British owners of .eu domains given an extra three months to find a European address The British owners of 74,000 suspended .eu domain names have been given an additional three months to change their registration details to an address in Europe before they are permanently taken away. On Wednesday, the .eu registry operator EURid posted yet another update to its “Brexit page” noting that instead of the names …
Can you name another counterexample besides Leave.EU?
Also, let's leave aside the "stop paying the club subscription" arguments - the "UK" "government" has never used .eu web addresses, so far as I am aware.
But lots of British people and companies who identified as Europeans and used to be European citizens, but have now had their citizenship stolen from them, chose to use .eu addresses.
I am one of those, but since I have plenty of friends in proper European countries, my .eu domain has been safely registered elsewhere.
Other top level domains don't require residence or citizenship. Or have I underestimated the COmmercial importance of COlumbia or how many TeleVision companies there are on the island of TiValu?
Generally Michel Barnier and the EU bigwigs behaved very well during the Brexit disaster. The monumental stupidity of invoking Clause 16 over the EU's failure over Covid vaccines was breathtaking, but probably isolated. But what some EU bureaucrat has decreed regarding British .eu domains is at the level of schoolboy spite.
"Other top level domains don't require residence or citizenship."
Yes they do. Some ccTLDs even check this. They're free to make up and apply whatever eligibility rules they want.
There are restrictions in some of the new gTLDs. Allegedly. Though not necessarily on grounds of residency or citizenship. I think you have to be a bank to get a .bank. Or a doctor to get a .doctor. Or work for Microsoft to get a .microsoft. And so on.
Not all top-level domain registries sell their names to all-comers.
“ Sorry, the house of lords are the only thing keeping Tories in check, with amendments to selling the NHS in a trade deal and many other laws and reality checks.”
Who would keep your Corbyn government in check, the same House of Lords or would they not need keeping in check?
Who would keep your Corbyn government in check, the same House of Lords
Well, from history, yes the same HoL - which is a scary thought for those committed to the abolition of the HoL. But given the non-debate over Brexit, I suspect if it ever came to a vote, there would be many abolitionists who will "la la" any objections to the abolition, until afterwards, at which point they will be up in arms because "nobody told thm"...
Also from history, we can be sure the Commons would be unable to get its act together - just as it failed in late 2019 - hence why Boris was able to hold the general election he wanted, on his terms, in December.
So yes, if Corbyn somehow gets re-elected to be the leader of the Labour political party and they get elected with a majority of a similar size to Boris's; life is going to be interesting, particularly as one of the things they might do, quite early in their term, is to abolish the HoL...
@Roland6
“ Also from history, we can be sure the Commons would be unable to get its act together - just as it failed in late 2019 - hence why Boris was able to hold the general election he wanted, on his terms, in December.
So yes, if Corbyn somehow gets re-elected to be the leader of the Labour political party and they get elected with a majority of a similar size to Boris's; life is going to be interesting, particularly as one of the things they might do, quite early in their term, is to abolish the HoL...”
So it’s ok to have HoL doing checks and balance for a conservative government and also Ok to abolish for a Corbyn government.
Why no overseer for a Corbyn government?
Surely it is better to have a government run by someone who was elected by the voters, especially on important matters. Going to the polls and saying “I will do this” gives the voters the chance to vote in the opposition if needed.
Trying to stop the government from going to the polls, I thought, was highly in democratic. The only reason to stop Boris going to the country was to stop the country airing its view at the polls. As it was they returned Boris with a greater majority, giving a huge clue to other parties what the voters actually wanted. Voters could have voted for Corbyn or the Lib Dem’s, or greens etc, but they overwhelmingly didn’t.
I guess your either in the “let the people speak” camp or the “the voters can’t be trusted with their vote” camp.
Democracy can never be perfect, finding a balance is imperative.
@tip pc
>also Ok to abolish for a Corbyn government.
Didn't say that, just observing matters...
However, as you raise the subject, if abolishing the HoL is in the manifesto then don't be surprised if it gets implemented,with the implication you obverse: no overseer for that Government...
>Trying to stop the government from going to the polls, I thought, was highly in democratic. ...
Depends, however, I was merely using the games being played and events in the Commons to illustrate how ineffective the Commons was in both getting its act together and holding the Government to account. As for the subject that caused all the problems, well fundamentally it all goes back to the failure of the Commons over several decades to get its act together and hold successive Governments to account...
To me, ".eu" means being geographically in the continental land mass of Europe, NOT being in the European Union. Europe came first!
Their own rules are equally inconsistent, allowing "Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway" as registration addresses.
Last time I looked these were not member states.
It seems inconsistent that NI addresses are not allowed, someone should point that our to Sinn Fein.
(In case you were wondering, I love gammon).
"allowing "Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway" as registration addresses"
They are members of the European Economic Area, not the European Union. So there's quite a bit of confusion - EU, EEA, geographical Europe.
The simple answer though would be for some cunning European law firm or similar to provide a registration address, rather like the company registered office address services in the UK. Even at a nominal charge per annum, this could [a] solve the problem and [b] turn out quite profitable. It would also reverse the losses to the EU domain registry.
As Third Country businesses trading with the EU already need a "representative" in a member state for the purposes of the GDPR and such services are already available, it would also seem quite easy to arrange by extension.
To me, ".eu" means being geographically in the continental land mass of Europe, NOT being in the European Union.
Their own rules are equally inconsistent, allowing "Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway" as registration addresses.Last time I looked these were not member states.
While .eu might have that meaning for you, that doesn't make it true. ISO has the last word on this as the authority on ISO3166. ISO say the EU 3166 code "refers to European Union". It's on their exceptionally reserved list, not the list of countries.
Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway are part of the European Economic Area and as such are closely tied to the EU. They're in the single market, the customs union and have signed up to the Schengen Treaty. So has Switzerland I think. These countries are effectively EU member states without formally signing up as members. Which means they get the benefits of EU membership - if registering .eu domain names can be seen as a benefit.
To me, .eu means being in the EU. Wikipedia has this to say on the subject:
.eu is the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the European Union (EU). Launched on 7 December 2005, the domain is available for any person, company or organization based in the European Union. This was extended to the European Economic Area in 2014, after the regulation was incorporated into the EEA Agreement, and hence is also available for any person, company or organization based in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
I'm pretty sure we could have asked to be included as well, in our amazing brexit deal, but, as with arranging visa-free travel for touring musicians, which was on offer, our shitty government went for the "leave means leave" attitude and fucked it off.
Also, you might need to check where Sinn Féin are based; last time I walked past it, their headquarters was in Dublin, which very much is within the EU.
I’m a Brit and my .eu domain was paid up till 2027.
I’m not able to get a refund of the fees for time I’m not able to use as they’ve taken away the service I’ve paid for.
They should have just let them lapse at their natural expiry and not allow them to be renewed if you didn’t meet the requirements.
Presumably finding an alternative domain and arranging for a refund for the .eu domain was what the transition period (Feb 2020-Dec 2020) was for?
Sticking your head in a bucket and pretending it hadn't happen might work for the British government (for small values of work), but odds on the average British citizen is going to be left high and dry if they believe their .eu domain is going to work in 2021.
If this is a problem, take it up with your local government (for local people).
"Sticking your head in a bucket and pretending"
It must be pointed out that both parties entered into what was supposed to be a binding agreement, that one party is now being forced to unilaterally alter because a third party is having a pathetic tantrum.
I own a .eu domain. Will they be happy to allow me to decide to push my renewal off until, say, 2025 because I can't be arsed to deal with it next year, or the year after? No? I can't change my side of the contract? So where do they get off changing theirs? The domains should have been left to run until expiry.
As a pro-Europe Brit living in the EU, I have only this to say: EU, this nonsense shames you. I hope for better than petty squabbling tinged with vindictiveness. What a disappointment.
Pretty much all contracts allow the provider to change something. But doing so without consequence is unfair, and contract law is centred on fairness to both parties. Eurid/any other name provider have the right to stop letting you use a domain, but keeping the money you gave them, especially when it's for several whole years, and it is not due to bad faith on the customer's side, is fraud.
We had a .eu address, partly to reserve it and partly as we used it for some email outside of our domain. Once this silliness started we dropped it even though I could have just changed the registrant to our Polish subsidiary.
OK I doubt the EU cares about our few euros but it all adds up.
> "The British owners of 74,000 suspended .eu domain names have been given an additional three months to change their registration details to an address in Europe before they are permanently taken away."
This kind of language really grinds my gears. The UK is IN Europe and will continue to be in Europe until plate tectonic decree otherwise. What the author should have said was "... to an adress in the EU...".
This continualy "othering" of Europe and not viewing ourselves as the Europeans we are is IMHO one of the many things that resulted in Brexit.
Please be more careful, language matters.
Lucky indeed, as they tended to get the ones that are so bad they can't even get elected as MPs here, seven times. I really despair of my fellow countrymen, when so many thought it would be a grand idea to vote Nigel Farage into a job he didn't even bother to turn up to most of the time.
>the European Commission is a kindergarten of discarded national politicians
I always assumed it was only the UK that used it as a dumping ground for people too unpopular to be in the House of Lords, and that was why the UK did so badly in Eu votes.
But it seems that every other country uses it to dump it's B-Ark politicians.
Perhaps it would have been easier and cheaper to have both the Brussels and Strasbourg parliaments in session. Use one as a decoy filled with the useless politicians - just don't tell them that they are being ignored,
To be fair, not all countries dump their crappest politicians on the Commission. Although admittedly even the ones that don’t often send them after their careers are over, or as they’re about to be. But Germany were even worse than the UK at sending duffers. Their last two contributions being Oettinger and Von der Leyen.
The poster you quoted wasn't disputing the use of the .EU domain. You are correct that .EU refers to members (or, it appears, close associates such as EEA countries) of the European Union.
What that poster was referring to was that the author of the article implied that the UK was no longer in Europe -- which is very clearly not true. Brits continue to be Europeans, just as the French, Belgians and Italians do.
"it’s hard not to wonder why the EU decided to impose such an idiotic policy in the first place"
There isnt too much wondering. Its that mix of spite, general incompetence and ignorance the EU has continued to demonstrate. The latest incarnation being vaccine procurement and lashing out at other countries as well as the very producers of the vaccine being sold at cost.
You must be squinting pretty hard to see that through the miasma of gross incompetence our own government is radiating. The only thing they have got even half-right in the last year is the vaccination programme. If there ever was a place to go to see "spite, general incompetence and ignorance", it's our current government under the control of ignorant brexiters.
@Loyal Commenter
"You must be squinting pretty hard to see that through the miasma of gross incompetence our own government is radiating."
Why? I have no issue with you pointing out where the UK gov gets it wrong. What amuses me is the idea that sticking another gov on top with its own gross incompetence makes things any better? Are you one of those remainers who thinks we should have joined the EU procurement plan for ventilators and vaccine? Or are you glad we have some?
What amuses me is the idea that sticking another gov on top with its own gross incompetence makes things any better? Are you one of those remainers who thinks we should have joined the EU procurement plan for ventilators and vaccine? Or are you glad we have some?
I think you have, as ever, missed the point of the EU. It's not there as "another gov on top", it is a mechanism for the governments of the member nations to cooperate, because if they don't cooperate, what you get is nationalism, and nationalism is the height of stupidity and leads to wars.
I'm not going to claim that the EU parliament always gets it right, but its workings mean that more often than not, cooperation is needed between nations for anything to happen, unlike our parliament, which has an unelected second house that cannot enforce amendment or oversight of policies dictated by the majority party in the commons.
Moving onto your second point, I'll not argue that EU procurement has been perfect either. However, I reckon we would have done well to have joined in with the PPE procurment which was offered to us and our arrogant leaders chose to ignore and pretend they hadn't got the emails. In case your memory doesn't stretch back more than a few months, last spring, our government was giving our PPE contracts to mates of mates, pest control firms, and some dodgy suppliers in Turkey, where whole shipments of unsafe PPE had to be scrapped at huge costs to the taxpayer. If you think the EU procurement was worse than ours, or indeed anywhere near as bad, then your spectacles truly are rose-tinted.
> It's not there as "another gov on top", it is a mechanism for the governments of the member nations to cooperate, because if they don't cooperate, what you get is nationalism, and nationalism is the height of stupidity and leads to wars.
If that was how the EU worked I would be all in favour of it. There are some aspects of the EU which worked very well for the UK but an awful lot did not, such as the destruction of our fishing industry (yes, we may well have done some over-fishing back in the day but we know better these days), the fact that as a very small nation we were one of the members propping up the EU's flagging (and desperately broken) economy, which is the real reason by the EU is pissed at us for leaving.
As a coming together of equals, the EU *could* be a great idea. But they decided to get politicians to run it for us, and there the problems started.
Yes, how about it? The UK had the most opt outs of any EU country.
If you've got a problem with fishing you should have brought it to the attention of the European Parliament’s fisheries committee. The UK's representative was Nigel Farage who turned up a grand total of 1 out of 42 times.
Do you really ?
The fishing industry is driving itself into the wall.
Nobody is paying any attention to ensuring that fish populations can regenerate, all of the fishing industry is about building better boats, bigger freezer units and better catching procedures.
The fishing industry is killing itself and the fish. If it can't learn restraint, it deserves everything that is coming to it.
"But they decided to get politicians to run it for us, ".
What, I thought the problem was all those unelected bureaucrats.
PS. Countries are run by government, politicians, and the EU is run by governments from the member states.
PPS. Who are "they" in your sentence and who would you prefer to be in charge.
"...one of the members propping up the EU's flagging (and desperately broken) economy.".
When Britain joined the British economy was not only behind Germany and France but also behind Italy, and Britain received financial help from the EU in order to recover. Britain did recover having become a member.
Perhaps we will see a repetition of this one day.
The UK economy recovered during the Eighties due to supply-side economic reforms. That it was a member of the EU at the time is coincidental.
I mention this partly to correct you and partly to point out that, the way the Commission is currently taking liberties with regulation, we're quite likely to do it all over again. Singapore-on-Thames here we come.
@Loyal Commenter
"I think you have, as ever, missed the point of the EU. It's not there as "another gov on top", it is a mechanism for the governments of the member nations to cooperate, because if they don't cooperate, what you get is nationalism, and nationalism is the height of stupidity and leads to wars."
You might think that is the point of the EU. You might wish for it to be or be living in the memory of pre-EU. But that is not what the EU is.
"I reckon we would have done well to have joined in with the PPE procurment"
But not the ventilators or vaccine? As I said are you glad we got some or do you think we should have joined EU procurement? Picking the odd thing they got right is hindsight.
"our government was giving our PPE contracts to mates of mates, pest control firms, and some dodgy suppliers in Turkey, where whole shipments of unsafe PPE had to be scrapped at huge costs to the taxpayer."
As I said- I have no issue with you pointing out where the UK gov gets it wrong. What amuses me is the idea that sticking another gov on top with its own gross incompetence makes things any better?
"What amuses me is the idea that sticking another gov on top with its own gross incompetence makes things any better?"
That is a good question, perhaps it needs to be directed at the various national governments - including the UK's (remember Westminster was part and party to Maastracht, Lisbon et al.), as to why they decided on this model...
Well how about replacing one layer of grossly incompetent with another? We don't have to add one.
I for one would rather have Brussels fucking it all up instead of Boris and his clown cabinet.
Covid's killed just about more people in the UK thant he whole of the EU combined. Who's fault is that?
The constant debate in government over whether we have to wear a mask (yes), whether we have to lock down (yes), when we can open up (when the numbers say so) doesn't help.
And neither does members of the ruling class going off to test their eyesight or go to their second or their third homes (don't do it), and the parade of clowns sent out to defend them doing that (it makes everyone who's making an effort look a fool), then the same parade coming down like a tonne of bricks on everyone else from other parties caught doing something similar because they're not part of the favoured few.
The fish rots from the head down.
Here's something to read.
"whatever extra resources our NHS needs to cope with coronavirus, it will get. Whether it is research for a vaccine, recruiting thousands of returning staff or supporting our brilliant doctors and nurses—whether it is millions of pounds or billions of pounds—whatever it needs, whatever it costs, we stand behind our NHS."
This is from the 2020 Budget (Mar.11th) when the known total UK covid death toll was seven (all during the previous few day). There were also other measures costing many billions across the board.
That' not a response to "just a flu" it's acknowledgement of the oncoming storm.
> Covid's killed just about more people in the UK thant he whole of the EU combined. Who's fault is that?
Ours. But not for the reasons you think.
In a few years, when Covid has died down and the statisticians have had a chance to standardise death rates so that there are comparable figures between countries, then I think that Covid deaths will turn out be exactly correlated with 'healthiness' indexes. So the UK will eventually turn out to have a worse death rate than Spain or Italy because our population is much less healthy.
"Covid's killed just about more people in the UK thant he whole of the EU combined. Who's fault is that?"
Not sure what your sources are. According to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries you have the following number of deaths:
UK: 117,166
Italy: 93,577
France: 81,814
Germany: 65,566
Spain: 64,747
Clearly your statements is "clownishly" false.
"I for one would rather have Brussels fucking it all up instead of Boris and his clown cabinet"
With, ironically Brussel (meaning Belgium) having the highest (of the populous nations) death rate in Europe. Granted it is only about 8% higher than the death rate of the UK, 1,864 vs 1,720.
"Well how about replacing one layer of grossly incompetent with another?" Well, you had two layers of incompetence. Now you only have the one. Not sure why you would want the extra one as well...
@codejunky
Regarding the vaccine there is no doubt the decision the EU27 took was the right decision.
Having 27 countries competing at the same time against each other would have been silly and expensive. Some time was lost compared to Britain but one could assume even more would have been lost EU wide had each country done it separately and I suppose the price per jab will be less among EU member states than in Britain, not that it was the main reason to the procurement.
Had for instance Germany or say France decided to do it alone the could have done it, but they did not.
@Lars
"Regarding the vaccine there is no doubt the decision the EU27 took was the right decision."
I have to say you are the first I have heard to say this.
"Having 27 countries competing at the same time against each other would have been silly and expensive."
The current delay in the EU is because they signed contracts 3 months later than the UK. The UK coughed up to get vaccine research and production going, the EU bartered on price. The EU is flailing around diplomatically accusing countries and attacking vaccine companies with police raids because the EU cocked up badly.
"Some time was lost compared to Britain but one could assume even more would have been lost EU wide had each country done it separately"
Time was lost because the EU was in talks while everyone else was getting delivery of vaccine. The lack of quantity was because the French wouldnt let the EU buy more from other companies than they ordered from the French company.
Ireland suggested picking some up from the UK and driving it back, the EU rejected that because the EU still hadnt approved the UK vaccines. The EU after banging on about how important it is not to have a border in Ireland activated the article forcing such a border and didnt even tell ROI or the UK that it was doing so.
The UK production facilities are running as best they can with the time they had to get running. The EU production is having problems that will be solved in time, but being 3 months behind does have this effect. The EU is so threatening to confiscate the intellectual property and production facilities in a tantrum.
"Had for instance Germany or say France decided to do it alone the could have done it, but they did not."
Strangely (and upsetting for the population) Germany and the US collaborated on a successful vaccine that Germany missed out on. They helped develop it but the EU was still messing about.
Going back to you saying they did the right thing, the EU took a crisis, made it a more severe crisis and then piled on further. It got so bad that Germany and Austria (think it was Austria) abandoned the EU flailing and went their own way. Germany pissed off the EU by breaking their agreement not to negotiate with providers the EU is negotiating with, Austria looked to the Russians.
Most recently the EU begging for Russian vaccine were diplomatically shafted publicly. Russia is now threatening to cut off the EU which is a serious threat for them.
@Lars
"Too many words, too much hot air."
No worries, just surprised.
"All of us still alive will have our jabs within a few months."
Apparently they have found a couple of strains in the UK they believe to still infect regardless of the vaccine. I hear there is also talk of more jabs coming already and they havnt even rolled out the first lot to everyone yet.
On the plus side it sounds like there is positive work on a single jab instead of the 2 shots
Tweaked vaccines for newly evolving variants will become an annual event just like flu shots.
No vaccine can prevent infection - they prime the immune system to respond immediately and remove the infection before it becomes a life threatening illness and crucially before the virus can spread to anyone else.
I've had tetanus injections, I don't know how many times I've been infected with tetanus since the first one (many potentially) because my immune system will have beaten it every time before any symptoms occurred.
@codejunky - I think you are confusing what was fundamentally a good idea, namely: use group buying power, and what the Commission actually delivered...
I think we can be sure, Germany and the others who suggested that the EU (Commission) should negotiate on the behave of the EU27 have learnt, a potentially hard, lesson about delegation of responsibility, that won't get repeated in a hurry, most probably not until there have been some substantial reforms in Brussels. A concern (given where the UK is now), that hasn't been raised, because many Brexiteers were/are so sure the EU will fail sometime in the next few years, is what happens if Brussels gets it act together and a more united and powerful EU emerges...
@Roland6
"many Brexiteers were/are so sure the EU will fail sometime in the next few years, is what happens if Brussels gets it act together and a more united and powerful EU emerges..."
The same EU who had been making crisis upon crisis out of crisis. Maybe it might at some point come out stronger maybe through a lot of luck. But so far its increasingly fractured and piling on the screwups. You are right they will need to make substantial reforms but with the current religion being 'ever closer union' and this collaboration was part of that.
"I think you are confusing what was fundamentally a good idea, namely: use group buying power, and what the Commission actually delivered..."
What makes it a fundamentally good idea? The group buying power was wrong, Pushing and funding development of the vaccine was required and the US and UK etc funeled money into development and the EU wanted minimum risk and minimum cost.
@Roland6
"A concern (given where the UK is now), that hasn't been raised, because many Brexiteers were/are so sure the EU will fail sometime in the next few years, is what happens if Brussels gets it act together and a more united and powerful EU emerges..."
The EU would need serious reform to get its act together or to be more united. This being the ever closer union that the UK has wholeheartedly rejected even with its opt outs. And the EU did fail, the brexiteers have been proven right. What nobody in their right mind expected was the EU to sacrifice countries. At the moment they are taking a kicking from Russia.
"I think you are confusing what was fundamentally a good idea, namely: use group buying power, and what the Commission actually delivered..."
I am not sure that was the priority desired though. The EU negotiated on price and so are late, under supplied and that is causing even more friction in the EU. The UK, US and others have thrown money at getting a vaccine created and supplied faster than ever before. Of course what the commission delivered is far worse.
@Codejunky
>"I am not sure that was the priority desired though. The EU negotiated on price and so are late, under supplied and that is causing even more friction in the EU. The UK, US and others have thrown money at getting a vaccine created and supplied faster than ever before."
I think things got lost between what (some of) the nation states saw as being necessary and what those (in the Commission) they entrusted with the task saw as being necessary, probably because all they knew was 'buying'.
Fundamentally, in a market where at the time there was no product, it is obvious that in order for there to be product there's needs to be some up front investment, which as you note needs to be early and speculative - hence why the UK seems to now have a surplus of injections because more of the horses backed have delivered the goods. However, if all you know is 'buying' you would probably perceive committing early and potentially significantly more monies as too risky...
>"The EU would need serious reform to get its act together or to be more united."
Well, given the way things are going, suspect the choice will be either fail and have to pick up pieces or accept the reforms forced on it by its major members...
It is notable that from press reports France having agreed with Germany rapidly got frustrated with the Commissions approach to the matter. So they currently have some motivation for change. Given also there are smaller members also not happy about the Commissions handling of vaccine delivery, there are others that may not oppose change...
You've bought the Commission's spin that vaccines are a limited resource to be competed for such that the only safe place is inside a big, safe, cozy trading bloc.
There may have been some packaging of UK-grown vaccine on EU member state territory but the Commission's allegations of the UK "stealing" EU vaccines has never been proven: it never happened, it was a story creating fake outside malevolent forces to spin EU opinion and quell rising bloc membership dissent. The Commission were going to need a cover story anyway because a lot of what the EMA did was re-badge MHRA work - that competency was lost to the EU by their own choice with Brexit so the EU's vaccine market approval was always going to be late running while the UK had this huge under-utilised resource which is why Oxford AZ approval was fast-tracked in the UK.
It stops being a limited resource when supply is improved with massive and speculative spending on research - the UK has spent per head seven times more than the average across the EU - and to place huge speculative orders irrespective of trials finishing or market approval being granted. It is better to throw away money than lives.
Rather than leaving the front runners alone and seeking to help any stragglers, VDL's bloc philosophy added two months of delay to Oxford AZ delivery - at current EU rates that's an extra 80,000 dead and I really can't believe a seemingly intelligent person like you buys the savings-per-dose argument: when large parts of your economy is locked down you simply don't quibble over a few dollars per dose. There's also the moral issue of helping your own country as fast as possible so you can go on to help other friendly or less fortunate countries.
To borrow VDL's analogy, if you had a sick relative would you rather help came on a speed boat or a tanker? Don't forget, there's a fee - it's two dollars cheaper by tanker!
Was their any good way to remove .eu domains registered from the UK? No.
Was there any good way to extract the UK economy from its neighbours? No.
Was there any good way to keep British citizens' EU treaty rights? No.
Still, at least Amsterdam is celebrating their second Christmas in two months. Brexit isn't all bad news.
Given that this whole thing was a complete charlie-foxtrot are we to assume that Nominet were involved in the consultancy phase?
Nah, actually scrub that. They'd have automatically billed for the equivalent .uk domain as well, assuming one of their preferred shareholders didn't want to but it first....
Which MEP? If you're a Brit...well...you don't have any anymore.
Us longer term expats don't have any represention at all these days. We can't vote in our host country (unless we have citizenship), we can no longer vote in local elections, we can't vote for MEPs, nor are we represented by any, and over 15 years and we can't vote in UK elections or referendums.
Might as well just stick some gaffer tape over my mouth and be done with it.
we can no longer vote in local elections, we can't vote for MEPs, nor are we represented by any, and over 15 years and we can't vote in UK elections or referendums.
I'll give you one guess where the politicians that brought about that state of affairs are based. With representation like that, it's a miracle that pre-Brexit Brits in the EU have a special status instead of just being treated like third country nationals (which was May's original plan that she found acceptable for EU citizens in the UK and therefore Brits in the EU).
"it's a miracle that pre-Brexit Brits in the EU have a special status instead of just being treated like third country nationals"
We pretty much are third country nationals. The special status is because the EU doesn't fancy kicking all the Brits out.
I have until next summer to get a residency permit (France). If I have been here over 5 years (I have), I have an automatic right to a renewable 10 year "permanent" permit. If I had been here less than five years, I have a right to a shorter permit depending on proving my income and medical cover.
The only difference between myself and a third country national is that I don't have to deal with short term visas but can directly apply for residency permits.
If you've been here a while and are in the system, it shouldn't be too arduous. But if you've been here for less time (or that old wheeze of telling the taxman in one country that you're paying tax in the other and thus don't have any actual tax declarations to prove residency), then god help you unless you have ££££.
We pretty much are third country nationals.
That really is not true and the UK was indulged a lot during the negotiation period given its proposals for treating EU citizens in the UK and for the multiple "bargaining chip" episodes. You have health, residency, work, pension, visa renewal, and other rights for life in that country that third country nationals do not and you can use your long term residency in that country to relocate to other EU countries with fewer requirements.
In the first month a Greek national was already held for a week when trying to visit the UK despite EU citizens having until July to apply for settled status and visa-free tourism still being a thing between the EU and UK (but not maybe not for much longer if stuff like this goes on) so I would pray that the kleptocracy in the UK don't fuck it up for you.
But if you've been here for less time
The WA guidance notes explicitely state that duration doesn't matter, you just need to exercising tour EU treaty rights by the end of December.
that old wheeze of telling the taxman in one country that you're paying tax in the other and thus don't have any actual tax declarations to prove residency
Allow me to find my atomic-sized violin. By the way, tax and residency are different things, you just need to prove residency. They might help prove residency but other things prove residency too.
"You have health, residency, work, pension"
Well I bloody well hope so. I've been paying into the system for over a decade. As far as that part is concerned, I'm near enough equal to French people. The UK has nothing to do with that part of my life.
"you just need to exercising tour EU treaty rights by the end of December"
Yes, the treaty rights that are granted after five years of residency. So duration does matter because while a UK citizen has access if they come over before December, it's an entirely different set of rules for the over 5 years than for the under 5 years.
"Allow me to find my atomic-sized violin"
Agreed, I can't find myself feeling any sympathy for those pulling a fast one.
"you just need to prove residency"
The tax office themselves told me a while back that the first thing the prefecture will ask for is tax returns. If you are trying to claim that you have been resident, you should have been filing (even if it's a null file because "paying it elsewhere"). Having tax returns helps you prove residency. Not having tax returns harms your attempts to do so, and while there are other ways to demonstrate residency (like continuing use of utilities, perhaps), that question will keep coming up - why weren't you filing a tax return in the country that you claim is your primary residence?
Remember, the French live for paperwork. Endless amounts of it. They may even have pleasant dreams about the New York ticker tape confetti. :-)
> I could not see what benefit those of us with EU citizenship could possibly get out of it
Well it seems that under the new EurId rules EU citizens can apply and hold .EU domains regardless of their country of residence. So you can still have .eu web address and enjoy living in the UK...
Why would I as a member of the EU 27 use a .uk web address when I can use .eu or the appropriate national (EU 27) address or a .com and what makes the .eu suddenly so very important for a Brit except that suddenly it's out of British control now that suddenly Britain has taken control of ....
Calm down.
>Why would I as a member of the EU 27 use a .uk web address
Well in my (web) travels I come across many .eu businesses that use .uk and other national web addresses, for their targetted web shops. I also come across others that use web addresses of the form .eu/gb/... to achieve similiar ends; basically it revolves around whether you wish to be perceived as being a UK business or an EU business with a UK friendly shop front - each have their merits.
Obviously, given the current fun and games around EU exports to the UK and VAT, I expect the number of EU resident businesses being interested in doing business with the UK declining...
That they have shot themselves in the foot with the EU domain withdrawal is no surprise, just another expression of vindictiveness. There are others who wish to leave, it's essential to scare them.
It must cost a lot to operate a TLD, losing tens of thousands of registrations equates to a reduction of income but it can always be recovered by a price-hike for the others. I believe there's a guy from Nominet who'll be looking for such a job soon.
Jean-Claude Juncker compared Brexit to “rats fleeing a sinking ship”. How very bold of him to acknowledge that the EU is a sinking ship - the financial basket-state members, the emerging far right, the population in the 5 (now 4) net contributor states.
Never underestimate the ability of a bureaucrat to invent the most ridiculous rules and apply them with an iron will... Import documents into France, that will be a red pen, into Holland its got to be blue. 1. what the FSCK happened to electronic document transfers?, 2, I was under the impression that the EU applied rules uniformly, except for France where they do what they like. Ever visited a French outdoor market? chillers, nah. Its a disaster the Scottish fishermen and seed potato growers have got caught up in all the EU pettiness, they don't deserve it. But its Europe that is missing out, eejits.
jira.domain.com, now offers something.jira.domain.com The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
