So long, farewell...
It's adi.eu to all that, then?
Brexit has hit the internet, and not in a good way. In an official statement Thursday, the European Commission announced it will cancel all 300,000 domains under the .eu top-level domain that have a UK registrant, following Britain's eventual departure from the European Union. "As of the withdrawal date, undertakings and …
Which would be open to the UK if they wanted it.
I think you're confusing EFTA (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) with the EEA (EU + EFTA). The UK is already member of the EEA because it's an EU member, and no-one's quite sure what happens when it leaves the EU. Being in the EEA or the EU is required to initially apply for EEA membership, but there's nothing in EEA membershp rules that say what happens to an existing member which leaves one of the other two bodies, they are still discussing that.
The UK apparently doesn't want to join EFTA (and Norway isn't keen on allowing it to anyway) but EEA membership is different.
Switzerland is NOT a member of the EEA. (It has obtained a similar arrangement through decades of trade deals, but there are differences such as banking)
The UK has over 4 times as many citizens as the entire EFTA, so it is unlikely they would be particularly keen on us joining, especially given how much consideration we give to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
However the EU would bend over backwards to allow us to stay in the EEA.
But they certainly wouldn't bend over forwards, which is metaphorically what they would have to do to be compatible with Mrs May's red lines.
So I guess they'll just have to content themselves with 40 billion and a huge chunk of our big businesses.
On topic, the domain issue makes sense, because we are primarily services and those that rely on the internal market will either have to stop trading or relocate. And those are the ones that would need an EU domain.
If you are providing a service that does not need to be under the same regulatory system as the users it would make more sense to have a .com because it would not be limited to the EU/EEA.
Switzerland is NOT a member of the EEA.
You're right, my apologies. It's the EFTA member that isn't in the EEA.
The UK has over 4 times as many citizens as the entire EFTA, so it is unlikely they would be particularly keen on us joining,
They aren't, especially Norway that doesn't want to lose its "big fish in small pond" status to an incoming shark!
it would make more sense to have a .com because it would not be limited to the EU/EEA
I wonder how many international businesses with .eu domains don't also have a .com?
I was surprised to read comments here to the effect that Norway weren't keen on letting the UK join EFTA, but according to https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/politikk/i/bpXJd/Norge-vil-ikke-ha-britene-i-EOS---men-kan-gjore-lite-for-a-stoppe-dem that is currently somewhat true.
What is interesting though, according to that news article, is that none of the nay-sayers believe we can actually stop UK from joining. And quite a few voices here in Norway would actually encourage UK to join.
I suspect that the pro-EU voices in Norway don't want to acknowledge that there are alternatives to EU membership, and thus do not want to evolve EFTA into a more viable option.
"The act of an organisation you'd want to be beholden to? Maybe not."
It's all about taking back control. But we don't retain any control over what we're no longer a member of. Didn't you realise that that's how it would work out? And we put British businesses out of scope of the .eu domain unless they establish an EU presence or just move over there.
Just because consequences weren't intended doesn't mean they don't happen.
"we could veto pretty much anything we wanted " .....
Hence the EU commission now pushing for a qualified majority voting based on article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty for legislation on "internal market matters".
OK, its not going to come into force before 2025 but after that the only control member states have is to threaten to leave.
"OK, its not going to come into force before 2025 but after that the only control member states have is to threaten to leave."
But, surely a majority vote is proper democracy and not allowing a single "voter" to veto the majority choice is proper control?
What would happen to Brexit under those rules? The "majority" voted leave but I choose to exercise my veto and we get to cancel Brexit?
" The "majority" voted leave but I choose to exercise my veto and we get to cancel Brexit?"
Depends on what you mean by majority...
Majority of those who voted.... barely
Majority of the electorate, definitely not.
Majority of the population? No where near
To me the lies spread officially on both sides of the debate should mean we vote again...
£350 Million a week.... what a farce...
"Depends on what you mean by majority..."
The most votes cast were for leave.
"Majority of those who voted.... barely"
So yes, majority. It isnt a grey area or a flexible term but you accept at your first definition majority.
"To me the lies spread officially on both sides of the debate should mean we vote again..."
So you support the intentional severe rigging of the vote to remain as Cameron tried? He as the only representative of the UK who could refused to negotiate any possibility of leave. The government set the rules of the vote and then lies their arses off spectacularly to argue to remain. That does not mean revote as a revote will likely result in the lying scum doing it again.
If the leave campaign is disqualified for lying then the remain campaign is disqualified. The remain campaign was the government and if their position is so invalidated then the result is leave (as their bias was remain).
"£350 Million a week.... what a farce..."
How is that any different than the bull from the gov? Claiming by 2030 we will be however much poorer than if we remain (ha!) and that being misinterpreted as we will be poorer. Or claiming that the aim of the BoE and treasury since 2008 (and still today) would be a catastrophe because it will happen on the brexit vote (it did and it wasnt). Or that the gov would officially back leave if Cameron didnt get his damp squib of demands (he didnt). And of course their position pre the referendum that the UK would be perfectly fine outside the EU.
And Cameron sticking around even if he lost the referendum. That changed over a period of 48 hours didnt it? What a farce
Patently wrong : you had as much control as any other member of the EU.
Yes, that's what I said. None.
It's called sharing. I understand that it's a concept that can be a tad difficult to grasp, but normally that issue is handled in PreSchool.
Which is also where most children learn to grow out of name calling as a response to arguments that they can't counter.
"We didn't have any control when we were a member, and this sort of petty reaction is exactly why we don't want to be a member."
The UK was a prime instigator and backer of a LOT of EU regulations, many of which were then "moaned" about afterwards by MPs as being "heavy handed EU". There's a lot wrong with the EU (accounts sign off anyone?) but there also a lot wrong with the UK and the seemingly decades long campaign to blame all the ills of the UK on the EU.
Of course we didn't have control, we had a say, or a vote.
Now we have nothing, and nobody to trade with either, along with a hundreds of billions of £ of work to spit, billions to pay in fees, an Irish border problem that could lead us back to troubles body yesteryear, and regional subsidies that will try up and not be replaced with anything,
Still on the upside, there is that 350m a week now going to the NHS
Doctor Syntax wrote: "It's all about taking back control. But we don't retain any control over what we're no longer a member of."
Phil O'Sophical crayoned: "We didn't have any control when we were a member, and this sort of petty reaction is exactly why we don't want to be a member."
Brexiters, we are again reminded, will say absolutely anything, however wrong and irrational, to "make" their case. To figure whether they are stupid, or liars, or both, is always tricky. Mr O'Sophical above provides another tick in the box.
First: The UK was one of the most influential members of the EU and had a say in everything, just like all the other paid-up members. It is either staggeringly ignorant or a wantonly stupid lie to state otherwise. Just because the Daily Mail says seomthing doesn't mean it's true. Usually, in fact, it is the opposite. I appreciate, though, that this does not much trouble the mouthbreathers who so love to see their petty hatreds and bigotry reinforced.
Second: It's a premature and silly action by some pompous little bureaucrats. It will be negotiated to the point of sense, or at least would be, if the UK had a negotiating team that was not a laughing stock of Tory liars, idiots and hypocrites. We wait with bated breath to see if David Davis even understands what a TLD is.
Third: " ... why we don't want to be member"—nope, speak for yourself, and the 37% of eligible voters who cast their vote based on an avalanche of lies, exaggerations, dis- and misinformation plus their (I must say, understandable) despair over the state of the current Establishment. One must have some pity for those people, since they will suffer more than anyone for their folly, but it is a real pity that even now blind stubbornness prevents more of them from accepting that Brexit is going to be a disaster—of their own making.
In short, it really does not matter how many times you say "la la la" with your fingers stuck in your ears, the tide is coming in and your feet will get wetter than most. Talking contrary crap simply doesn't alter anything ... though it's occasionally good for a rather saddened chuckle.
As I've not seen a Brexiteer step up, I'll have a go if that's okay?
He didn't highlight that fewer people voted to remain. The rest did not vote, or spoiled their vote (me included)
That's kind of the point: The majority who voted expressed a desire to leave. Cameron took that as a slight against himself and decided to spite the people and took it as a Mandate. He then stepped down and dumped the whole mess on his successor. It's also why there was no exit plan: Cameron didn't want to leave and refused to believe the vote would go as it did.
Had the whole debacle been better planned and presented: Proper arguments, issues addressed, plans put forwards: This would have been much better for the country. More people would have felt comfortable voting and the outcome could* have been different, but there you go: Politicians don't trust people to make educted, informed decisions so go for the fear option instead.
*Could, not would, as it didn't happen so we can't know.
"Could some kind Brexiteer now please explain, without the customary insults, how this constitutes a mandate or even a majority?"
>37% voted leave which is many more than those who voted remain as per the rules of the referendum.
>The first and only vote on our membership of the EU failed to return a threshold majority (thresholds suggested after the result but for the vote was set to 50% of those who vote) so there is no mandate to be in the EU.
>If the referendum was advisory and not necessary to carry out then there is no reason for another vote, article 50 has been handed over and remainers should be pleased the gov is ignoring them the lower number of the voters.
>The leave campaign lied and so is disqualified, but remain lied and the government lied disqualifying the rule-setter and so by default the result is to leave either by government disqualification (their position cannot be held due to corruption of the contest) or because there is still no mandate to be in the EU.
"And we put British businesses out of scope of the .eu domain unless they establish an EU presence or just move over there."
They may already have done so as the normal part of doing business. I wonder if anyone bothered to check how many of those 300-odd thousand domain owners actually have a presence in what will be the rest of the EU after brexit? I've definitely seen haulage companies lorries with .eu domains on the back and lists of cities they have a presence in across the EU.
I'd hazard a guess that the big scary number is simply the entire list of UK registered .eu domains and no one at all has bothered to actually check how many may fall outside the T&Cs after brexit (assuming the argument for grandfathering is rejected outright)
Similar things will be happening with drugs: no UK company currently with a centrally authorised product will be able to retain that marketing authorisation post Brexit, they will need a (genuine) company established within the EU to hold it.
You're seriously suggesting that EU citizens would be denied drugs post-Brexit just because they're proivided from a UK company? That really would be petty!
>No they will have to be licensed appropriately - surely a standard procedure?<
Actually, no. Standard procedure for the EU and the USA, but not standard procedure for most of the worlds people, who have the choice of using an EU/USA licensed drug, or no drug at all.
I don't say that this a a bad thing, just that your standard of reference is narrow and laughably ignorant.
I'm expecting (hoping) that someone in the EU somewhere is making a note of everything we're complaining about losing, and puts together a proposal that says if we pay them £350 million a week* we can have access to it all. Might make people realise it wasn't such a waste after all!
* Yes I know that number is rubbish, but it'll be the only way we might actually get them to admit it if they have to turn around and say it wasn't costing that before!
What's vindictive about it? Why did anyone register in .eu in the first place? Presumably, because they were starting an EU-wide activity. If they plan to continue that activity after Brexit, they will need an office in the EU anyway, and they can switch the registration to there.
Nothing to see here, please move along.
Compared to the multitude of real economic, social and personal disasters that Brexit will cause, this is trivial.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019