The EU is the bureaucratic equivalent of Apple: not all decisions need to make commercial or logical sense, but all must conform to an underlying "walled garden" mentality.
Boris Brexit bluff binds .eu domains to time-bending itinerary
Ongoing uncertainty about whether the UK will exit the European Union on October 31 – Halloween – has created some time-bending problems for owners of .eu domains. As we have previously noted, Brussels bureaucrats have repeatedly flip-flopped on what should happen to Brit-owned .eu domains after Brexit, forcing the company …
COMMENTS
-
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 11:13 GMT Paul Hampson 1
Its not that difficult, 2002 rules said that you could have an .eu domain if the legal person asking for it :
(a) a natural person who is a resident of a Member State;
(b) an undertaking that is established in the Union; or
(c) an organisation that is established in the Union, without prejudice to the application of national law.
This has changed to allow:
(i) a Union citizen, independently of their place of residence;
(ii) a natural person who is not a Union citizen and who is a resident of a Member State;
(iii) an undertaking that is established in the Union; or
(iv) an organisation that is established in the Union, without prejudice to the application of national law.
So basically, they have extended it so that you can have one even if you don't live in EU, as long as you are a citizen, with a 2-month grace period to clear up any missing information. Which is quite nice of them really, given that it the Brits that are being arsy and leaving.
BTW, the residence over citizenship principle was used during the referendum when many non-Brits who lived in the UK could vote, while British citizens who had lived abroad for more than 15 years couldn't.
-
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 10:08 GMT Stork
Re: Out of curiosity ...
There are some outfits here in Portugal using them, perhaps because.com was taken and.pt used to be quite restrictive (no subdomains), slow and expensive to get. At the moment the powers that be are pushing.com.pt, but it seems no-one really wants them.
We went for a.com and started building website.
I think the.eu policy is stupid,it seems designed to make them less attractive. But that is the Latin tradition that authorities shall meddle in as many details as possible.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 10:27 GMT Not also known as SC
Re: Out of curiosity ...
A friend and his wife uses one. She is from one of the EU27 nations and has never really felt at home in the UK despite living in the UK for at least thirty years. I don't think she can get one for her home nation, so the EU domain helps her maintain a bit more of a connection with her homeland.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 12:51 GMT Not also known as SC
Re: Out of curiosity ...
Interesting - two down votes (at the moment) for a non-political, factual statement about a real life use for the .eu domain. No explanations why!
Is it leave voters down voting just because I've expressed remain sentiments in other comments and I mentioned an EU citizen in a positive light?
Is it remain voters because I suggested that an EU citizen gets home sick and doesn't think Blighty is the greatest place on Earth?
Is it astrophysicists because I made a cock-up in a comment the other day about gravitational waves in a different article?
Will I ever find out...
-
Monday 7th October 2019 19:15 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: Out of curiosity ...
" two down votes ... No explanations why!"
I think it works like this. Somebody posts something. You post an irrefutable reply which contradicts it. OP can either mutter "oh shit, why did I post that?" and move on or get upset and resentful. OP's only recourse is to keep downvoting every post you make.
TL;DR Wear your downvotes with pride, you were right and somebody knows it.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 18:00 GMT jake
Re: Out of curiosity ...
"the EU domain helps her maintain a bit more of a connection with her homeland."
The logic is impeccable.
(Hopefully everybody's sarcasm detector is functional.)
Note to !AKA SC, perhaps suggest she carry a small stone from her birth-place in her pocket? It works for a Japanese friend of mine, and is somewhat less tenuous.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 12:09 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Out of curiosity ...
I think I posted this the last time the subject came up? We've got 14 contacts from 9 companies with .eu domains on our database of 9,300 contacts from 4,000 companies. We're in the construction (mostly water) industry and totally UK based.
Mostly it seems to be small companies, where I guess they couldn't get the .co.uk or .com
For comparison we've got:
14 x .eu
11 x .biz
211 x .uk.com
2 x .plumbing
43 x .org.uk
17 x .org
3,100 x .com
5,500 x .co.uk
ooh and 2 x .london - not seen those before.
-
-
Friday 11th October 2019 15:48 GMT jake
Re: Out of curiosity ...
Have you eyeballed xe.com, specifically https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/ ? I've been using it since the early '90s. Works well, is fast, is not a Yank site (if you care), plays well with ad blockers ... what's not to like? Likewise the rather dangerously named x-rates.com ...
Not suggesting your preferred site is crap, just offering a second (third, ish) alternative.
Thanks for all the input, all y'all. As I said I was just curious, and not trolling.
This round's on me ... cellar temperature, of course.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 06:48 GMT thames
If the EU insist that UK holders of ".eu" domains have to give them up, the obvious solution would be to say that this rule takes effect a year or two after the UK has actually left the EU. At that point the status of the UK should be clear and domain owners will have had time to sort out an alternative.
Insisting that UK registered ".eu" domains must cease to exist right on the dot of the official Brexit date introduces a lot of problems for everyone involved for no obvious rational reason and seems motivated purely out of spite.
I don't live in the UK, or anywhere in the EU for that matter, and don't have any stake in the game. However, I suspect that this sort of political gamesmanship by EURid is not exactly doing much to enhance the reputation of the EU, which already suffers from a reputation for being a regulatory morass which is a nightmare for outsiders attempting to trade with it to navigate.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 07:42 GMT Rich 11
the obvious solution would be to say that this rule takes effect a year or two after the UK has actually left the EU.
Welcome to the political shenanigans over Deal / No Deal Brexit. There's a reason it's not going well, and claiming something is obvious doesn't come into it. It's a little more complicated than that.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 13:31 GMT John Brown (no body)
"the obvious solution would be to say that this rule takes effect a year or two after the UK has actually left the EU."
How long is it since EURid first said that .eu domains must be registered to an EU address? It's 3 years and 3 months since the vote to leave, so I'd suggest that anyone in the UK affected should have been planning for this eventuality for quite some time by now.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 14:07 GMT Pascal Monett
I agree completely. There is absolutely no reason that an .eu site should be shut down on the very day Brexit happens. After all, every .eu site had an authentic EU address when applying for the domain name, so it is entirely unjustified to not leave a bit of time to those businesses to adapt.
On the other hand, those businesses have had well nigh two years to adapt now, so it seems also a tad excessive to be running around like headless chickens simply because - gasp - there may only be a few weeks left !
In any case, it seems that UK businesses are capable of just as much foresight as UK government.
Not a good sign.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 19:27 GMT Doctor Syntax
"In any case, it seems that UK businesses are capable of just as much foresight as UK government."
Well, they can't have more foresight. They have to fit in with what actually happens and as HMG has spent several years not knowing that nobody else can know either. Making provision for 4 different outcomes is expensive with no guarantee as to whether something completely different will happen. As an example AFAIK the Irish farming industry still doesn't know if it will have to spend a few million on a new meat processing plant in the north.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 14:57 GMT John Sager
I don't think it's spite, but I could be convinced by a credible argument. I think it's more driven by the way the totally committed EUers see themselves and the EU. That if you aren't in the EU, then what possible reason would you have for wanting a .eu domain, or retaining it when you leave? Also, it's perfectly obvious that they don't grok the Internet, or even if they have a vague understanding, then the EU project and all that that means to them is so much more important.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 20:15 GMT heyrick
more driven by the way the totally committed EUers see themselves and the EU
I'm a committed EUer (to the point where I don't ever open to return to England), and I really don't give a toss who has, or doesn't have, a .eu domain. It's a name that carries an identity. And there is nothing wrong with having a European identity even after Brexit. Taking purely the referendum voters, there were 48.something% who supported the EU. Something like 16 million people who were pro EU, and of them likely a couple of million with European heritage.
If the EU really wants to bleat about European values, they might consider exactly what values they are promoting. Slamming the door out of childish spite? That's hardly a value to uphold, and neither is complete denial that anybody in UK might want or feel enough of a connection to Europe to hold an eu domain name after Brexit has happened.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 23:13 GMT jake
Re: more driven by the way the totally committed EUers see themselves and the EU
"And there is nothing wrong with having a European identity"
Of course there is! It is simply not possible. Consider this dirty little secret: Not a single one of the individual countries that make up the EU have a single, unified identity. Some are, in fact, quite loudly fighting internally for all the world to see. In the face of all this very real strife in supposed unified countries, how the fuck do you expect to have a unified Europe with a single identity?
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 00:28 GMT Lars
Re: more driven by the way the totally committed EUers see themselveyys and the EU
"how the fuck do you expect to have a unified Europe with a single identity?".
Nobody has asked for that, nobody wants that, nobody expects that, but it's possible to agree on common rules and common aims of mutual interest and advantages without creating a single identity, which indeed is not possible or in anybody's interest.
The success of the EU is based on the fact that nobody likes to be run by any other country, be it the Germans, the French or the British. The British problem is that they cannot accept that they cannot run it alone and being just a part of it.
British industry and the education system have no such problems.
-
-
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 03:11 GMT gnarlymarley
Insisting that UK registered ".eu" domains must cease to exist right on the dot of the official Brexit date introduces a lot of problems for everyone involved for no obvious rational reason and seems motivated purely out of spite.
One of which the poor EURid tech is going to have to work 24 hours a day around brexit just so they can trigger the database update. If the EU provided some time, then they could "expire" all the records on a normal business schedule and not require someone who is a EU citizen to work overtime.
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 03:59 GMT james 68
To me the obvious solution is that the UK is (like it or not) Part of the European continent even if it leaves the union and is therefore entitled to .eu domains (for an understanding of EUrope as opposed to European Union), of course that could change if all the vote leave folks get their oars out and start furiously paddling the UK towards open ocean whilst yelling "Brexit means Brexit!!"
Personally I couldn't give a toss outside of the bemusement and amusement factors, I saw this shit show coming several years ago and buggered of to live in Japan with both a UK and an Irish passport in hand.
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 07:11 GMT itzman
Re: Brexit
On the contrary it should have been leave with no deal or stay.
Then we would be able to get on with life the day after the referendum and all te negotiations could have been done after leaving...wit a series of letter of intent in place in the two year period to sort out tit for tat arrangements, like you can fly in my airspace if I can fly in yours, and I wont hold your trucks up at Dover if you don't hold mine up at |Calais.
If the EU had been prepared to act like adults. that would have been it.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 07:54 GMT Phil O'Sophical
Re: Brexit
before trying to negotiate new deals from an awful position.
Bad though that would be, it would still be easier than trying to negotiate new deals once locked into a bad deal as the price for leaving. We can only hope that both sides will recognise that some compromise for a deal that works for both sides can be achieved, but I have little hope that the more intransigent of the EU negotiators will be open to that.
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 18:58 GMT jake
Re: Good luck with that
Anybody who didn't understand your commentardary either doesn't speak English very well, or is somebody who enjoys pretending to be ever so superior to the rest of us. Me, I just like to find humo(u)r in the absurdities of modern life. Spelling is useful, but I'd rather sit a spell and have a homebrew. This round's on me.
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:44 GMT theOtherJT
Re: Good luck with that
Thats literally what MEPs are for. If britain would stop electing self serving cock pieces like farage who will happily take EU money but not actually do their job of representing the interests of the British people in the european parliament, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 11:49 GMT Steve Todd
Re: Good luck with that
You seem not to understand that :
1) The British Parliament has to choose how to implement EU law. They could, for example, have legislated that EU nationals remaining in the country beyond three months without work, needed to prove they were able to support themselves else return to their home country.
2) The ECJ (European Court of Justice) isn’t part of the EU and is something we signed up for separately.
3) The European Convention on Human Rights (re the above) was something that was created by British lawyers after the Second World War.
4) No one has actually pointed to a specific European law and explained what it is that is wrong with it.
5) Negotiating new trade deals independent of the EU is likely to take years if not decades. WTO terms are not a good place to be in (which has been stated by senior members of the WTO)
6) There is no way that not being a member of the single market does not break the Good Friday agreement, which is an international treaty we have signed up for.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 13:03 GMT codejunky
Re: Good luck with that
@Steve Todd
"1) The British Parliament has to choose how to implement EU law."
We leave and we dont have to implement EU law.
"4) No one has actually pointed to a specific European law and explained what it is that is wrong with it."
This has been done a few times. The laws fining someone for not littering. The banana law was a good one because some remainers honestly didnt believe it existed it was so stupid. Apparently the EU doesnt believe there is any evidence water fights dehydration and so water cannot be advertised so. Diabetics banned from driving (although the law is ignored). And of course various countries ignore various EU laws because they are pretty dumb. France and labelling fish comes to mind.
"5) Negotiating new trade deals independent of the EU is likely to take years"
Except those already queued. And being able to make said deals faster than the EU can make them and making them for this country instead of the protectionism of 27 others.
"6) There is no way that not being a member of the single market does not break the Good Friday agreement, which is an international treaty we have signed up for."
I have yet to see anyone point to where the GFA states the UK has been sold to the EU. So we do not belong to the EU and are free to leave. The agreement has 2 sides so its up to Ireland to pressure the EU into being realistic. The UK can unilaterally choose what to do with its own borders and same for the EU.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 13:44 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: Good luck with that
"Except those already queued. And being able to make said deals faster than the EU can make them and making them for this country instead of the protectionism of 27 others."
Those deals queued up are letters of intent to agree the same terms with the UK that those countries currently have with the EU. Most are with very small economies and some are time limited. Good luck with getting any sort of fair or reasonable deal with Trump too! He's not a diplomat with an eye on the long term. He's a businessman with an eye on a quick "win" he can crow about.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 16:19 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: Good luck with that
The banana law was a good one because some remainers honestly didnt believe it existed it was so stupid.
Conversely, some leavers are so disingenuous that they still pretend that such a law exists, despite the fact that it is just about the most famous and well known example of a "Euromyth", based very loosely on teh (sensible) directive that you can't pass off grade 2 produce as grade 1 produce (the example given is that of a misshapen banana being passed off as not misshapen).
The fact that you know this has been debunked repeatedly, yet still continue to brazenly lie about it speaks volumes about your own honesty and integrity.
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 10:51 GMT codejunky
Re: Good luck with that
@Loyal Commenter
"Conversely, some leavers are so disingenuous"
So the law is real but leavers are disingenuous to point out the law is real. Making a criminal law of a fine and/or jail time for incorrectly bent banana. But remoaners cry at the fact?
"The fact that you know this has been debunked repeatedly"
Yup, I debunk the lie many times when remainers believe such a law does not exist.
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 17:15 GMT Dr_N
Re: Good luck with that
codejunk> Yup, I debunk the lie many times when remainers believe such a law does not exist.
Hang on a minute. Wasn't it Tim Worstall who came up with the bollocks about the bendy banana myth not being a myth?
Hmmmmmm. So either you are coming out the closet as Tim Worstall, so-to-speak, or you are a liar?
-
Wednesday 9th October 2019 07:02 GMT Tim Worstal
Re: Good luck with that
He's not Tim Worstall, no, but I am.
Bendy bananas.
It is actually true that the law stated that Class I bananas for direct human consumption must be free of excessive curvature. Breaching this was a criminal offence punishable by up to 6 months in jail and or a £5,000 fine.
That's not a myth at all.
The EU's defence of this was as follows. There exist industry standards as to what is Class I,Class II and so on. There are industry standards on all sorts of things, obviously enough. I even wrote one myself, the standardised scandium contract for the Minor Metals Traders Association.
Some part of the UN collects all those from the food industry into the Codex Alimentarus. This is entirely sensible. People trying to get into the industry can go look the standards up. Great.
The EU then went that one step further. They said that the industry standards must become, in detail, law. This is very stupid indeed.
Using the common law approach would be sensible. "If you say you're Class I 'nananananas and you're not then that's lying in trade which is an offence" and why not?
Saying that, "in the law, here's the entire and total definition currently used by industry and it's a criminal offence to do anything different" is stupid. Say people want to start eating not Cavendish but some or other of the hundreds of types of 'nanas? Which have more curvature? Say someone even just thinks about importing some to see? It's now necessary to go change the law in 28 countries plus a number of devolved administrations. Yes, the law must both be in Welsh and passed by the Senned.
What have we just done therefore? We set in stone the regulatory system as it was when written. We've entirely - because changing the law in 28 countries just to try an experiment and see if there's demand isn't going to work - closed off any adaptations, changes, moderations in those regulations.
The common law approach - if you say you meet Codex Alimentarus standards then you should - means that experimentation, growth, etc are possible. Because they can be changed just the once. Worth recalling that at some point, as a clone, the Cavendish is going to go the way of the Gros Michel and we'll all be eating some other cultivar.
The transposition of industry standards, in detail, into law entirely removes any adaptability. And we live in a world of changing tastes, changing technologies, therefore adaptability is the one thing that we must have.
Bendy bananas is actually a perfect example of the problem with EU regulation. It really is true that bendy bananas were a criminal offence. Then there's the claims from the EU that oh no they weren't. Followed by their complete incomprehension of the actual problem. We shouldn't have detailed, written, rules and laws at this level of detail. We need to regulate at a higher level of abstraction because we must have more adaptability in those details than using the legal system allows.
As I say, the perfect example of EU regulation. And why we must leave of course. Having the anal retentives writing the detailed rules which govern an economy of 500 million people just doesn't work over time. Therefore we shouldn't do that. The EU does and always will - Ceterum Censeo Unionem Europeam Esse Delendam.
-
Wednesday 9th October 2019 14:07 GMT Dr_N
Re: Good luck with that
Thanks for the input, Tim.
So no actual "EU law" about straight bananas then? Just the UK's interpretation/implemenation of EU food regulations and standards has created a possible/hypothetical problem in the UK?
(No issue elsewhere in the EU.)
How strange. Well I guess Brexit'll sort all that.
Trebles all round!!!
-
Wednesday 9th October 2019 14:46 GMT Tim Worstal
Re: Good luck with that
No, EU law applies across the EU. It's just that the UK - with a small assist from Ireland - is the only common law jurisdiction. Therefore the stupidity of this sort of detailed legislative regulation is more obvious to us than to those in the generally Roman system on the continent.
Apart from anything else we generally believe that anything important enough to be actual law must be obeyed. A charmingly civilised idea but not one that stands up to centuries of fonctionnaires.
-
-
-
Wednesday 9th October 2019 13:33 GMT codejunky
Re: Good luck with that
@Dr_N
"Hang on a minute. Wasn't it Tim Worstall who came up with the bollocks about the bendy banana myth not being a myth?"
How do you call bollox the proving true what remainers believed to be myth?
"Hmmmmmm. So either you are coming out the closet as Tim Worstall, so-to-speak, or you are a liar?"
I am not as well informed as Tim but do appreciate his writing. As my pet troll I assumed you would know that.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 10:53 GMT codejunky
Re: Good luck with that
@Stoneshop
"You leave and still have to conform to EU regulations when wanting to trade with the EU."
Well said. Just as we conform to the standards of any country we trade with. But we dont need to inflict those regulations on the domestic market only on items we trade with other countries. So domestically we wont be limited by EU rules but what we ship them will have to meet their rules.
As it has been throughout the history of trade and continues to be.
-
-
Wednesday 9th October 2019 06:44 GMT Paul Hampson 1
Re: Good luck with that
I think you are confusing what you believe with what is actually real (see father for a graphic explanation):
1)Banana law ( (EC) No. 2257/94) does not ban bendy bananas only stops shops being able to class them as "premium" and charging accordingly.
2)The water and dehydration issue: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.1982 This is not a ban rather a decision that water seller cannot quote the reduction of a "disease risk" under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 since dehydration is not a disease rather a condition. Consequently "regular consumption of water" will not reduce the chances of becoming dehydrated , since a) define regular (daily? what amount?) b) dehydration is a symptom caused by other factors such as environment, what else you have indigested etc. Would a bottle of water stop dehydration if you spent the daya in a desert or a night drinking 2 bottles of whiskey. The answer is no.
3)Diabetes and driving. This was a regulation across Europe of things already being done in the member states and only stopped those who had dibilitating attacks in previous 12 months form driving. Similar to the ban on epileptics. This was not on all diabetices, and in some cases diabetics who were banned from driving (such as diabetics wanting to drive an HGV) could now get licenses (according to DiabetesUK.org) if their doctors would sign of on the type of diabetes and the last attack.
Please don't read a headline in the Telegraph and believe it is the whole story. There are intelligent people working in the EU who create rules only when they are asked by the member states.
-
Wednesday 9th October 2019 13:27 GMT codejunky
Re: Good luck with that
@Paul Hampson 1
1) See tims reply (Btw nice to see you on here Tim)
2) So a fact cannot be stated because it is true but not under the stupidity of EU law?
3) Even EU supporter Cameron couldnt find the relationship between diabetes and driving with the single market. Almost as though this is some kind of federal law to pass to member states.
"There are intelligent people working in the EU who create rules only when they are asked by the member states."
And what about the rest of them?
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 13:20 GMT Cederic
Re: Good luck with that
I too fail to understand your points. Specifically
1 - One reason to leave is to prevent British MPs claiming, "The EU forced this on us." They'll have to accept responsibility for their own idiocy in future. But you fail to explain why David Cameron felt he needed the EU to change in order to implement the policies he advocated the UK should be allowed to have. The EU, if you recall, told him to fuck off, something switched many people towards voting against EU membership.
2 - The ECJ is part of the EU. I believe you mean that the ECHR isn't part of the EU.
3 - I strongly suspect that many people wish to leave the EU and still remain signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights, subject to rulings from the European Court of Human Rights. I'm not however sure why you bring up this matter in this discussion.
4 - All British laws are European laws. My understanding (which may well be wrong) is that the EU doesn't make laws, it agrees regulations which are implemented as national laws. I would however like to highlight the Lisbon Treaty as something so horribly wrong that Blair didn't dare allow the British people the promised referendum whether to accept it.
5 - WTO terms seem perfectly adequate for the UK's trade with the US, so why not Europe too? I fear WTO terms are being terribly misrepresented. It is also very quick and easy to agree key elements of trade (e.g. on medicines, agricultural products on the island of Ireland and security information) without needing a long winded and full blown free trade agreement.
6 - Could you please articulate why you disagree with multiple lawyers on this matter? It would be lovely if you could also explain why the Good Friday Agreement couldn't, if required, be changed to accommodate any minor incompatibility (that nonetheless doesn't appear to exist), given it's already been changed since originally signed.
Maybe I just don't understand anything.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 17:42 GMT Mike007
Re: Good luck with that
4) No one has actually pointed to a specific European law and explained what it is that is wrong with it.
The cookie consent law. It is annoying.
Not as annoying as losing my rights as an EU citizen, but it is a specific EU regulation that I am able to point to and explain what is wrong with it!
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 16:13 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: Good luck with that
The British people can change UK law via Parliament. We cannot change EU law.
*sigh* - the same old bollocks, yet again.
The EU makes regulations, which are voted on by democratically elected MEPs, including our own (we actually have one of the highest number of MEPs of any EU nation).
Regulations are then brought into national law by being passed as acts by our parliament (which is sovereign). The final say lies with our parliament, and there's nothing stopping them from voting down any law that implements EU regulations. Becuase, you know, parliament is soveriegn despite all the nonsense the likes of Nigel Fartage like to bleat to credulous idiots.
It might be why you voted to leave. I know people who voted to leave for lots of different reasons (and incidentally the ones I know did vote to leave would now mostly vote to remain instead). My point here is that you don't speak for 16M or so people (and neither do I).
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 12:08 GMT Jamie Jones
Re: Brexit
'On the contrary it should have been leave with no deal or stay.
Of course, then the result would have been a unanimous "remain", because that's not what the brexitters were asking for at the time: (Proof in the links)
Boris Johnson said we'd stay in the single-market.
As did Farage, and many others..
As did MEP Dan Hannan: "Nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market"
Andrea Leadsom said we will have the same access to the single market.
Boris Johnson: "There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal"
Then we would be able to get on with life the day after the referendum and all te negotiations could have been done after leaving...wit a series of letter of intent in place in the two year period to sort out tit for tat arrangements, like you can fly in my airspace if I can fly in yours, and I wont hold your trucks up at Dover if you don't hold mine up at |Calais.
There is no "2 year leaving period" with no deal. And unfortunately, your much needed unicorns don't exist either.
If the EU had been prepared to act like adults. that would have been it."
LOL. Seriously?The EU has been completely professional. Our lot have been the embarrassing laughing stock of the world.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 13:35 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: Brexit
"On the contrary it should have been leave with no deal or stay."
In that case, remain would have won. There was almost no mention of a No Deal Brexit in the campaign and on the few occasions the question was put to the leave campaign leaders, the option was pooh poohed as extremely unlikely. Even by the Boris!
Many Leave voters were seduced by the "easy deal" they were told we would get with the EU.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 16:06 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: Brexit
On the contrary it should have been leave with no deal or stay
Indeed, then when everyone knew what they were actually voting for, rather than all the various and conflicting promises, they wouldn't have voted to leave at all, and we wouldn't have had to deal with this whole sorry mess.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:04 GMT nematoad
Re: Brexit
"Have a maximum 15 years withdrawl period"
Well it may not be called a withdrawal period but leaving the EU is not the end of the process, it is just the start. When/if we leave there will have to be talks on a new set of trade deals and that is not going to be easy. If I recall correctly the treaty between Canada and the EU the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) took over seven years to negotiate, so a new EU UK trade agreement won't be signed any time soon.
So, your statement about fifteen years may be a bit pessimistic but not by much.
Funny how Johnson, Farage and co don't mention that in their demands for a "clean break."
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 12:43 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Brexit
Well actually it can't be anything other than leaving in 2 years. Because Article 50 of the Treaty states that is the time available to negotiated a withdrawal agreement taking into account the future relationship.
Obviously that time can be changed by unanimous agreement of all the member states - but not by the UK government alone, so couldn't be offered as choice in a referendum.
Similarly the reason for the confusion about whether the UK government will get an extension - complained about in the article - is that Parliament has legislated and therefore probably forced the government to ask for an extension, but that doesn't actually guarantee it gets one. That has to be agreed unanimously by all members. Which they may refuse to do, or only do with conditions.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 07:07 GMT A.P. Veening
Ah, now it all makes sen...wtf?
Ah, now it all makes sen...wtf?
Since then things have only got more confusing. But as of the time of writing - late UK time on Friday October 4 - we are in a mind-bending standoff where the UK Parliament has passed a law requiring the prime minister/government to extend the Brexit date to January 2020 if he is unable to reach a deal before October 31.
The UK government/prime minister has formally said he will respect that law in documents filed in court while at the same time saying in public that he will not and Britain will leave without a deal on Halloween.
There is a very simple answer to this apparent contradiction. Boris Johnson (or whoever succeeds him as PM before it becomes necessary) will have to request that extension in case of a no deal. However, Boris Johnson also already knows this request will be denied, thus making it possible to keep that second promise of a Brexit by Halloween.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 08:11 GMT Jimmy2Cows
Re: Ah, now it all makes sen...wtf?
Possibly. Or, he intends to obey the letter of the law, i.e. request an extension.
IANAL but does the Benn Law actually compel Borris to actually accept an extension, should EU grant one? Or does it just say he must request one? In law the two are not the same.
That fits with the "We'll obey the law and will leave on Halloween" narrative.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 08:50 GMT Dave Schofield
Re: Ah, now it all makes sen...wtf?
>IANAL but does the Benn Law actually compel Borris to actually accept an extension, should EU grant one? Or does it just say he must request one? In law the two are not the same.
The Benn Act means that he has to take any extension to Parliament for MPs to vote on accepting it.
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 07:09 GMT Danny 2
Jennifer Arcuri, Tech Innovator
Boris' girl is on GMTV just now, the first time I've ever seen Piers Morgan seem smart by comparison. None of her companies has ever made a profit. Her sole tech claim is she ran the first ever Google Hangout with Boris Johnson on it. She refuses to say if she shagged him. Eight staff in the UK.
Dishonest, narcissistic, corrupt, ugly, blond, and now he's being exposed by Jennifer.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 07:19 GMT Danny 2
Re: Jennifer Arcuri, Tech Innovator
The fact she has earned hundreds of thousands of pounds of government grants, and inclusion on at least four government foreign trade trips, may annoy certain actual IT folk, even if they are pro-Brexit.
It is your lack of outrage that seems disingenuous. I mean, whose leg do I have to shag to get a Martini around here?
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 18:31 GMT jake
Re: Jennifer Arcuri, Tech Innovator
I rather suspect that my 10 detractors (as of this writing) might be rather surprised to learn that over here in California we don't give a shit about your PM's "affairs of state". Really. Such things aren't important enough to make our News broadcast's useless trivia time filler, and we certainly aren't watching yours. For the record, I had really never heard of her. Sadly, it didn't stay that way.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:58 GMT SVV
Re: Jennifer Arcuri, Tech Innovator
More info emerging now : she got a total of £127,000 in grants and taken on trade missions despite being a 27 year old student with no track record. Despite this being taxpayer's money, which is everyone's business, she says thet her relationship with Johnson is nobody else's business.
And even better : She applied for the £100K a year job as CEO of publicly funded Tech City, the East London hipster tech startup shack, and who do you think wrote her a reference? Yep, Boris Johnson.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 14:39 GMT Fruit and Nutcase
Re: Jennifer Arcuri, Tech Innovator
“Probably the worst scholar Eton ever sent us – a buffoon and an idler,”
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 07:52 GMT Danny 2
Re: Yes EU Minister
Oui, Ministre.
Each nation gets to nominate a single language as an official EU language, and only the UK chose English. The Republic of Ireland chose Irish Gaelic. If and when the UK leaves then English will no longer be an official EU language, despite it being the lingua franca of the EU.
Yes, Minister was remade in India and Turkey but never in Europe. Fawlty Towers (which is much more akin to Brexit imo) was a success throughout Europe, although Manuel in Spain was redubbed into a stupid Italian waiter.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:05 GMT Danny 2
Re: Yes EU Minister
"Malta is an EU member, and also listed English as it's official language."
According to this the Maltese chose Maltese. They were able to opt for English to be their secondary language, just like the Irish did, only because the UK had already chosen it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_European_Union#Official_EU_languages
You English folk missed a trick. Just after Shakespeare you should have copyrighted the English language. Although obviously you'd have faced lawsuits for all the 'borrowed' words.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 08:54 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Yes EU Minister
>Each nation gets to nominate a single language as an official EU language, and only the UK chose English. The Republic of Ireland chose Irish Gaelic. If and when the UK leaves then English will no longer be an official EU language, despite it being the lingua franca of the EU.
This is even funnier when you realise that *by law*, the only official language in the UK is Welsh. The other 13 official languages in the UK are de facto languages and not specified anywhere in law.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 12:56 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Yes EU Minister
Do you not remember the euro-sausage?
Hacker needed a quick burst of popularity in order to polish his campaign to be Prime Minister. Sir Humphrey gave him the blackmail material to knock out the two main candidates and then they talked up the imminent new EU regs that would ban all the disgusting barely meat British sausages - only to then save the day at the last minute with a compromise deal to allow them.
I'm sure I remembe reading about a real campaign (in the 90s?) at EU level to do something similar about chocolate. Don't think it got that far though. Given that Cadbury's is barely 20% cocoa and a similar amount of milk, so is basically a pressed bar of sugar with milk and chocolate flavouring - some of our most poplular choccies would have fallen foul of this. I have some sympathy, given the much cheaper (and much nicer) choccie you can pick up the other side of the Channel. Even just the supermarket own brand stuff in Belgium was similar or better quality than Thorntons, without the premium price. Aldi have some top-quality cheapy Germany choccies - I think their brand being Moser Roth. 70% cocoa dark bars with Sour Cherry and chilli. Yum!
-
Monday 7th October 2019 15:49 GMT Dave559
Chocolate
The EU, understandably, wanted a clear legal definition of the quality of products that could be called chocolate. For milk chocolate, there must be not less than 30% cocoa content. The kind of mediocre low-cocoa, high-milk chocolate products very common in the UK (and Ireland) should be referred to as "family milk chocolate" elsewhere. Other vegetable fats are pemitted, but must be clearly labelled.
Source: Directive 2000/36/EC
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 08:39 GMT don't you hate it when you lose your account
Re: GFA?
Cannot see the EU making such a disastrous compromise, would destroy their credibility and cause so many problems. And it is the law, a law that stopped so much suffering. If you didn't grow up and was affected by that war (don't call it the troubles) you have no right to comment
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 10:33 GMT don't you hate it when you lose your account
Re: GFA?
Called please tell me why you disagree so we can have a discourse about it. An exchange of ideas. An argument where the facts can be laid out and a logical conclusion decided upon. Or we can carry on shouting with no one listening. Personally I prefer the former, if you don't want to listen, is it because you don't want to know, or because you are not willing to defend your logic
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 08:54 GMT werdsmith
Re: GFA?
Our rights are not determined by our proximity to whatever the right is about.
You have the right to ignore comment from anyone that you don't feel is worthy, but everyone has a right to comment on whatever they like.
edit: I don't use the upvote/downvote buttons because I am older than 12.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:00 GMT James 51
Re: GFA?
Actually, they are. People born in the Northern Ireland have rights under the GFA that people born in the rest of the UK do not automatically get i.e. the right to an Irish passport.
edit:Because the post I responded to was edited this doesn't make sense anymore. Orginally, it was about rights not being determined by brithright/location.
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:40 GMT Danny 2
Re: GFA?
"The Irish government could still honour their side of the GFA re passports unilaterally after Brexit is completed."
This is where it gets 'tangled up in blue'. Long before the GFA and the EEC, Irish and British folk had the right to travel passport free in both states. Most of these mutual agreements date back to 1928.
I flew from Edinburgh to Dublin and lived and worked there for a year on my British driving licence, no passport, and I could have stayed there still if I'd wanted - as can Irish folk in the UK. The Republic and the UK were a no borders area predating the EU by many decades.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 11:05 GMT Mage
Re: Free Travel Area
Free Travel Area for people since 1920s: True.
But there WAS a border. Goods and Services. Even your own test gear needed a Carnet.
Even the trains stopped for customs checks at one stage.
Also true that the Irish Pound was really Sterling till 1978, with parity ending 30th March 1979.
Joining the Common Market in 1973 was the beginning of the end, but a Carnet was still needed in 1978 at least. It was only the GFA that finally removed the physical border.
The GFA only worked because UK and Ireland were both in the CM/EEC/EU. It's an international treaty between Ireland and UK that was produced with the help of some Americans.
The Leave side ignored the GFA, Scotland and NI and lied about EU and what was involved. The Article 50 was largely created at UK insistence and content decided by them. UK signed that off. The A50 sets out how a country leaves. The only negotiating aspect is the bill for future liabilities. Thus the Withdrawal agreement only has aspirations about future relationship. Nothing binding.
Ireland is an EU member, thus the border between NI (part of UK) and Ireland is a UK - EU border and ALSO covered by the GFA agreement, an international treaty. The Leave side lied about how leave would work and BOTH sides ignored N.I.
A no-deal makes UK a breaker of multiple international treaties, all of which were freely entered.
The Squaring of the Circle (Options):
1) Cancelling the A50 invocation due to Referendum being invalid. The Swiss do this.
2) N.I. remains in EU and part of UK. Complicated but legally possible. See Denmark & Greenland.
3) N.I. leaves UK and is either independent in EU, or federated* with Ireland or becomes part of Ireland.
No other option is long term. The May agreement was an EU compromise intended to be temporary. No-one in EU wanted the entire UK Backstop (UK's proposal). Even the original proposal by EU of N.I. only backstop was supposed to be temporary till something better happened.
The current UK proposal creates TWO borders for N.I. Everyone apart from DUP claims it's worse than no deal. Also Arlene Foster left Unionists to join DUP because she hated GFA. The DUP are a minority party, less than 30% of those that vote. They never agreed with GFA.
Cameron created this mess and had the cheek to resign straight after the result.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 14:41 GMT SundogUK
Re: Free Travel Area
A nation can withdraw from any and all international treaties they are party to, if they no longer serve their purpose. Quite obviously the GFA doesn't. The UK and the Unionists in NI are not going to kick off and start killing people if that happens, so we know very well who would be responsible if violence does return.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 11:15 GMT Mage
Re: till honour their side of the GFA re passports
The Irish citizenship requirements (which for people outside NI are hardly affected by GFA) are not at all affected by a legal Brexit or a "no deal" Brexit.
The Irish citizenship requirements for people in N.I. due to GFA are not at all affected by a legal Brexit or a "no deal" Brexit.
If you can prove Irish citizenship, you can get a passport.
Most N.I. people only need a birth cert to prove citizenship and if native N.I. people they are already Irish. Contrary to what Home Office claims N.I. people do not explicitly have to fill in a form and pay a fee to revoke UK citizenship.
The GFA agreement is about having Irish, British or both Identities as the persons there wish. The GFA and the EU are primarily peace treaties and secondarily about economics. Irish, N.I., Scottish & Welsh people understand about being European. Some in Westminster even on "Remain" side are only interested in economic benefits, not peace and the idea of dual local National and wider European identity.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 12:10 GMT Phil O'Sophical
Re: till honour their side of the GFA re passports
the E.U. is largely about peace.
The best way to have peace is for everyone to choose to work together for their common good, while retaining their individual identities and goals. The Common Market was an excellent example of that. The EU's model is based on centralised control and goals, which will always fail. The more politicians try to legislate for peace through control, the more people will push back. Eventually it backfires, creating division and extremism, which is exactly what we're seeing across the EU today.
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: GFA?
>Actually, they are. People born in the Northern Ireland have rights under the GFA that people born in the rest of the UK do not automatically get i.e. the right to an Irish passport.
And the British government has already unilaterally decided to remove the rights of NI residents to self-declare as *both* Irish and British - as allowed under the GFA.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 11:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: GFA?
>And the British government has already unilaterally decided to remove the rights of NI residents to self-declare as *both* Irish and British - as allowed under the GFA.
Interesting I get 2 downvotes for this.
Nationality rights under GFA:
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/about-northern-ireland
"Northern Ireland is part of the UK. However, under the Belfast Agreement, also known as the Good Friday Agreement, people born in Northern Ireland can choose to be British citizens, Irish citizens or both. If they choose to be both British and Irish citizens, this means they have a dual citizenship."
And the reality of how the British government is treating those that choose to exercise those rights:
https://twitter.com/EmmandJDeSouza/status/1180112893192343552?s=20
https://twitter.com/naomi_long/status/1180100691718791168?s=20
IIRC This is going through the courts now.
TL:DR - the British government is removing the rights to self-determine nationality granted under the GFA.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 12:04 GMT Phil O'Sophical
Re: GFA?
People born in the Northern Ireland have rights under the GFA that people born in the rest of the UK do not automatically get i.e. the right to an Irish passport.
The Irish government has always accepted that anyone born anywhere on the island of Ireland is entitled to claim Irish citizenship and an Irish passport, it's not connected to the provisions of the GFA.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:09 GMT don't you hate it when you lose your account
Re: GFA?
Intresting stance, but I find it incredible insular. Absolutely in line with the age of social media. No responsibility is required.
And yes I downvoted you despite being a tad older than 12. I remember my grandmother telling me. If you cannot defend your actions or words, just shut up. If you can,I'll listen
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 13:27 GMT Cederic
Re: GFA?
I disagree that this is an inevitable outcome.
Assuming that the UK are comfortable with allowing visa free travel to EU citizens then people crossing the Irish border are no different in a no-deal scenario than non-EU citizens crossing that border today. We successfully operate with that challenge now, so why wouldn't we then?
Regarding goods, again, any goods crossing that border are currently subject to a currency translation and different tax rules. In a no-deal scenario, they would be subject to a currency translation and different tax rules. Why would we need a hard border in relation to those?
I don't see the need and feel that anybody implying otherwise is intentionally attempting to cause division and working to destroy peace in Northern Ireland. Stop it.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 14:14 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: GFA?
"Regarding goods, again, any goods crossing that border are currently subject to a currency translation and different tax rules. In a no-deal scenario, they would be subject to a currency translation and different tax rules. Why would we need a hard border in relation to those?"
Because EU tariffs on non-EU states without a free trade agreement.
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 07:59 GMT JohnG
Given that the people most likely to have a .eu domain are likely to be supportive of the EU, the EC's action in respect of these domains seem a bit of a shot in the foot.
About the government position/statements about the Benn law: The law requires the government to send a letter to the EC, requesting a Brexit extension - it does not require them to achieve a Brexit extension.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 08:04 GMT A.P. Veening
About the government position/statements about the Benn law: The law requires the government to send a letter to the EC, requesting a Brexit extension - it does not require them to achieve a Brexit extension.
See also my post stating the same. And by now I am pretty sure BoJo already knows such a request will be denied, which will allow him to keep his promise of a Halloween Brexit.
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:59 GMT Danny 2
Hiya APV,
This is probably the first thing you've written that I disagree with: "I am pretty sure BoJo knows"
Do you see who his tech advisor was? I mentioned her earlier on this thread. I doubt BoJo knows anything except where the nearest possible date is.
I voted for Brexit both out of principle and lack of principle. I believe in Scottish independence so the principle was smaller and more local government. My lack of principle was I knew the Tories would muck this up and split our nations apart. I said from the start though we'd need a confirmatory vote on any negotiated deal - I was so naive, assuming we'd get a negotiated deal.
I admit I'm a wee bit worried now because I haven't stocked up on anything, and my parents do rely on medicine from Europe to survive. The IT angle is secondary but it is interesting. This article is about .eu domains becoming defunct, and nobody has explained how to stop them being acquired for nefarious purposes. I've been reading the blogs and papers while posting here, and if you are an EU citizen or have a trustworthy EU citizen on your board then it shouldn't be a problem. There are just under 400,000 UK based companies that have .eu addresses.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 11:30 GMT A.P. Veening
This is probably the first thing you've written that I disagree with: "I am pretty sure BoJo knows"
Do you see who his tech advisor was? I mentioned her earlier on this thread. I doubt BoJo knows anything except where the nearest possible date is.
Maybe I should have used "I am pretty sure BoJo thinks/believes he knows". On the other hand, he is a politician so judged unreliable to start with.
There still is time to stock up on most things.
This article is about .eu domains becoming defunct, and nobody has explained how to stop them being acquired for nefarious purposes. I've been reading the blogs and papers while posting here, and if you are an EU citizen or have a trustworthy EU citizen on your board then it shouldn't be a problem. There are just under 400,000 UK based companies that have .eu addresses.
And that small number is exactly why the incompetent EU bureaucrats (with excuses for the redundant tautological pleonasm) think they can get away with cancelling those after Brexit.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 08:24 GMT Jimmy2Cows
Not so much "surrender" as voluntarily throw away your nuclear option, then somehow expect to negotiate from a strong position.
Not that we had a strong position to start with. Relative economic size UK vs EU makes that blindingly obvious. No deal nuclear option was the only real leverage, because that's the only thing that can enconomically disadvantage the EU.
Of course it inflicts the same (or more) economic pain on UK too, but that's why you never want to use your nuclear option, just have it as a neogiation lever.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 11:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
Boris isn't shorting the pound.
That is a ludicrous suggestion that the poster surely knows to be a lie.
The actual smear being pushed by the Labour party is that Boris's funders are shorting British companies
so Boris is meant to intentionally harm the economy for them.
This doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. The Financial Times ( which supports the Labour party, will back Corbyn at the next election and is firmly anti-brexit ) did an analysis on it and found it to be a complete fabrication.
The MP which raised this in parliament ( the shadow chancellor ) knows it to be a falsehood and knew so before he raised it. It was a political smear.
But not knowing that is at least understandable if you are generally uninformed. Claiming that Boris is himself shorting the pound is libellous.
I understand people being uninformed and repeating fragments of what they overheard in the pub. I understand people being stupid.
What I don't understand is why somebody would intentionally lie to further their position. Either they have a good argument for it and therefore should use that, or don't have a good argument and therefore should reconsider their position.
So why lie?
-
Monday 7th October 2019 21:06 GMT Danny 2
Disgusted, your outrage is false. If Boris Johnson were to sue anyone for the 'libel' of ascribing his behaviour due to shorting the pound, then he'd have to start with his own sister.
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/09/26/a-bbc-hosts-jaw-dropping-response-to-a-bombshell-from-boris-johnsons-sister/
During an appearance on BBC Radio 4‘s World at One show on 26 September, Rachel Johnson dropped a bombshell about her brother. And the BBC host’s reaction was absolutely jaw-dropping too.
During the interview, Johnson spoke about what she thought was behind the PM’s “strongman gambit” in getting the UK out of the EU. After noting her brother’s role, and the role of his chief adviser Dominic Cummings, she said:
"It also could be from, who knows, people who have invested billions in shorting the pound or shorting the country in the expectation of a no-deal Brexit. We don’t know."
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 14:54 GMT Lars
As the Dutch was mentioned here is a Dutch view of Boris and the Irish border, (in the official language of the EU, bad English).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttSjWUPhJXs
As we know countries tent to trade a lot with their neighbours so when Britain creates a problem it's obvious neighbouring countries like Ireland and the Netherlands will be more affected.
However the Dutch export is:
Germany 24.2%, Belgium 10.7%, UK 8.8%, France 8.8%, Italy 4.2% (2017)
In short, 42,9% with only 4 out of the 27 and only 8.8 with the UK.
For Ireland the export is:
US 27.1%, UK 13.4%, Belgium 11%, Germany 8.1%, Switzerland 5.1%, Netherlands 4.9%, France 4.3% (2017)
Again only 5 out of the 27 makes up 33,4%, then the US 27,1 and the UK 13,4%.
For official numbers, if converted to dollars, try:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/
The "clean break" is as idiotic as "clean coal", all that will happen is that trade negotiations will start from the same three questions as originally. People rights, the outstanding obligations, sillily called the divorce bill, and the Irish border.
And of course none of the British problems are due to membership of the EU and none will be mended due to leaving the EU.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:42 GMT don't you hate it when you lose your account
Agree
And upvoted, most of us deal with IT legislation and contracts and that alone is complicated enough. This is of another level. EU will/have to stick to their laws/contracts. I have no idea what the UK is doing. Outside of the bluster I see no logic. And the world as it is needs better than this
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:24 GMT Jimmy2Cows
Perhaps. However, it's clearly the only real leverage BoJo thinks he has, or he wouldn't be consistently threatening no deal. May was never prepared to use it, publically so, and regardless of personal feelings it did weaken her hand. Negotiation isn't all touchy-feely and being nice to each other. Certainly not at this scale. Both sides want everything and to give up nothing. How much each side gives up ultimately depends on the damage the other side can inflict (be that social, economic, militarial, whatever). You can dress it in diplomatic niceties but in the end it's about limiting damage. No one is coming out of this better off than before.
BoJo comes across as more than willing to use no-deal. Whether he will ultimately follow through it is another matter. But, from his short-sighted politician point of view, no deal won't personally damage him, he's wealthy enough to ride out the storm and can always bugger off the the US if things get too hot here.
Is no-deal the right option? Of course not, but he's never publically stated it's not an option for him. Therefore, some could argue his tactic has been partially effective. Consider the EU stance toward May of "we won't reopen the WA under any circumstances" to the current position of "give us an alternative to the backstop and we'll consider it, we aren't wedded to it."
Is a consitent plausible threat of no-deal behind the change? Maybe.
Does Jean-Claude Junker's want to see this done before stepping down on October 31st? Also maybe.
Is BoJo bluffing? Again maybe. We'll find out on 1st November, since there's pretty much zero chance of his new proposals being accepted by the EU, and the UK has made it clear 3 times now it won't accept the backstop.
Off course all this could have been avoided by treating the referendum as advisory, as it actually was, and saying to the EU "look, there's a lot of people very unhappy with how things are, something has to change before this gets worse."
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:40 GMT A.P. Veening
>> Off course all this could have been avoided by treating the referendum as advisory, as it actually was, and saying to the EU "look, there's a lot of people very unhappy with how things are, something has to change before this gets worse." <<
Off course, but David Cameron screwed that up by declaring it binding (and being surprised by the outcome). A lot of this could have been avoided by declaring it binding if at least two thirds of the votes had been for Leave with at least two thirds of the voters voting. And even at that it would still have been a minority voting for Leave.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 12:04 GMT codejunky
@A.P. Veening
" A lot of this could have been avoided by declaring it binding if at least two thirds of the votes had been for Leave with at least two thirds of the voters voting."
Or make that the requirement for remain. The electorate is behind leave 3-0 so far and as much as we are told the polls claim otherwise leave is still the option chosen. So apply that criteria to remain and you find it cannot be won.
"And even at that it would still have been a minority voting for Leave."
You got the word wrong. Majority. Majority voted leave 3-0. Its not a dispute nor complicated, it is the fact.
-
-
Wednesday 9th October 2019 13:30 GMT codejunky
Re: @A.P. Veening
@Lars
"You do know that the majority of British MEP are for remain, if not, you have been fooled by Farage who claims something else because he got the biggest group."
So? The majority of MP's are for remain, we still have the definitive answer of leave as the directive from the voters. As in the voters themselves decided for themselves what they wanted and the democratic vote resulted in leave.
"In May's snap election she lost her majority, in short 3-0 is just silly."
Silly because its true? It isnt wrong and its an uncomfortable fact if you want remain. Thats why it is worth reiterating as some fools seem to believe we want to remain in the EU.
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 14:13 GMT codejunky
@A.P. Veening
"Yup, a 51% majority"
And there you go. We dont force people to vote yet we had one of the highest turnouts and by the rules of the vote leave won. That isnt a grey area or disputed it is fact.
If the wet dream was true that there was such glorious support for the EU then leave wouldnt have won 3-0 so far. If you wouldnt take that seriously then I am glad you are not in my country. Feel free to live in whatever dictatorship.
-
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 10:56 GMT codejunky
Re: @A.P. Veening
@Hollerithevo
"You keep saying 'won 3-0 so far' - I do not think it means what you think it means. Because 3-0 is not true. Saying it over an over does not make it true."
Actually it is true. 1 referendum, 1 GE, 1 MEP election. 3-0. The amusement being that there was only supposed to be the referendum and then it gets done, we shouldnt have even been there for the MEP election.
But yes 3-0, it is true and I do repeat it because some people dont seem to understand that it is true.
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 10:39 GMT Not also known as SC
@J2C
I think you're giving Johnson too much credit. He comes across as a short term opportunist looking only as his own advancement. Threatening a hard / no-deal Brexit is just his way of trying to convince Brexit party members to vote Tory in the next election. The Conservatives are apparently more worried than Labour seem to be about having their vote split (and don't give two monkeys about their remain voting supporters). Remember Johnson is supposed to have written two columns for the paper he was a columnist for; one arguing for remaining in the EU, and one against staying. Johnson doesn't really seem to care which we do as long as it comes across as the most politically expedient.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 11:13 GMT don't you hate it when you lose your account
The whole problem
Was the way the vote was done. My parents know they voted leave. But if I push them they have no idea what that meant in reality. But the lies from the side of the bus get recycled. Luckily we are able to discuss it and what comes out was anger at what were UK laws and political decision that swayed their vote. I'm lucky, I work else where, but I have every reason to worry for them
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 08:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
We solved that ages ago.
We get UK resident .eu domain owners to transfer ownership details to us and sign an agreement for representation. It means we are registered as owners, but properly documented that it's "on behalf of" - as domains can represent considerable value I think it's only right to do it properly. As a result, it's now an EU domain registered to an EU company, and it is under a properly documented reason why - we act on their behalf in one country.
As we are located in an EU country, Brussels is not going to specifically act on this for the very simple reason that it would create problems with a lot of other EU based companies that generate revenue from UK resources, and especially politicians pay a lot of attention to preservation to the one resource that keeps them away from the need to hold down a proper job: tax income.
We charge some money for the admin, but, to be frank, it just about offsets the admin costs, it's not a profit maker and it wasn't intended to. Sometimes you just have to stand up and poke the politicians in the eye - if there is something I absolutely loath it's petty (abuse of) bureaucracy. This is also why I post it here: if you're in an EU country, help your UK friends. It's not even hard, you just have to make sure it's legally too sound for a politician to mess with.
So far, it appears Europe's diversity has generally withstood the onslaught of idiocy that has washed over two-party nations such as the US and the UK.
Let's hope it stays that way.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 08:52 GMT don't you hate it when you lose your account
Re: We solved that ages ago.
There are easy work arounds to this one and thank you for pointing it out. This seems to be an argument about the EU being unfair. It should be how we can work within the law. But the UK seems to want to work outside the law. Just because? Answers on a postcard please. The best 5 get a blue Peter badge
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:15 GMT Danny 2
Re: Yes, EU Minister
"what happened to Esperanto"
1) The British Empire
2) Hollywood
[Tip: If you are ever in a French train station and you see a counter with the British or American flags, then avoid it, it is a trap. You are meant to think the person behind the counter can speak English but they are just trained in humiliating Anglophones. Instead go to a normal counter and speak bad French or English in a Hungarian or Finnish accent, then they treat you with sympathy]
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 13:07 GMT Not also known as SC
Re: Yes, EU Minister
My wife is Flemish and she has told me the same. In Flanders they rather you speak Dutch badly or English instead of French. (I don't speak French so that isn't a problem for me.) I think you have to bare in mind the fact that most Belgians (ignoring the German speakers as I don't actually know any) either speak French/ English or Dutch/English. Those who are fluent in all three languages are in a minority, so it may be that whoever you are trying to speak to in Bruges doesn't actually speak French (or not since they left school).
-
Monday 7th October 2019 13:15 GMT A.P. Veening
Re: Yes, EU Minister
Those who are fluent in all three languages are in a minority, so it may be that whoever you are trying to speak to in Bruges doesn't actually speak French (or not since they left school).
There are more than you might suspect and most will accommodate foreigners as those aren't involved in that stupid language war (or so they think, I remember my history lessons and Brussels used to be completely Flemish).
-
Monday 7th October 2019 17:40 GMT jake
Re: Yes, EU Minister
You imagine most Belgians are naked? Interesting multicultural technique. How is it working for you?
Here, I have bear in mind ... There is a largish black one and her near-yearling cubs foraging in one of my veggie gardens most dawns these days. Winter must be coming ...
-
Monday 7th October 2019 17:57 GMT Not also known as SC
Re: Yes, EU Minister
@Jake,
Sadly I must admit that as my wife is Belgian I do spend an unhealthy amount of time thinking about naked Belgians. :-)
I spent ages trying to remember the correct spelling, bear or bare and then guessed. I will try to do better next time. Please find an upvote to your credit.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 10:25 GMT A.P. Veening
Re: Yes, EU Minister
Why should I make it, there are other people doing a better job for that. But both start with malted barley, yeast and water. The real difference is that whisk(e)y is double or (even better) triple distilled and left to ripen for a couple of years.
And yes, I skipped the various different flavouring ingredients like hops for beer and peat smoke for whisk(e)y as those aren't important to the process (but they are to the final taste).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 13:12 GMT A.P. Veening
Re: Yes, EU Minister
Same in Belgium. I speak French & English, but not Flemish/Dutch. In Bruges I asked what I should use and was told English, never French.
Same with Dutch in Brussels, though I was surprised to be addressed in Dutch at the reception of a hotel in Brussels upon presenting my Dutch passport. Up to that point everything had been in English to avoid problems and to accommodate my Chinese wife (divorced by now), who spoke neither French nor Dutch.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 21:30 GMT A.P. Veening
Re: Yes, EU Minister
No, they aren't as Dutch isn't a language but a secret code foreigners aren't supposed to learn ;)
Depending on both your skills in Dutch and the importance of the communication I will either also continue in Dutch or switch to English, but most Dutch will switch to English anyway.
-
Tuesday 15th October 2019 14:47 GMT Danny 2
Re: Yes, EU Minister
Some folk really do assume Dutch is a secret code. It's a pretty obvious code at best.
My first trip to Coulport and I was with a dozen European peace protesters, none Dutch or Flemish but all of whom had lived in Ghent for at least a year.
We were all chatting away and then they switched to Flemish because they suspected I was a Scottish police infiltrator. I'd actually spent the last few years contracting in the Netherlands and Belgium, and had followed their 'secret' conversation fairly well. One of them had suggested leaving the camp so they could discuss their plans away from me, and the main guy said, "Waroom?"
I chipped in, "Waroom neit?", and all their cheeks blushed like a busted flush.
The main guy asked me in shock, "You speak Flemish?"
"Nee. Lekker ding. Moi ledden. Alstublieft."
There were two Finns there. Now Finnish *is* a code language to me, much more akin to bird song than human language.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:26 GMT Anonymous Coward
Government Advice and Actions
"the UK government advising the owners of .eu domains to consider getting a different domain and to seek legal advice about whether to sue over the forcible removal of their existing .eu domain" However at the same time the government is happy to forcibly remove around 17 million remain voters (and an unknown number of people unable to vote) from the EU against their will.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 09:34 GMT Jimmy2Cows
Re: Government Advice and Actions
Welcome to democratic representation. The side with the biggest minority wins (obvioiusly as compared to the sum of losing side + didn't vote + inelligible to vote).
In this case roughly half the voters are going to be pissed off no matter which side wins. Sensbile thing would have been to treat it as advisory, a democratically stated indicator that some things about the EU need to change. Instead, Cameron made it his hill to die on.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 10:23 GMT Not also known as SC
Re: Government Advice and Actions
But inside the EU the UK could negotiate with other EU governments to get changes made and direct the EU from a position of power. Ultimately the UK government has a veto (as do other member states). Once outside we have no say and if we want to trade with the EU will have to accept whatever rules they decide to enforce upon us. Better to be a rule maker than a rule follower.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 11:48 GMT Phil O'Sophical
Re: Government Advice and Actions
inside the EU the UK could negotiate with other EU governments to get changes made and direct the EU from a position of power.
That might have worked in the Common Market, with someone like Thatcher in power, but in a 28-country EU with Blair or Cameron there was no chance.
Ultimately the UK government has a veto (as do other member states).
That's becoming less and less the case. With 28 countries, some tiny, the EU can't afford to have anyone with a veto. More and more of the decision-making is now on a majority basis, no veto permitted.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 12:56 GMT Wellyboot
Re: Government Advice and Actions
The EU majority votes have been qualified majority since 2014 with the largest six (by population) holding about two thirds, (Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain, Poland). All of the other small countries are just along for the ride now, the redistribution of the UK vote will leave the other five with only a slightly lower %.
The big exception is for international treaties which still requires unanimous agreement and hence the very long negotiations for any trade agreement.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 14:53 GMT SundogUK
Re: Government Advice and Actions
"Ultimately the UK government has a veto." That's not actually been the case for most policy areas since 2014, when Qualified Majority Voting was introduced. We simply couldn't stop a huge swathe of measures the EU insisted on but were extremely unpopular in the UK.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 21:34 GMT A.P. Veening
Re: Government Advice and Actions
AMEN to that.
The really unpopular measures were strictly Whitehall but presented as Brussels. And some popular measures from Brussels were presented as purely Whitehall. This all with lots of help of some papers (note: not newspapers as they don't contain any real news nor anything resembling the truth).
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 10:50 GMT Commswonk
Re: Government Advice and Actions
Which the EU would have ignored, as you well know.
A point that needs to be made until the message finally gets home, however long that might take. I'd like to say I am surprised that (at the time of my writing this) it has attracted a downvote, but I'm not; nothing upsets diehard Remainers more than an Inconvenient Truth.
Mind you there are also those who believe that remaining "in" and changing the EU from within would be the way to go - an idea that I would regard as laughably unlikely.
Let the downvotes commentce...
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 11:45 GMT Phil O'Sophical
Re: Government Advice and Actions
Sensbile thing would have been to treat it as advisory, a democratically stated indicator that some things about the EU need to change.
We've been saying that for 25 years, it's never made any difference, not will it ever. The EU isn't run by people who want to listen to the voice of the masses.
Instead, Cameron made it his hill to die on.
Well, he did come back from the EU, waving his letter about agreed concessions like Chamberlain, and called the promised referendum fully expecting people to agree that he had achieved significant changes. Since he actually achieved damn all he shouldn't have been surprised, and that fact that he was surprised shows just how out of touch he was.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 10:30 GMT Velv
Question?
Is .eu for people, businesses and organisations who have an affiliation with the "European Union" and its operation, or is .eu a geographical representation like .uk, .fr, .de, etc?
If it's the former, then there are millions of ineligible .eu domains across the world used by organisations who have no direct connection the the European Union.
If it's the latter the the United Kingdom will STILL BE IN EUROPE even if they are not members of the European Union. (I know there are some Leavers who still don't understand this, but Geography is Geography - about the only unambiguous statement you can make about Brexit means Brexit).
-
Monday 7th October 2019 10:48 GMT Danny 2
Re: Question?
https://eurid.eu/en/news/doteu-goes-global/
13 years after its launch back in 2006, the .eu domain name will take on its biggest change yet. As of 19 October 2019, internationally-based EU citizens will become eligible to register their very own .eu domain name.
The top-level internet domain .eu is the eighth largest country code extension on the internet and, as of October 2019, we have more than 3.6 million registrations spread out across Europe. Striving to meet the needs of an ever-changing digital environment, the eligibility criteria for the registration of .eu domain name will be changing as of 19 October 2019.
With around 12 million Europeans living in the US, Canada and Australia alone – not to mention the rest of the world – our hope is to provide these individuals, living far from their native lands, with a personal online platform through which they can share their lives with families and friends back home.
Registering a .eu domain name for your blog, travel diary or personal business will be just like your European passport on the internet. It will show your identity while being reliable, trustworthy and secure. With a .eu domain, you will have your individual and consumer rights brought under the aegis of European standards and regulations.
“We are excited to be able to extend the registration criteria to EU citizens around the world. The .eu domain is now closer to your ambitions, achievements and dreams. It is the bridge connecting you to your friends and family – even if you live outside the EU. It will always show your roots, your outlook, and your cultural values.” – Marc Van Wesemael, EURid`s CEO.
Visit trust.eurid.eu for more.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 11:52 GMT Phil O'Sophical
Re: Question?
With a .eu domain, you will have your individual and consumer rights brought under the aegis of European standards and regulations.
What complete bollocks. Since when did ANY internet domain name have that effect, anywhere?
The .eu domain is now closer to your ambitions, achievements and dreams. It is the bridge connecting you to your friends and family – even if you live outside the EU. It will always show your roots, your outlook, and your cultural values.
Someone's been at the Mission Statement generator again.
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 21:39 GMT jake
Re: Question?
It's not even a name. It's a handle, or nickname at best, a stand-in for the IP address.
Internet life before BIND was a lot nicer because you had to actually understand something about addressing to effectively use the system... idiots, and the so-called "nationalities" they brought with themselves, were self filtering and thus few and far between.
The Eternal September actually started in June of 1986 ...
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 10:57 GMT Commswonk
Re: Question?
Is .eu for people, businesses and organisations who have an affiliation with the "European Union" and its operation, or is .eu a geographical representation like .uk, .fr, .de, etc?
Compare and contrast with .tv; is it for "people, businesses and organisations who have an affiliation with Tuvalu" or is it a nice little earner for Tuvalu from TV companies?
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 10:51 GMT rg287
I can't for the life of me see the point in a .eu. If you're a business, does that mean you only and quite explicitly trade within the EU? Having branched into international business/exports from your mother country (whether .uk, .fr, .de, etc) you trade with Austria but not Switzerland? Or does it mean you have offices/production sites in multiple EU (and only EU) countries?
Surely just use a .com or the appropriate TLD for your country of origin (or a gTLD for your industry if you're feeling avant garde).
As for the European Institutions using .eu - pure vanity plates. If .org is good enough for the UN, then eu.org shouldn't be out of place (or indeed eu.int - .int being reserved precisely for those sorts of Intergovernmental Treaty Organisations - the African Union has "au.int", Council of Europe has "coe.int" - pretty much every other international organisation runs on .org or .int).
All that being said, the convention is that domains aren't cancelled. There's still the old .soviet TLD floating around FFS and that entity doesn't even exist any more! How the EU are making such a pig's ear of it is baffling. Of all the nonsense that needs to be sorted out to facilitate Brexit this should be literally the least of their problems.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 12:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
One explanation for the BrExit saga is provided here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
Boris' chief advisor, previously the mastermind behind the BrExit referendum campaign, is an adherent; its not clear whether he also believes in the "technological singularity".
Ironically the one thing this approach is not is: conservative.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 12:31 GMT Rich 2
EU
I've always thought of .eu being "Europe" rather than "economic union". Clearly, I am (apparently) wrong on this. Of course, if I was right, then the UK would still be "in Europe" even if not "in the econ. union". So if they just changed the definition, there would be no problem. At least not one that wasn't manufactured.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 13:57 GMT Milton
Ironic, eh?
I've no time for Johnson's endless infantile lies about the EU, but one of the fairer criticisms of that body is "faceless bureaucracy"—so it seems ironic that it's handling the .eu domains issue with such absurd bureaucratic nonsense. It's not just that there's no need for such a draconian measure, it's the transparently stupid way they're managing it. If the bureaucrats actually have a good reason to "repatriate" a bunch of domains—one so compelling that they've never been able to convince anyone of it—why not do something manageably reasonable, like blocking long extensions now, while uncertainty reigns, and then blocking renewal if the UK does ever Brexit (which it plainly isn't going to: we've had three and half years, do the math*).
To let a circus of time-serving pen-pushers make such a complete clusterfrak of a simple matter plays into the hands of the EU's critics ... entirely unnecessarily.
⁞
* You doubt me? Fair enough. But I think that with the perspective of a bit of history, we'll look back on the period April 2016-to-early 2020 not as the time when Brexit got closer and closer: but as the time when, in fact, post-referendum, Brexit got further and further away. Think about it.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 18:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
.EU registration requirements
The preconditions for having a .eu address are pretty clear and unambiguous. They are set out in the paragraph 4.2(b) EU directive 733/2002:
(b) register domain names in the.eu TLD through any accredited.eu Registrar requested by any:
(i) undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, or
(ii) organisation established within the Community without prejudice to the application of national law, or
(iii) natural person resident within the Community;
Once the UK is out of the EU, and provided that no agreement is reached - as looks almost certain at this point, there is no legal basis for a company or a person resident within the UK to continue holding a .eu domain name.
I understand that this situation is not agreeable for many people and companies, and I do sympathize. This is just one more unanticipated consequence of hard brexit. The right way to go about it is to reach an agreement with the EU to have the law changed, not to dump on the EU bureacrats trying to enforce the EU law - which the UK did have a hand in writing as a member. Would anyone expect the UK bureacrats to ignore the UK law if the boot was on the other foot?
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 11:17 GMT rg287
Re: .EU registration requirements
Once the UK is out of the EU, and provided that no agreement is reached - as looks almost certain at this point, there is no legal basis for a company or a person resident within the UK to continue holding a .eu domain name.
There's no legal basis for anyone to have a .su (Soviet Union) domain either, yet it remains in use even today.
Restricting future registrations would be quite reasonable, forcibly repatriating domains goes against every precedent set in the world of DNS over the past 30 years.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 21:30 GMT PacketPusher
What to do?
Putting all of the politics aside, any business outside the remaining EU needs to get a stable internet domain whether it is .com, .co.uk or something else and tell your customers about it. Keep the .EU domain as long as you can with a message about the new domain so occasional users have a better chance to see the change.
If Brexit doesn't happen, then you can quietly drop the new domain, if it does, then you will be as prepared as you can be.
-
Monday 7th October 2019 21:39 GMT Danny 2
The inevitable independent Scotland's ccTLD
Just over a decade ago The Scotsman reported on proposals for Scottish Government websites to have the .sco suffix. Because we aren't an independent state we can't have a two letter ccTLD yet. I pointed out that just at that time there were no longer length limits and we should go dot Scot, which rhymes, rather than dot Sco which is associated with Unix. Which is what they went for.
A no deal Brexit makes Scottish independence a near certainty according to polling, therefore we'll be needing a two letter ccTLD.
.SC is already the Seychelles, so I'm going to propose .BJ for two reasons. As a tribute to Boris Johnson, and as a profitable sex related domain moneymaker equivalent to Tuvalu's .tv .
-
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 00:22 GMT Danny 2
Re: The inevitable independent Scotland's ccTLD
Dot ab is a good idea, it would make us top of the list, ahead even of the mighty Ascension Island. Although Alba could also be dot aa, to ensure we are still top of the list if Arizona ever secedes.
It is telling that Ascension Island, population 806, has a IANA TLD and Scotland doesn't!
-
-
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 07:22 GMT jake
Re: The inevitable independent Scotland's ccTLD
Not really. The actual SCO un*x was a neat hack back in the day, and fairly well regarded in the industry ... although most of us in the BSD world looked on the SCO offering as BSD's somewhat insane & slightly neurotic little brother.
The SCO famed for losing lawsuits came later, much later.
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 08:02 GMT Stoneshop
Re: The inevitable independent Scotland's ccTLD
Just over a decade ago (the time of the discussion on the Scotland TLD) the Old Neat SCO had been superseded by the New Litigious SCO for a good couple of years already, and at that point had had most of the points of its lawsuit against Novell dismissed (other lawsuits have been stayed, but occasionally have, even quite recently, displayed convulsions).
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 19:40 GMT Lars
Re: The inevitable independent Scotland's ccTLD
@Jakeck
I agree, SCO wasn't that bad at all. It wasn't locked to a specific vendor hardware like Aix, Solaris and HP-UX. Any PC hardware was OK, even a laptop. Some recompiling at times to add semaphores and such, quick and easy. Mostly cheap hardware didn't provide a fast system but still it was surprising to see how often customers who switched to a NT had to upgrade their hardware just to get what they got from their old SCO hardware.
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th October 2019 23:36 GMT jake
Re: look for a friend in italy
I have friends in Italy, France and Spain (it's a "we make wine" thing). Some of them are in Napa for a conference, so I just now called and asked a couple of them to register me a .eu "for future expansion". All indicated willingness, HOWEVER they all independently suggested I just get a .com "like everybody else".
-
-
Tuesday 8th October 2019 03:21 GMT gnarlymarley
abandon domain because EU says all of its citizens are unwanted
If I were in the EU, I would just abandon the domain right now by use of http redirects and forwarding all email. This would give the search engines the time it needs for SEO as it can take a few months to update. Clearly the EU is throwing a tantrum and the government officals are the donkeys that will lose in this battle. I did a dotcom because I am not interested is being tied to a specific area. All my other domains are redirecting/forwarding as of 2006.
-
Tuesday 12th November 2019 23:34 GMT Jasson Jac
Re: abandon domain because EU says all of its citizens are unwanted
Better safe than sorry. Domain names are not dearly-won, and keeping recent domains in your possession is that the least expensive cybersecurity contract you may ever purchase.
Szathmari recommends fixing a catch-all email service that redirects all incoming email to a trustworthy administrator, somebody UN agency will review correspondence self-addressed former and current employees, and watchword reset emails for on-line services.....https://miklagard.dk/
-
-
Wednesday 9th October 2019 02:35 GMT tygrus.au
UK businesses in the EU become Zombies after Halloween
So EU treats UK businesses that try to have offices and trade in the EU as the walking dead after Halloween. No web domain, no trade across UK-EU borders, no UK government approved agreements, no end in sight. They can't seem to make Brexit alive (finish the job), nor can they kill it off (stay in the EU). Brexit is holding up the whole supply chain in both directions as business on both sides can't rely on supply or pricing from each other. Trade conditions, tariffs and taxes affect price of A which also affects B that then affects price of C. They can't sign contracts because they don't know the price and they don't know if they will have the inputs or be able to move the final product across borders. It's a nightmare that many want to wake up from.
-
Thursday 10th October 2019 14:46 GMT Seppia-Register
With reference to the following paragraph
"All .eu domain owners would have to provide proof of EU citizenship – checked by the registry – before being allowed to register a .eu domain, it was decided."
There might have been some misunderstanding.
As of 19 Oct 2019, EU citizens will be able to register or keep a .eu domain name no matter where they are residing.
EURid, the .eu registry manager, will not request any proof of citizenship to enable a EU citizen to register (or to keep) a .eu domain name. Checks might be conducted ex-post as it happens at present.