This week, containing the public holiday for the Assumption Day, is the quietest of the year in Brussels apart from Xmas/New Year. It also marks the ending of the summer holiday period for many and the start of the coming back to work. But things have not stood still over the summer and two things stand out for me which have each been subject to significant development over the summertime.

Firstly, we have managed to get the ITT issued for the development of eoMALL. Most of you will know that eoMALL is the concrete manifestation of the project we have initiated to establish a Marketplace for EO services. It is being guided by the Marketplace Alliance (MAEOS) which is the group within EARSC formed to co-operate on the venture. ESA agreed to procure the eoMALL for us and over the last few months we have been working with them to prepare the technical specification and the statement of work. We have asked for an innovative procurement process and I think we have achieved this with a 2 phase approach. For the first phase, lasting only around 3 months, 3 “winners” will be selected from those proposing solutions. A small fee will be paid to come up with a working prototype (demonstrator). At the end of the 3 months, a single winner will be selected to go on and develop the full solution. This will enable creative ideas to be put forward. We plan that this will allow us to meet our first target to have a beta version running by end January, and to follow a progressive development over the following 18 months. We are grateful to ESA for agreeing this approach and also for their support to the industry.

Secondly, the winners of the competition for the DIAS (Copernicus Data and Information Access Service) have been selected. No announcement has yet been made as the EC wishes to do this, probably after the holiday period, but it is a fairly open secret, even if I am not going to reveal the answers here! DIAS will be a major element to help build future services based on Copernicus data – but not just – and we shall learn how far each proposal has managed to push the boundaries in due course. Each or all of the services proposed will encourage the emergence of an ecosystem of service providers. The eoMALL will enable those providers to reach a wider market than would otherwise be reasonable. That eoMALL is backed by a co-operative venture should remove competitive issues and allow it to become the foremost site and tool to promote the European industry.

Both these initiatives are designed to help overcome the fragmentation of the industry in Europe. Both should help “ecosystems” of service providers to develop and partnerships to form to build upon prior and future investments. There is still a great deal of work to do – for anyone who has not seen our recent position paper on Copernicus Evolution it is available on our web-site – but the DIAS and the eoMALL are two important steps forward. The autumn should bring more; but that is for another blog.

This week I am in Pretoria or Tshwane, as it is now called, for the ISRSE 2017 conference. This is the 37^th ISRSE which is an impressively long record. In addition to some really interesting papers concerning African space policy, space agencies activities and on climate change impact, two particular points stand out.

Firstly is the ambition coming from the whole continent and being led/orchestrated by the African Union Commission. An African Space Policy has been published in which EO features prominently and where GMES and Africa is a main element. Secondly was the B2B meeting which we organised to enable networking between European and African companies. I’ll start with the latter.

This was the second such event we have organised with the first one being during the AARSE conference last October in Kampala. In each case we are grateful for local support without which such an initiative would not be possible. We had 5 companies from Europe and 5 from Africa which participated. Very short introductory presentations from the European companies was followed by a “speed-dating” session providing each company to introduce itself to the others. Given the difficulty I had separating some of the company pairs the exchanges were quite productive. Participants agreed at the end that the formula was a good one and we shall seek to recreate similar opportunities in the future. There is strong support for further exchanges with African companies and we'll seek opportunities to do so.

At the end we managed to get Tidiane Ouattara to talk about GMES and Africa. The call is to be launched next week and Tidiane explained how the private sector will be involved with 20% of the funding needing to be spent with service providers. Partnerships between African and European companies are almost mandatory with no set conditions excepting that there must be a partnership agreement in place showing how the African business will benefit from the arrangement.

We’ll publish more information for members as it becomes available. I shall be presenting on Thursday and part of the plenary panel on Friday looking at how big data and other trends affecting commercial EO services. I'll be talking about MAEOS and eoMALL. The meeting concludes with a session on the GEO WorkProgramme taking place on Friday and Saturday.

As a committed member of the EO Community, at EARSC we are convinced that the inherent value in satellite data is very high. Indeed, the European policy makers would not have invested €7b in Copernicus if they did not think so also! But is this really true?

Readers may be familiar with the 3 cases which we studied and published last year which showed that this conviction is true! We took a new approach to analysing the question and came up with some interesting answers as well as defining a new methodology. Now I am happy to say we are starting a second round of cases; if you have any suggestions we would be pleased to hear from you.

The first case studied the value of SAR imagery as an aid to “Winter Navigation in the Baltic”. The icebreakers use Sentinel 1 imagery directly to help plan their course as they lead ships through the ice to their destination port. The time saved, the greater certainty of goods arriving or leaving factories and shops all help the local community. By our calculations, the benefit to Finland and Sweden is between €24m and €116m each year!

The second case studied the value for “Forestry in Sweden”. This found that maps produced using Sentinel 2 imagery help the local owners of parcels of forest land, improve the cultivation of timber. Better quality and quantity of timber is increasing the value to the Swedish economy and the Sentinel data is contributing between €16m and €21m each year.

Finally, the third case looked at the use of ground deformation mapping as an aid to improved “Infrastructure Monitoring in the Netherlands”. Knowing where the ground has moved helps the local pipeline companies distributing gas and water to act before critical damage occurs. This helps the companies develop value of between €15m and €18m per annum.

We are pleased that EARSC has now been awarded a further contract by ESA to analyse more cases. We already have a good list of potential ones but we should love to have more! Each case must make some use of Sentinel data and be operational so that there is a regular use of the products and services.

If you can propose cases that are selected for analysis then a prize awaits!

Please complete the EARSC industry survey. If you have not already, contact us on info@earsc.org.

The EO sector is changing rapidly with vast new data sets becoming available, cloud computing and big-data technology being deployed and many new initiatives being launched. Knowing what is happening in an industry sector is a fundamental need for policy makers taking decisions on new initiatives. Given these rapid changes in the EO sector and the significant investments being made by both public and private sectors, industry statistics and trends are more important today than has ever been the case.

Every 2 years, EARSC undertakes to complete a detailed analysis of the EO service sector in Europe. It is the most comprehensive survey carried out. It is a hindcast not a forecast since it is looking at companies performance and views covering the previous 12 months. Nevertheless the build-up of information leads us to be able to look at trends.

This years’ is the 3^rd EARSC survey (the previous ones were 2013 and 2015). Our 3^rd survey should be particularly interesting as it will reflect a consistent methodology and a relatively stable industry base which has been interviewed.

This year has proven more difficult than others to assemble the data. Companies are both busy responding to H2020 calls and other bid opportunities as well as suffering from survey fatigue. We are nearing the end of our data gathering period (end of March) and we still need responses. This year, the EC is carrying out its assessment of the early results of the Copernicus programme and it is vital for all companies that we are able to provide accurate statistics and trends.

We have 2 weeks to go. We should like to have a record number of companies responding and especially we should especially like to hear from both EARSC members and those which have completed it in previous years. The former because if you are a member of EARSC you have a strong interest that we can represent the industry in an authoritative way – based on sound data.

So this is a final plea to all European companies involved in some way in the delivery of EO data or geo-information services to complete our survey questionnaire. Even if you only manage the first few sections it will be of help to us and should only take you a few minutes. If you can carry on to the end we are even more grateful!

I am delighted to blog that after 27 years of existence, today EARSC has taken its own office for the very first time!!

A few years ago we did rent an office but it was never occupied except for a few times by directors passing through Brussels and never by the executive. We now have a working base where the team will be located every day and which will become our new home. It is an exciting day in what should be an exciting year!

I signed the lease this afternoon and we shall move in to our new home in the next few weeks. 1st march is our target, but we have some changes to make and we shall certainly be in there before the middle of the month. We share the offices with two other companies one of which 'Evenflow' we work very closely and they support us in a number of our projects.

We look forward to welcoming members to the new EARSC Office at 26, Rue de la Loi, (on the corner above Arts-Loi metro for those who know Brussels) and to further developments in the evolution of the Association in the next few months,

Last Thursday I was in Valencia at the BDVA Summit 2016. Florin Serban (BDVA/Terrasigna) had organised a session on big data and space which proved very popular. It was standing room only as we presented our views on how access to EO data, and particularly that coming from Copernicus, will change in the next few years.

ESA (Gunther Landgraf), DG GROW (Martina Sindelar), DG-RTD (Gilles Ollier) and I each gave presentations on our perspective for future actions linked to the development of EO exploitation platforms and links to Copernicus. I presented the MAEOS study we are conducting into an EO Services Marketplace and we had some discussions around how to link together all the various initiatives.

What really struck me is how much progress has been made to align all these efforts. It is as if a strategy is evolving bottom-up! - just the opposite if how it is supposed to develop. We see common elements coming into each of our perspectives including a basic 3 tier model for the overall picture and a much more detailed 5 tier model which describes the supply chain and now also recognises the research use of the data and information (see my presentation from the BDVA summit).

Mostly, this is being driven by the EC willingness to invest in the new Data and Information Service (DIAS) for Copernicus. We have argued for some years that action is needed to open-up the data for industrial use at the European level and to avoid that this became the privilege of a few Member States; DIAS will hopefully achieve this.

The intention to launch an ITT has now been announced on EMITS (the ESA tender system) and an information day has been set for 20^th December in Frascati. We had considered to hold a second event the same day to consult on the MAEOS study findings but after discussion consider that it will be better to prepare more carefully for the event we plan at the end of the study in late January. More news on this in due course.

But I am delighted to see the common picture emerging and being used by all parties from each of their own perspectives. Emmanuel Mondon is also playing an important role by acting as the sort of mediator; gathering information from all sources and discussing with each party how their work is fitting into the big picture. I still refer to it as the jigsaw puzzle but I am now becoming much more hopeful that the pieces can be put together logically to form a complete picture and not stay randomly distributed on the table as has been the case for so long.

I have spent most of last week in St Petersberg at the GEO plenary; it was a very useful meeting. The plenary was well attended (considered to be the best attended that has not been a Ministerial) and a new format with 3 discussion panel sessions rather than sets of statements from the principles made it far more interesting than previous ones I have sat in on!

I was invited to participate to a panel on the Commercial sector engagement with GEO. It was chaired by Steve Ramage, the new external relations manager in the GEO secretariat. It was Steve’s first week after his appointment so it was very much a baptism of fire!

The other panelists were Olga Gershenzon (RBC signals), Jeanne Foust (ESRI), Rob Postma (Airbus), Xu Liping (Beijing space view technology), Sanjay Kumar (Geospatial Media) who each provided very balanced and complementary views. Comments afterwards really welcomes the discussion that took place and appreciated the new plenary format. The modalities of private sector engagement were discussed and how this could provide benefits for all parties. A group is being set up under the GEO and private sector participation will be the next step forward.

It was the first time that the private sector had been invited to speak in front of the GEO delegates and represents a good step forward in the move to promote engagement. A dialogue is essential and this need was recognised as the main conclusion of the panel. As a global organisation this is not so easy to organise but as a representative body and a Participating Organisation to GEO, EARSC can play a strong role.

On a personal basis, it was the second time I had visited St Petersberg; the first time was 40 years ago when it was called Leningrad! There were a few more cars, more shops and more lit buildings but in general the city did not seem to have changed very much – reflecting its status as a UNESCO site. We had heavy snow for most of the time there but I did manage to get into the centre for one evening for a quick view and a beer! Coming from UK and Belgium where the slightest snowfall will stop all traffic, it was very impressive the way the traffic just kept on moving. We were all worried on Thursday to get to the airport for our flight, but the taxi-driver found ways around the jams and we got there in good time for a flight that also departed on time.

I write this blog-post from Kampala where I am attending the African Association for Remote Sensing of the Environment (AARSE) 2016 conference. This biennial conference brings together researchers and stakeholders from across the African continent. It is my first visit to Uganda and in fact my first visit to Africa! It seems incredible that for all the traveling that I have done over the years, I have not put foot on African soil before now.

This year, AARSE has organised a session devoted to the private sector following the survey of African companies which was completed earlier this year. For the survey, EARSC supported AARSE with the methodology that we use for our survey of the European industry. The results of the African survey can be found here.

After the plenary session where the survey was presented by Tsehaie Woldai and I presented EARSC and how the Association functions, we held a B2B meeting for African and European companies. In my presentation I explained what we do for the companies in Europe and gave a short history of EARSC as well as explaining the challenges that we face. It was intended to provide guidance for African companies seeking to set up their own “EARSC-like” organisation. The biggest challenge which they face is the large geographical scale which inhibits bringing companies together; but this is also an issue in Europe.

The B2B meeting proved very successful. Feedback afterwards was positive with companies from both continents appreciating the opportunity to meet face-to-face and the structured character of the meetings. We learned something about the importance (or difficulty?) of meeting the needs of large and small companies but overall the formula of a matchmaking event seemed to be largely the right one.

I have been pleased that we (EARSC) have been able to help facilitate discussion between African and European companies and to bring some of our experience (for example the methodology for the industry survey) to helping our African counterparts move forward towards a co-operative structure.

As many of you will know we are studying the possible conditions for establishing a Marketplace Alliance for EO Services (MAEOS). We have just about reached the half-way stage of the work. We have held an extensive consultation with the stakeholders and mapped this to possible functions and architecture. The results are looking good and have helped enormously to clarify the complex landscape in which we are working. We presented the outcome to the EARSC board last Tuesday (4th October).

The bottom line, I am delighted to report, is that the EARSC board has decided that the industry should move immediately towards establishing an EOMall which would be a completely separate legal entity to EARSC. The EOMall would operate a marketplace on behalf of those companies which choose to join and invest in the venture. At the same time, EARSC will define possible policy and governance conditions for companies working together under a lighter structure which will be the MAEOS.

The result is that every company will have a choice whether to join the close collaboration in the EOMall, work in a lighter co-operation under EARSC/MAEOS or stay outside both and operate independently. All companies will be able to remain in the EARSC network and benefit from the lobbying and information activities but those seeking closer co-operation will receive additional benefits.

We shall complete the MAEOS study early next year and plan a meeting in January to present the packages to industry in order that they can start to take decisions on the level of co-operation each one wishes to engage in. In the meantime, the interim results, including those from the stakeholder consultation analysis, will be presented on 25^th October 2016 at the EO Innovation Europe: Network of Platforms Architecture and Implementation - Stakeholder Consultation Workshop at ESRIN in Frascati. The registration is open under  the registration link

For more information on MAEOS / EOMall, please go here.

I am sure ;-) that most people reading this will be aware of the economic analyses which we have done regarding the benefits being derived by the use of Copernicus Sentinel data? The 3 case reports and a video can be found on our web-site (http://earsc.org/library/).

ESA now wish to extend this work to cover more cases and have issued an open tender for this to be carried out to which we are responding.

It is a large piece of work for EARSC to take on but with the backing of our members and various partners working with us, we believe that we can put together a convincing and outstanding proposal. This is highly unusual for the Association that we should be leading a bid in an open competition! I have a strict rule not to compete with members for work; we are here to support companies not to compete with them in any way.

My views on this are reflected in my last blog concerning our MAEOS study into the Marketplace. I do not consider that EARSC will set up an organisation which will compete with the industry; companies themselves will have to decide if they wish to work together towards what I see as a greater goal. We shall see what arises.

Our regular biennial industry survey is another example where it could be considered that we compete with market survey companies such as Euroconsult. It is not the case and Euroconsult also recognise that they are forward looking in their market studies whereas we are looking back at the recent past. These two approaches are quite complementary and Euroconsult and EARSC have shared results on several occasions to help each other. (Note, to be absolutely clear, we never ever share raw data or anything which breaks the confidence between EARSC and the companies which provide data for our survey. Neither do we receive anything confidential from Euroconsult).

So, are we not competing when it comes to the ESA tender looking at the Economic Benefits of Copernicus?

No, the original idea for this bottom-up approach came from EARSC and I am glad that ESA were willing to test it out. The methodology has been found to be being sound and ESA wish to take it further hence it is unsurprising that we should wish to continue the work which we have initiated. I consider that for both the industry survey and these economic studies, it is a fully legitimate role for EARSC to take on behalf of the industry. Both provide valuable data which helps us to promote the industry towards policy makers and (potential) users. Now we just need to make sure our proposal is a winning one!

As many of you will know, we are currently studying the possibility to establish a Marketplace for EO Services. Many of those responding are very clear that this should be left to market forces and I think we can be clear in return that this will be the case. Others have expressed concerns about compromising the neutrality of EARSC.

I have tried to be very careful with my words (although I will admit that this is sometimes difficult and it may be that some errors have crept through) to say that EARSC will enable this to happen if – and it is a big if – the industry want it. So it is not that EARSC will set up and operate a Marketplace but that EARSC will help the industry understand what is at stake and what can (or could) be done to help maintain competitiveness in the face of global competition. We shall publish results of our efforts early next year.

Personally, I think there are significant benefits to be obtained through a common effort and I believe that the industry can make it happen; but it will not be easy and may be quite disruptive. The on-line survey is showing interesting results which are consistent with our high-level view of what the Marketplace can be.

The goal of our architecture study as part of the MAEOS effort is to ensure that we have enough information to understand the impacts on the business planning and the legal issues both of which we shall be studying in the next phase of the work starting in September.

In parallel with our work, a separate consultation is taking place which; organised by ESA. This is quite complementary to what we are doing and anyone who has not responded should make sure that they do so before end of August. Unfortunately, the deadline has passed for applying for some funding to support this.

http://emits.sso.esa.int/emits-doc/ESRIN/RFI_EO/EO_Network_of_Platforms_Architecture_RFI_v1-0.pdf

This study goes into more depth and will help inform on the architecture design when the Marketplace should be set up. Gunther Landgraf, who commissioned the ESA study is planning a workshop to expose and discuss the results on 25^th October (in ESRIN). If we can, we shall provide feedback on our study and especially on the stakeholder consultation on this occasion. This will allow the maximum number of interested companies to be present for the exchange.

Good news last month as the Copernicus Committee approved the plan for DG GROW to establish a new service under the Copernicus programme. Once implemented, the Data and Information Access Service (CDIAS) will finally give industry easy and efficient access to the Sentinel data and Copernicus information and create a level playing field throughout Europe.

This is something which EARSC has been claiming for some years now on behalf of the European EO services industry. We have been concerned that industry had no real means to acquire the data that they wanted. The ESA science hub capacity is limited and open to all science and international users. Only those few companies participating to the supply of Copernicus services would be assured of high quality access. Some countries are investing in national facilities but this is hardly a solution for a European project.

DG GROW propose to procure parallel services from 3 suppliers. The 3 competition winners will be required to provide an equal access to the basic data and services whilst being encouraged to develop additional capabilities on top of the basic ones meeting DG GROW requirements. We are convinced that it can act as a stimulus for the industry and enable gaps in European capability to be filled. We really welcome this approach and are looking at how the Marketplace for EO services (MEOS) could help all companies exploit the public sector investment. More details can be found in our recent position paper "Creating a European Marketplace for EO Services"..

Part of this study is to look at how the marketplace can be sustainable as a business. We look at what investment is required to develop the platform(s) and the potential revenues for it to be a profitable operation. We aim to show a feasible business into which companies will be prepared to invest.

But there is still at least one concern. DG GROW seem to have decided to split the procurement into two parts; one supplier will be selected through a procurement by Eumetsat and 2 through ESA. Immediately splitting into 2 parts runs counter to our goal to have all the data easily accessible through one source - one platform. At best this means more duplication with data stored in more than one place, at worst it means putting in place access control, user recognition, maybe even billing systems between the two, separately procured platforms - pushing up platform costs.

From an industrial perspective it greatly weakens the investment case. Firstly, there are the additional costs and risks of responding to 2 distinct tenders (however close the requirements might be). Secondly, the need to manage transactions between the two platforms also means that business costs will rise. Finally, our arguments have been based on bringing all different types of data together so stimulating new innovative products and services. If the procurement is split, this will divide the data from the outset and greatly reduce the willingness to make other data available in the future.

Even worse could be the situation where Eumetsat claim to operate “their” platform so we have one operated by the public sector and two by the private sector. In this situation, would industry be able to invest at all?

I return quicker than expected to the subject of Brexit simply because everything is unfolding at high speed offering insights into what might or might not happen. Politics can sometimes be a waiting game and whilst emotions run high in a couple reflecting a deep sense of betrayal, time heals as they say and I still think this is the likely outcome here. But I am led to reflect further on what that outcome might be?

Today, UK is excluded from the council chamber leading to headlines of 28-1 or 27 leaders meeting in Brussels. Why? UK is still a full member of the EU and has not yet launched the famous article 50 to formally state an intention to withdraw. So why has UK been asked to not attend the meeting? (At least from what I can see the decision seems to be that of Council rather than UK saying it will not attend).

The referendum is purely an opinion and has no legal significance beyond that which the government of the day gives it. There still seems to be uncertainty as to whether the government or the parliament has the right to decide to notify the EU president of a formal application to leave (article 50) so surely it would be better to keep UK around the table; it may even be a legal obligation.

But feelings run high after a betrayal and that is the way that Brussels and the other capitals feel at the moment; so the UK is asked to stay away which is a decision probably welcomed by all ie a cooling off period. What next?

Like many, I am mostly concerned for the division in our society which has caused Brexit but which are now more firmly entrenched as a result and that a campaign based on pure hatred and lies can win over one based on facts. It is telling that whilst Remain tried to connect on social media with facts it was the emotional response of Leave which won over. If you want to listen to a good dissection of the campaign and consequences from a legal and constitutional perspective then the talk by Professor Michael Dougan is excellent.

I am troubled by the fact that whilst the 48% that voted to stay in are probably united in their view, the 52% which voted to leave did so for various reasons. For a large number it is about immigration, for others it is about sovereignty (not necessarily exclusive) and others it is simply a protest vote. So why should the 48% which hold one belief become subservient to the 52% who have many different beliefs? Even if we put all in one basket, it does not feel right that such an enormous change can be imposed by such a small majority. Of course this is democracy, but I start to wonder if there is not something much more profound happening and which the Brexit result is telling us?

We see that all countries are facing the same populist and nationalist pressures. There are those who embrace globalisation and the ability to work anywhere and those for whom this is a betrayal of national values. It is a new force growing out of individualism and rejecting the "establishment" even if everyone knows that a governing structure is necessary. How can UK, Europe and the world respond to such pressures? Are they so different to those represented by ISIS and others holding different social values based upon religious belief? Most importantly, how do we all and each navigate our way through the turbulent period which we enter?

That was quite a shock last Friday! I went to bed on the news that the polls were showing a 4% margin in favour of remain and when I opened the computer in the morning to see the result my first reaction was that it was a hoax! Someone had hacked into the Guardian and changed the headlines.

Then reality sank in and much of the morning was taken up exchanging news / messages with friends and children on what had happened. The joke that I had made the night before about “how I had voted Brexit to get rid of these difficult Brits” was suddenly not so funny as a few friends commented – although how they could think I have any political opinion in common with Farage and Johnson I found a bit disturbing.

So now we face the outcome; and what a strange situation it is. The adolescents have shown that they can act independently but now plead the parents to let them stay at home after all. But the house is changing hands and no one knows what to do. The lies and dishonesty of the Brexit campaign are coming home to roost. Already claims to use money saved for the NHS are being denied and that in fact immigration will not change much post Brexit. Many of the leavers would like to have another go because, maybe it is better inside the EU than outside, alone in a new and strange world. “We only voted leave because we were sure remain would win”.

What a mess. The official opposition is in complete disarray with a leader who refused to side with Cameron on a Remain platform even if he whispered “stay” to his party supporters.  But then many of them did not hear and those that did heard and were seduced by the louder cries of “leave”. With a possible general election to come Labour needs to get a new, charismatic and most importantly forward-looking leader quickly.

And the bottom line is that to leave, Britain must trigger article 50, but maybe no one wishes to do so? Cameron has said it is up to his successor. It will take some months to decide the succession and what a poisoned chalice it is. Whoever is responsible for the negotiation has a thankless task. Not much power and anger on each side that divorce proceedings have been started. Each side fighting over the assets of a political union but with no court to arbitrate the dispute.

So could it be possible the UK will not leave after all? Are there statesmen on each side capable of looking beyond the wreckage of last Thursday? Angela Merkel may have seen it as she has said there is no hurry. On the British side there is no relief in sight; but it is perhaps too soon after the betrayal of the governing party led by Cameron. New leadership is being sought. Could Boris now be the one to change sides again; because Boris likes to be loved and at the moment there is only hate for him. Once (if) he has entered number 10 could he find that maybe it would be better to stay in the EU? He certainly thought, early in the campaign, that a leave vote could lead to renegotiation? He has changed sides once, why not a second time; he is an intelligent man.

It is ironic that the vote which complained of a lack of democracy in Europe now needs a more democratic process to satisfy its fears of losing control. Because Europe does need to reform; Germany needs a UK ally to balance the views of southern Europe, Germany does not wish to be the sole dominating force and, in the next few years, France, Italy and Spain will all have big problems to solve within their own economies and with their own electorates.

So could it just be possible that as the dust settles, a new Europe emerges. Already, over 3 million voters in the UK have asked their leaders to try. The key is for all the Member States to start to acknowledge to their own people that it is not all “us” when it is a success and “Brussels” when it is a failure. They need to recognise that some try to go too fast and that a sounder political base will be needed. It will be extremely difficult and require courage and supreme diplomacy on each side. But divorces are messy affairs and rarely are all parties satisfied; children share the pain and reconciliation can be rewarding as well. After 43 years, maybe it is still worth a second go.

I'll try to reflect on consequences for the EO services sector in a (near) future post.