventing the undesired behaviors like war, slavery, discrimination and environmental destruction.
One of the mistakes of the EU was the Euro. A single currency works fine if its a single economy at the same level of development, but Europe isn’t and won’t be for decades if at all. Individual currencies for the members states allowed quick and rapid adjustments to occur in response to changes in their economies that serve as a method of stabilization of those changes. For example, the Greek crisis wouldn’t be anywhere as near as bad as it was if Greece had a separate currency that could have quickly adjusted based on the state of its economy.
To return this to space policy, that is why I support keeping the OST but oppose the Moon Treaty. The OST provides a framework for productive competition in space while the Moon Treaty seeks to create monopoly regimes for the various Celestial Bodies that would undermine their economic development.
Surely you take my point that ‘government’ and ‘governance’ are about the same thing? On the other hand your point about a broad network over a centralized government is probably closer to the ideal.
As to competition, it seems self evident, doesn’t it? That competition is necessary for social advancement? But I wonder about that, as I wonder about the millions left behind in a competitive world that increasingly concentrates wealth in fewer people, certainly not an ideal situation. And I do keep in mind as someone pointed out recently that while nowadays competition (and capitalism) seem so ‘right’, barely a few hundred years separate us from the righteousness of the divine right of kings. Whether we should view this as a natural progression over the centuries or as a series of century-long experiments remains to be seen, likely millennia from now.
I do imagine that space will be settled much like the wild west here in America. Lookup a television show called ‘Hell on Wheels’ about the transcontinental railway, which depicts the west in what I take to be a realistic manner. Likely Luna, and the Martian satellites, and the asteroids will be similarly settled by wildcatters; at some point and when the wealth is sufficient governments will step in and provide the interstate highway system.
Interesting dialog.
A good book I would recommend strongly is Eric D. Beinhocker “The Origin of Wealth” which summarizes a couple of decades of evolutionary systems research that is providing the theoretical foundation of the emerging field of complexity economics. It exposes the weakness that was the basis of 20th Century economics and provides an much more robust framework for understanding economics, technical progress and wealth. It shows why Thomas Newcomen and not Hero of Alexandria started the Industrial Revolution with the steam engine.
I haven’t see it but I am familiar to the reference to the mobile town that followed the Union Pacifc with all the vices that workers might want.
Actually space settlement will be different for a couple of reasons. First, the high cost will be a barrier against the element that made “Hell of Wheels” hell on wheels. Anyone could go west who worked a year or so for a grudstake, or who was successful in stealing a horse, gun and enough money for basic supplies. The low density of law enforcement than made heading west desirable and is what put the “wild” in the wild west.
The cost of going to space will effectively filter out that element of society, especially since most violent criminals tend to become criminals because they don’t know how to do anything else. Space settlers on the other hand will be well skilled individuals, both to earn the money needed and to survive when they go into space.
Second, settlers in space settlements will need to coordinate closely to survive. The ‘lone” prospectors, fur traders and settlers of the old west won’t have any real analogies in a space settlement, not for a long while, requiring a much more advanced technology than currently exists.
This is where space libertarians have it wrong. Survival in space settlements won’t be based on rugged individuals but will really be more modern equivalent of small towns where everyone does their share. Individuals yes, but within the context of mutually beneficial and necessary exchanges. But the libertarians are likely right in they will have little use for bureaucrats on Earth telling them what they may or may not do. Such micromanagement from a distance tends undermine the ability to adapt and survive in new environments.
It is interesting to watch all the panic resulting because the experts are still looking at the world based on a 20th Century world view. The trend is now going away from the centralization of power the EU represents and more into networks of relationships.
In terms of this specific thread the question is why would the UK leave ESA? It predates EU. Plus folks forget not all members of ESA are members of the EU. Norway, Greenland and Canada, an associate member, don’t belong.
As for its impact, it really depends on how vindictive the Europe ministers are about the UK decision. If they want to punish the English I am sure there are all type of barriers they would be able to create, but otherwise is should be no different than what the members from Norway, Greenland or Canada deal with.
It is indeed the 20th century worldview that we should fear– the Brexit move includes strains of nationalism, a disease that ravaged Europe twice in that century.
Indeed we see some of the same here with slogans about being ‘great’ again, or insistence on ‘exceptionalism’. Naive and immature as the world struggles to find a way forward that includes mutual respect.
Sorry for the long post, but you do highlight the danger that exists whenever a paradigm shift occurs and those in power misread it.
It’s actually not about the rhetoric of nationalism, that is just opportunism, it’s about being excluded and ignored. In the 20th Century communication methods were limited for providing feedback and input and so individuals placed trust in those that were elected to make their decisions for them. The result was centralization of decision making along with a dependence on experts.
In the emerging network age individuals are getting used to providing direct input into policy and decision making. NASA Watch and similar blogs are one example. But instead of accepting and adopting to this new mode of politics, and seeking to replace centralized decision making with new decentralized models, those in power simply ignore them or worst, make fun of the opinions being expressed as ignorant and uninformed. They are after all the “experts” and those “peasants” should just listen to them. This attitude is often reinforced since these “experts” usually live in the national capital and/or the major financial centers and often radiate the attitude that those living elsewhere (in the fly-over regions) couldn’t possibly be informed or have a worthwhile opinion. This combination of isolation and elitism have long contributed to trigger political upheavals when the changes occurring in society and economy are ignored. They may turn out well like the American Revolution or bad like the French or Russian Revolutions.
The result of this attitude is predictability the systematic rejection of the opinions, visions and ideas of those in power combined with a loss of faith in anything they say. And the more those in power double-down by lecturing the “peasants” on how they should behave and how they should think they more they start to reject their world view.
It is no accident that the more the experts lectured and talked down to the “peasants” on the “dire” consequences of Brexit, the more support for it increased. For example, arguing that the big banks would be hurt, the very banks the government bailed out while leaving the public to fend for themselves, the same banks, that when bailed out, turned around and squeezed the borrowers and home owners wasn’t seen by them as a negative, but a reason to vote for it. That argument that London would be hurt wasn’t a negative, why would it when Londoners never showed any worry about those in rural England suffering.
It is also not surprising the polls failed. Voters no longer see polls as a way to provide input in an election but as a tool that is just used to manipulate voters, so voters now often just tell the pollsters want they want to hear, not what they are thinking.
So saying it’s nationalism or that the occupy movement was socialism is ignoring the underlying factors driving it. Both arguments were simply attempts to fit those events into 20th Century thinking. It’s about trying to hang on to a 20th Century mindset that “experts” know best and decision making must be centralized in a world that the Internet is decentralizing and distributed decision making will be the rule.
Of course Prime Minster Cameron choosing to resign rather than implement the results of the election has just further reinforced the view of the public that those making the decisions just don’t care about the voters.
But basically it is about the voters wanting their opinions, values and viewpoints being included in the decision making process instead of limiting it to experts. Don’t confuse the sneezing with the infection causing it.
Governments need to develop new model of decision making that are more inclusive of voters and also provide greater respect for their diversity. This is why the EU, based on the old model of centralization, experts and exclusion is in trouble.
And to bring it back to the topic of this blog, it is also why NASA space policy is in trouble as the emergence of space commerce will replaced the centralized space exploration model, a zero-sum game, with a decentralized diversified one, a win-win situation.
As I was reading your post I was mindful of discussions while our own constitution was hammered out– some felt that the common folks needed some sort of tempering agency, and hence our bicameral congress (among other features).
Couldn’t the argument be made that some of us truly are not qualified to make some decisions? Isn’t Dunning-Kruger at work here, and isn’t Brexit a shining example of a decision so complex and fraught with unknowns that truly experts understand it better?
Further, some will point to the referendum process in California, or indeed the constitutional amendment process here in Florida, in which citizens overwhelming mandated high speed rail that has failed to materialize, illustrating some sort of breakdown between the snap judgement of those of us not fully understanding the choices and those who do.
I take your point on social media but pray (or would, if I did) that we do not fall into true Democracy.
An informed citizenry is essential to a good democracy which was why many of the Founding Fathers were strong advocates of public education. It wasn’t seen as mere vocational education, but as preparation for being a good citizen. Sadly that has all but been forgotten in the rush to turn schools into job training sites.
That said there is still much to be said for the wisdom of crowds which is what democracy is. Indeed, returning this thread to the Blog’s focus, I have often felt NASA’s decision making and relevance to the general public could be improved greatly if an advisory committee of common citizens, selected by random from voter rolls, supplemented the expert advisory committee it has.
I have found from primary research I have done on public support for space that the goals the general public would support for NASA have little relationship to the ones space policy experts debate about. Likely that is the main reason support for NASA is so thin (a mile wide and an inch deep), because what it does really doesn’t connect with what the public would like to see it doing. A citizens advisory committee would be a good way to close that gap in support.
In terms of the ballot measures like referendums, many states have adopted the two vote system, it must pass in two consecutive elections, to go into effect. It has worked well in terms of issues that often stir passions.
You are correct, the boards of scientists (like those in the Decadal Surveys) choose goals NASA should pursue which would be of little to no interest to people chosen at random. That’s because the average person has utterly no clue what cutting edge planetary science is about.
With an advisory board of common folk, you’d probably get a directive that NASA land on the sun (at night, of course!).
Even Congressmen don’t seem to have a clue, other than they know in which districts the money is spent.
Thanks for proving my point. Or as Professor Hathaway in ‘Real Genius’ would say – “Mitch, there’s something you need to know. Compared to you, most people have the IQ of a carrot.” 🙂
It is however sad that you don’t think a citizens committee could be briefed well enough to make informed recommendations.
So really, is it any wonder the UK voters didn’t care when the UK scientists argued that leaving the EU would destroy British science? I imagine many U.S. voters would feel the same way if a President Trump shut down NSF or NASA planetary science on the grounds of “but we have to fix our potholes.”
http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
That is really one of the big lessons those in government and policy experts, including those in NASA, need to take away from Brexit. You need to listen and respect the voters not just lecture to them on what they should do.
As the late great philosopher George Carlin once said, “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
A board made up of citizens who are space enthusiasts (like you or me) would probably do all right in an advisory capacity. But a random average person does not know enough and is likely not interested in knowing enough to do a good job.
And that’s the real issue. The general public does not care about the facts and moreover, does not even care enough to learn them. The Brexit people told straight up lies to the public and they did not care, they still voted to leave. Donald Trump is doing the same thing here in the USA. People are still stupid enough to vote for him.
Thanks for providing a perfect example of the elitist attitude that turns the public off on NASA and space policy. It also shows how big science has come to see government funding as an entitlement that you are OK with taking their tax dollars for science but not in hearing their “worthless” opinions on it. A feudal Lord couldn’t have said it better 🙂
And you wonder why NASA is at the mercy of a handful of Congress Critters seeking to enrich their districts with pork spending.
It’s not elitist. This is just reality.
It’s completely the opposite, by the way. Scientists have to beg and scrape for any kind of funding they can get from a government run by people who, like the general public, largely are ignorant of what the science is and are ambivalent (at best!) at learning what it is about. So I don’t wonder at all, I know this is how it is. Like I said, it’s reality.
You decry me with one breath and then say things that agree with me the next. At least I’m being honest and telling it like it is.
You do know, before WW II scientists got almost nothing from the government. Only the NACA, Smithsonian or from the Dept. of Agriculture were really funding science and most went to the scientists working for them as employees. Most of the funding was from private donors or amateurs self-funding their research. The billions now flowing into science is a post war event with the creation of new organizations like the NSF, AEC, NIH, national labs…
As a blog post above discusses, some organizations are doing quite well. So I would hardly call a salary of $370,000 for a PI as begging and scraping. Nor would the average American trying to get by on $50,000/year before taxes. But I guess its a matter of perspective. If your project failed to make the government funding cut it does seem like begging and scrapping. But it is another example of the disconnect, your view of reality versus that of the average worker 🙂
But to bring this again back to the topic of this website. If NASA wants more funding it needs to connect better with the average American, not just keep talking down to them. That could also be one value of a Citizen’s Advisory Committee, to allow NASA to learn by listening to them how the average American views their programs and perhaps as a result to gain their support for increasing their budget.
I appreciate that federal dollars support scientific research, but applying for grant money takes up an inordinate amount of a scientist’s time. This has been a problem for a while, look it up.
Getting someone to give your their hard earned money on something you want to do always takes time. Look at how many years Christopher Columbus spent trying to get money for his research. Yes, it has been a problem for a long time, ever since the first wizard asked for money from the first King for their observatory to generate their astrology tables so they could predict the kingdom’s future 🙂
Again, perspective. Look at how much time those old polar explorers spent on tour selling their books and seeking sponsors to support their work. Or how much time an entrepreneur spends trying to raise money for their startup.
Actually I bet both wish it was as easy as filling out an NSF or NIH grant form. Or simply responding to a RFP from NASA. But if you are not funding your own work that is price you pay to use someone’s money. Its just how the world works. TANSTAAFL
Or do you think as a scientist you should automatically get a revolving account with your Ph.D. to spend on what you want with no accountability? Which again brings us back to this blog which is about making NASA more accountable to the folks funding it.
Oversight is fine, but it can’t be done (at least, not well) by random people. Other than your odd conviction that random people are the best choice to oversee things they don’t understand in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, you and I are on the same page, dude.
On the other hand, Mr. M’s insistence that anybody can be made ready to pass on policy is an idea very deep in our democracy, isn’t it? I too have a deep respect for other Americans’ abilities to assess policy implications.
And I’ve been pleasantly surprised too many times interacting with strangers and discussing various issues.
But I’m troubled by events like the Brexit vote in which voters were clearly swayed by emotional and often wrong advertising. And lest I enflame others here (which is not my intent), how does an unqualified person become a Presidential candidate simply because he’s a ‘businessman? Doesn’t this indicate that there’s very little understanding of the depth of experience required to be President?
Similarly with the space issue. The poor knowledge about our space program is simply appalling. I’ve invested a lifetime studying space policy (at some distance and without much depth, admittedly) and I would hardly put myself forward as an advisor to NASA as I would embarrass myself immediately!
“Average” people being part of the government is a fundamental aspect of our government, but the fustercluck that Congress has been recently may just go to demonstrate how well that works. I’m in the process of reading Alexander Hamilton, the biography by Ron Chernow, and the founding fathers were really trying hard to avoid mob rule, to try to make a system that would get well-educated and non-inflammatory people elected, and to moderate the influence of inflammatory people if they did get elected. I wish there were a better way to make that happen. Though I do really like our system of checks and balances, when there’s political gridlock it makes things difficult to function.
Same thing with what it takes to be president. It’s an enormously difficult job, as many previous presidents have said, but anyone can run for it. We can only hope that the random average persons out there have better discernment than to vote based on inflammatory speeches that give voice to their base fears, but, as you so correctly note, that hasn’t often been the case, neither in the past nor in more recent times.
It takes a certain level of knowledge to realize how much you don’t know about something, but prior to that level you can think you know a great deal more than you do, this is the Dunning-Kruger effect, which you may have heard of before. I think I would accept oversight of a field by someone who realizes they don’t know enough about that field, at least this shows they would be aware of their ignorance and would probably be willing to learn more in order to effect good judgments.
Yes, folks will pleasantly surprise if you give them an opportunity. In terms of space policy, is the lack of knowledge really their fault, or the fault of space policy experts not caring what folks outside the beltway think and not educating them? If you don’t reach out to the public than how do you expect them to understand? And reaching out is not just talking, but even more important, listening. I know NASA puts out all types of eye candy, by it takes more than that. One reason there was support for Project Apollo was because politicians and NASA officials took the time to explain it.
The politicians that use inflammatory speeches are successful not because of the content as much as the delivery and because they show respect for the voters attitudes. Showing respect for attitudes is the first step to changing those attitudes.
However it appears the EU ministers are getting the message and may at least start listening to the voters to bring this back to topic.
http://www.oregonlive.com/t…
“The leaders produced no clear rehaul for their shaken union after an unusual and emotionally charged summit, but agreed they must make it
more relevant to citizens and keep it from disintegrating after Britain’s unprecedented vote to leave.”
and
“”We all need to wake up and smell the coffee,” Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite said.”
Again, the new world is about networking not centralize authority. But they are starting to recognize they are no longer in touch which is a start.
Indeed, Doug; were the opposite true we’d see campaigns based on policy, and we’d see campaign advertisements that, say, discuss the fine points of agricultural subsidies.
But we don’t and that is because people vote on gut feeling. It is not complicated.
“these “experts” usually live in the national capital
and/or the major financial centers”
Yes, I see a major disconnect of what people post in the forums like this to what decisions are actually made. I also notice it seems the same people rather than thousands as seen on Reddit forums. Other than that, insightful comment you wrote.
This is just another example of why we need to maximize the public private sector relationships. The sooner we can do research on private space stations the better. The sooner we can get away from the traditional way of doing business in space the better.
Brexit is opening a lot of eyes – it was never supposed to pass.