mr.columbus - 28/11/2007 3:46 PMThat is of course also the reason why China, India, Israel, South Korea, Ukraine etc. have joined the Galileo program and committed several hundred million euro for its implementation - and as far as I see it those countries would not commit funds to it if it would just be "largely redundant" or a "mere European job program."
mr.columbus - 27/11/2007 7:21 AMQuotemtakala24 - 26/11/2007 4:39 PMQuotemr.columbus - 24/11/2007 11:38 AMIt is about time that they agree on how to proceed with Galileo. Using agricultural money of about 1.6 billion EUR is certainly a good idea to finance Galileo Do you realise how many people will lose their jobs - at least here in southern parts of Finland, even the bigger agricultural installations are in danger.The agricultural money that those farms have been receiving, is described as "temporary permanent subsidies" Now they are arguing about what temporary permanent thing means The answer to your question on how many people will lose their jobs in Finland or elsewhere because of the Galileo funding decision is: none. The 1.6 billion now used are unused money which would be returned to the memberstates into their general budget - one reason Germany was against the funding proposal, because - as the largest net-payer - it would have received about 500 million back from those 1.6 billion.
mtakala24 - 26/11/2007 4:39 PMQuotemr.columbus - 24/11/2007 11:38 AMIt is about time that they agree on how to proceed with Galileo. Using agricultural money of about 1.6 billion EUR is certainly a good idea to finance Galileo Do you realise how many people will lose their jobs - at least here in southern parts of Finland, even the bigger agricultural installations are in danger.The agricultural money that those farms have been receiving, is described as "temporary permanent subsidies" Now they are arguing about what temporary permanent thing means
mr.columbus - 24/11/2007 11:38 AMIt is about time that they agree on how to proceed with Galileo. Using agricultural money of about 1.6 billion EUR is certainly a good idea to finance Galileo
JIS - 30/11/2007 9:05 AMQuotemr.columbus - 27/11/2007 7:21 AMQuotemtakala24 - 26/11/2007 4:39 PMQuotemr.columbus - 24/11/2007 11:38 AMIt is about time that they agree on how to proceed with Galileo. Using agricultural money of about 1.6 billion EUR is certainly a good idea to finance Galileo Do you realise how many people will lose their jobs - at least here in southern parts of Finland, even the bigger agricultural installations are in danger.The agricultural money that those farms have been receiving, is described as "temporary permanent subsidies" Now they are arguing about what temporary permanent thing means The answer to your question on how many people will lose their jobs in Finland or elsewhere because of the Galileo funding decision is: none. The 1.6 billion now used are unused money which would be returned to the memberstates into their general budget - one reason Germany was against the funding proposal, because - as the largest net-payer - it would have received about 500 million back from those 1.6 billion.As I'm paying tax in the UK I hope UK won't take part in Galileo and also won't pay any subsidy to farmers. I'm against any "green taxes" too. It would be better to direct more money to space probes and cooperation with NASA.
After Galileo is completed, they will introduce a mandatory Galileo based Road Pricing system in the EU. It will be mandatory for all personal private vehicles as well as comercial trucks etc., europeanwide. A small ammount of the moneyflow generated by that will be used to finance galileo and traffic infrastructure, the main share will go into deficit social systems.
JIS - 30/11/2007 4:05 PMAs I'm paying tax in the UK I hope UK won't take part in Galileo and also won't pay any subsidy to farmers. I'm against any "green taxes" too. It would be better to direct more money to space probes and cooperation with NASA.
eeergo - 30/11/2007 12:08 PM "The decision was made without the backing of Spain, which had demanded that it host a ground station for the network of 30 orbiting satellites." Sigh... same old, same old.
Well, seems not everything is bad news for Spain
Apparently, they've reached a document which gives the tracking station in Spain a role equivalent to those in Italy and Germany. They call it on-line, though I don't know what that means exactly.
I can't find a link to this news in English, so in case anyone is interested, one from ElPais (in Spanish):
JIS - 30/11/2007 3:05 PMAs I'm paying tax in the UK I hope UK won't take part in Galileo and also won't pay any subsidy to farmers. I'm against any "green taxes" too.
CentEur - 30/11/2007 10:38 PMEvery time I read the urge to direct more UK money to cooperation with NASA, it reminds me the reports of Germans getting furious about their euro wasted when X-38 project was canceled. Which brings the question - has ESA ever managed to waste UK money so bad?
CuddlyRocket - 1/12/2007 7:54 AMThe reason that the EU has spare money from its agricultural budget is down to the US subsidies to its farmers disguised as limiting its dependence of foreign oil - i.e. turning food into ethanol. This has raised the price of grain on world markets, thereby reducing the cost of the EU's price maintenace. So effectively, the US taxpayer is paying for Galileo. Thanks guys!
CuddlyRocket - 1/12/2007 1:54 AMQuoteJIS - 30/11/2007 3:05 PMAs I'm paying tax in the UK I hope UK won't take part in Galileo and also won't pay any subsidy to farmers. I'm against any "green taxes" too.Good luck with that! Paying subsidies to farmers is something virtually every developed nation does (New Zealand, I believe is an exception). No British Government has been against paying subsidies to farmers, and it is the policy of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties. They only differ in how they'll pay the subsidies (direct payments, price support as in the CAP, etc) and what for (food production, environmental maintenance, etc).The reason that the EU has spare money from its agricultural budget is down to the US subsidies to its farmers disguised as limiting its dependence of foreign oil - i.e. turning food into ethanol. This has raised the price of grain on world markets, thereby reducing the cost of the EU's price maintenace. So effectively, the US taxpayer is paying for Galileo. Thanks guys!