Post-Brexit UK faces up to EU Space Act

 

The European Commission’s long-awaited unveiling of the EU Space Act on 25 June 2025 marked a pivotal step towards harmonised space governance across the bloc.

Framed around safety, resilience and sustainability, the proposed regulation aims to streamline market access, strengthen cybersecurity and mitigate orbital debris – all while boosting the EU’s strategic autonomy in space.

Yet for those operating outside the EU’s regulatory orbit – notably post-Brexit UK – the Act presents new uncertainties.

These tensions surfaced during this week’s European Space Forum, held in Brussels on 3-4 July, where 450 delegates gathered to discuss the future of Europe’s space ambitions.

During a panel discussion on ‘Delivering Autonomy’, I asked UK government representative William Smith, how the Act might affect UK space operators, now classed as part of a “third country” under EU law.

“I think it's very early days to comment,” he replied. “The UK Government don't have a formal position yet. We acknowledge what [the Act] is trying to do and support any endeavour that is looking to make the orbital environment and space in general more secure, more resilient and safer. That is a collective good, undoubtedly.”

He went on to emphasise the UK’s own regulatory framework: “The UK's regulatory regime is an outcomes-based, agile regime, which works. It's not perfect but we get good feedback from international stakeholders.”

The EU Space Act, still in draft form, outlines the possibility of recognising third-country regulatory regimes as equivalent – but offers no detail yet on how such equivalence would be determined or negotiated.

This leaves UK-based companies potentially facing a dual compliance burden or limitations on market access unless formal agreements are reached.

Without clarity on equivalence, UK firms hoping to provide services within the EU may face fresh licensing or oversight hurdles. The EU’s detailed rules on debris mitigation, cybersecurity and environmental impact may also diverge from UK approaches.

Still, with the proposed implementation date set for 1 January 2030, a transitional window provides space – and time – for dialogue and potential alignment.

While the UK government assesses the fine print, industry voices are likely to press for early engagement to avoid regulatory friction. If managed well, the situation could still evolve into a constructive regulatory partnership that enables innovation and access on both sides.

But Smith’s response, while diplomatic, underscored a recurring theme of constructive ambiguity that characterised much of the European Space Forum.

With no formal UK stance yet, industry remains in a holding pattern, awaiting clarity on whether the country’s agile, outcomes-based regime will be deemed sufficiently compatible.

In the meantime, the EU’s move should be seen as a positive step. It signals a firm commitment to space sustainability, safety and long-term governance – and a timely reminder that access to orbit increasingly comes with strings attached.

#         # 

Links: European Space Forum & EU Space Act

All the Prime Minister's Men

 

AS the UK’s political turmoil of December overflowed into January and continued unabated in February the contrast between UK prime minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and leader of the opposition Sir Kier Starmer could not have been more stark.

On a rare trip into central London last week, it was amplified as I loitered outside the Houses of Parliament sipping a coffee from Neros just as the beleaguered prime minister was attempting to phrase his latest non-apology for “Party Gate”.

This time it was his response to the publication of an advance, short-form version of the infamous Sue Gray report into Downing Street parties during lockdown, and his response included the seemingly pre-meditated 'Jimmy Savile slur' against Starmer.

In any setting other than the UK Parliament, where historic gentlemanly privileges are still supposed to prevail, it would likely have amounted to a serious and legally actionable slander.

By all accounts, and from wall-to-wall TV coverage later, Johnson's was yet another painful performance for the head of any country, let alone one that also purports to be a "global leader".

Standing outside at the time I could almost hear the baying, the shouting, the laughing, and the utter disdain for MP’s in the House and for the public at large.

Less than a week later, events proved that this British Prime Minister does not routinely accept that he has ever done anything wrong and has no intention of ever really sorry at all.

His Savile comment was also a prime example of the so-called ‘dead cat’ tactic - in this case throwing out an outrageous smear in order to get everyone talking about that, and probably also knowing that some of it would ultimately stick.

And all this drama came hard on the heels of the second anniversary of Brexit when the government released its “Benefits of Brexit” document (which, unsurprisingly, struggled to string together any kind of list of advantages).

Shortly before heading back to the hotel, I was accosted on College Green which is just across from the Houses of Parliament. Thankfully not by a baying mob but by a “GB News” crew asking if I would do a piece to camera.

Am I a fan of GB News? Definutely not! It's mega-wealthy backers give it an unhealthy right wing editorial bias. But I agree and thought they might as well have it with both barrels.

So I stared into the camera and told them in no uncertain terms that Johnson was incapable of changing and, as a result, was probably toxic as both leader of the Tory party and the UK.

I described his vacuous “apology” as pathetic and rounded off the short interview with a resolute call for Johnson to resign. Not sure that it got broadcast but at least I said it.

Like everyone, over the years I have watched many movies, some more meaningful to my life at a particular the time than others.

One such film, back in the late 1970s, was the 'All The President’s Men' - the story of the Watergate cover up which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

The drama of inside story by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein proved the catalyst for my own journalistic career.

As reflected in the title of this blogpost, one can only hope that ultimately the lies and coverups of Johnson will be not only bring about his downfall but also those of his hand-picked cabinet and government ministers.

But, in terms of film endings, another that I still revere from back in the day is the scene at the end of the original 'Planet of the Apes'.

As the camera panned out on a washed up beach, the last human survivor (played by Charlton Heston) and his partner glance up to see the ruined Statue of Liberty before him and utters the film's closing, poignant words: “You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!”

Now, as the picture heading this post illustrates, some clever graphics person has re-purposed a still from the film that neatly transfers this to the immense damage Johnson and his Brexit cabal are doing to the UK, both in plain sight and behind closed doors.

And I thank my journalist colleague Rob Coppinger for the paraphrase for this version of the film's ending: “We finally did it! Brexit, you maniacs! You went hard Brexit! God damn you! God damn you all to hell!”

Cabinet shuffle

Gulf News

 

THE international stock of UK prime minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is becoming diminished by the week and taking with it the last shreds of moral and political authority that Britain once had.

In all the political conflicts of pandemic mis-management and Brexit elitism, it seems that, in the mind of the British PM, what matters most is the pursuit of power. He has always been single-minded to this end and does all he can to resist constraints on that power.

Johnson, who is widely regarded by those who know or have worked with him, to have the attention span of a nat, is not interested in policy, let alone policy detail. He waivers constantly, in tune with nothing more than the shifting wind of opinion, and has no convictions about things that really matter such as Brexit, climate change, levelling up, culture wars or tackling poverty.

Apart from himself, all he cares about is how policy plays with the Tory Party, its supporters and the voters, many of whom he has hoodwinked into thinking he is something much more than he is.

All this helps to explain some of the sackings in this week’s cabinet reshuffle, because ministers whose stock has fallen with the venerable Party become vulnerable, regardless of their abilities.

The prime duty of Johnson’s replacements this week is hardly to deliver a particular agenda, but to keep themselves, and the Party, popular in readiness for the next election.

At the risk of re-stating what is now becoming patently obvious, the key things driving the Johnson government are riches for the already super wealthy, Party and Tory donor management, all aligned with increasing control of Parliament, the courts and the media.

From Johnson’s myopic perspective the cabinet reshuffle was intended to portray energy (working tirelessly, getting on with the job) and renewal. But, in the real world, all that happened was the removal of the least popular members of his team, which was also a non-damaging way to shift people who should have been sacked for incompetence and breaking rules long ago.

It was also a way for Johnson to ensure he is surrounded by an increasingly sycophantic protection ring.

This then folks is the guy that is leading the UK to a populist, ideological disaster, a nightmare world that will make a few dangerous people very wealthy and all too powerful.