Plan to strip post-Brexit Brits of .EU domains now on hold: Registry waves white flag amid political madness Plans to prevent UK citizens from owning .eu domains are on ice following the latest Brexit madness from the British Parliament. “Following the recent developments in the UK withdrawal scenario, the entire plan outlined on Brexit page is on hold,” advised the operator of the .eu. registry, EURid, in an update this week. “We …
I would like to remind the esteemed commentards of the origin of bureaucracy: it was to weed out corruption, to have a case judged on its merits and not who was behind it, and likewise that it should not matter who the administrator is. This is what most of us want, and a basis of rule of law.
Sometimes I think the problem is that bureaucrats want to make their personal mark on their area.
"I think the problem is that bureaucrats want to make their personal mark on their area."
With the added bonus that, if you're a British bureaucrat, you can blame the EU when your personal innovations prove to be hopeless (cf. every instance of Westminster gold-plating EU directives).
What bureaucrats most want to do is to do _something_, so there existence appears to have a point. It doesn't really matter what, and it certainly isn't expected to be anything useful. It just should be annoying and inescapable, so that it can't be removed without endless debate about what it should be replaced with. This protects their position.
EU bureaucrats aren't any worse than any others. In fact they're often better than national government bureaucrats because they don't suffer from so many parochial concerns or biases to protect particular nationally-important commercial interests. But they still don't really perform any function except sustaining themselves.
EU bureaucrats aren't any worse than any others. In fact they're often better than national government bureaucrats
On the UK side, some political careers have become a toxic wasteland.
I would bet that no European-level bureaucrat will lose their job over a bad deal.
>I would bet that no European-level bureaucrat will lose their job over a bad deal.
I bet no UK bureaucrat will lose their job over a bad deal either. Although, given past performance expect the Conservative Brexiteers to use anyone they can find to scapegoat their failures onto...
"Although, given past performance expect the Conservative Brexiteers to use anyone they can find to scapegoat their failures onto..."
I wonder where the Labour Brexiteers are? The Brexit divide is a cross party thing. No one one party, whether in government or not, can get the support it needs from just it's own MPs.
Personally, I think all votes in Parliament related to Brexit should be secret ballots. No Whips, and MPs can vote with their conscience, with their constituents or with what they think is best for the country. For example, with an election in sight either before or after Brexit, no opposition MP is going to vote for a government deal and be seen as voting "against" their own party, even if the leave deal is what they and their constituents want.
Cameron and May's careers are over, as is Dominic Raab.
David Davies resigned in frustration so has a little credibility remaining (if you'll pardon the expression).
Stephen Barclay and Johnson are on borrowed time.
Meanwhile the European Brexit 'Negociator' has done nothing of the sort, just spouts platitudes and appears to be prepping the post-breakdown blame game, while the European leadership team doesn't appear to see how many people they are throwing under a bus every time they open their mouths.
All still in post.
>Surely the sensible answer is to make a policy that deals with it automatically at renewal?
One problem is with the potential UK exit date being delayed again and possibly not for the last time either, is what to do with renewals that happen before the UK actually exits, as until that time the UK is fully paid up member of the EU and entitled to be treated as such...
"entitled to be treated as such..."
Tell that to the universities whos research grants are not being renewed and subsequent loss of staff.
I've already had friends move to the Netherlands as a result of this.
You'd think a gov with it's head screwed on would have stepped in to cover the shortfall.
A taste of things to come re agriculture. (Manufacturing is already screwed)
The sad thing is, even if we revoked today, it will take a decade to rebuild the trust we have lost as a result of this mess.
Sorry to be a PITA, but the graph used here (and maybe the reporting) is somewhat self serving. The full graph, showing more countries than just the UK, shows that it is only the UK where the dip is present. Starting in 2016 already, which is when the referendum was, and all this wasn't actual yet. Looking at the full data, all other countries look pretty stable. So... Some might say that a dip in the UK (starting in 2016), or the troubles with (being allowed to) owning an .eu domain are... self inflicted and a pretty logical result of local opinions and events..?
I'm not sure we're looking at the same graph. The UK line shows an initial peak followed by what looks like a bit of a change of mind followed by a fairly steady state, maybe falling a little from 2014 up to and including Q1 2018 after which is shows sustained falls for each of the following quarters. The fall from 2014 mirrors what's happening in Germany and the Netherlands, both of which have had much higher registrations in the UK except for the early exuberance when the UK had more then the Netherlands.
@ Dr. S: Not sure too, can't look over your shoulder ☺☺☺
I meant the Graph 1 of the link I gave. And yes, you're right if you say that I might be putting it on a bit thick. On the issue of mirrors you no doubt have more knowledge than me, so I go with what you say. Then again, what I tried to highlight was that showing all data might be more helpful. It for example puts it into context (like you did) explaining some of the movements, that on themselves, might look puzzling. A sort of "double digit sales growth" we all heard people boast about, while actually just growing with the market.
Then again, I think, looking at the UK graph, you can see the quick-to-grasp-it people in Q2-Q3 2017 (was that triggering Article 50?) moving elsewhere as risk-avoidance, and then the steady decline from Q1 2018 like you wrote (it is really going to happen people moment?).
So TLDR; show all data since more might be going on, all numbers seem to be within a natural (NS) fluctuation, and yes, the UK drops off significantly. Even with the ~ 15% fluctuation in the previous 10 years. If I raised another impression, I sincerely apologise...
The problem with EUrid data is that it really doesn't provide much real insight on registration data. There is a certain amount of musical chairs going on with .EU registrations in that some are moved around companies in different countries so that an influx from, for example, Austria to Gibraltar will be seen as a massive gain for Gibraltar when in reality it is just domain names being shifted to a new holding company. As for the UK's share of .EU, many of them were, initially, down to non-European Union operators using UK front companies to register large numbers of .EU domain names. Many of them dumped these domain names as the resale prices of .EU domain names, particularly in the English language market collapsed. The number of Irish registrations has, not unexpectedly, increased and many of them are probably Northern Ireland registrations and UK registrations moving. In real terms, the .EU isn't a top three player in the Irish market (the main TLDs in that market are IE,COM, and UK with around 33K on Irish hosters) and most Irish registered .EU domain names are unused. The .EU, in terms of web usage and development, is more of a gateway TLD than a ccTLD. People go there before being redirected to the domain name owner's main website in a ccTLD or .COM. It is rather popular in the Eastern EU countries because it is cheaper than a .COM registration but it just isn't the replacement for .COM that its proponents expected. A lot of that is down to the bungling of regulations by the European Commission and its advisors. That kind of cluelessness seems to institutionalised and this mess is just a continuation. As a non-core TLD (ie not a ccTLD or COM) in most markets, the .EU is having a hard time as are all other non-core TLDs.
>The fall from 2014 mirrors what's happening in Germany and the Netherlands
mirrors?
From Graph 1, it is only the UK who have seen a steep fall in registrations since 2018Q1.
I suggest the reasons for the comparatively long stead decline in Germany and the blip in the Netherlands are due to factors different to those at work in the UK.
KittenHuffer,
I know it's said a lot that the UK must be punished to discourage the others. But I don't think it's true. I've even heard it said approvingly by people arguing we should remain in the EU, in a sort of "Good on 'em sock it to us nasty British!" sort of way. All the Europe wide polling suggests that it isn't true - and I don't see why EU governments would think it is. Even at the height of the Euro disaster almost nobody in Greece wanted to leave the EU, or even the Euro. As they rate their own politicians even lower. The other country with a big following for leaving the Euro is Italy (I think a majority of young people have polled anti-Euro), but even though Italy no longer polls as almost the most pro-EU country - wanting to leave is a minority position.
Another Eurozone crisis might change that of course.
On t'other hand Macron said that if France were given a referendum they might vote to leave. But there's no polling in France to suggest many people want to. The prevailing opinion about Le Pen's last presidential campaign was that the Front National lost support over wanting a referendum on leaving the Euro.
So does Macron really believe that, or was he just spouting shit? Or was he misquoted? I find it hard to believe that EU politicians seriously believe it though. The UK has always been ambivalent about membership - and a third (ish) of the population have consistently wanted to leave since we had the original referendum in 75.
>I know it's said a lot that the UK must be punished to discourage the others. But I don't think it's true. I've even heard it said approvingly by people arguing we should remain in the EU, in a sort of "Good on 'em sock it to us nasty British!" sort of way.
Junker definitely said pretty much that (paraphrasing from memory, he said that deterrence was worth whatever it cost so long as it made an example of Britain and stopped any future talk of leaving), but he said that at a time when Le Pen had rather a lot of support even outside her own voters for policies which were incompatible with EU directives (not unlike Corbyn in that respect), and her platform included polices which could have triggered the sanctions which Lord Kerr designed to force A50 the the rest of the Council wanted to, while at the same time there was much more hostility from the V4 and the Swiss federal government was forced to undo popular policies which violated their web of treaties with the EU.
Polling means nothing. 5 or 10 years ago very few people in the UK (apart from Farridge and his rich chums) gave a tinker's cuss about the EU. It wasn't a problem, it wasn't an issue. But several years of constant lies via the media and enough people are convinced that blue passports will save us from the baby-eating alien slavers in Brussels.
Foolish, yes. Gullible, yes. Unable to think clearly, yes. So they failed to notice that the baby-eating alien slavers are the Tory party, and are now in Downing Street.
"On t'other hand Macron said that if France were given a referendum they might vote to leave. But there's no polling in France to suggest many people want to. The prevailing opinion about Le Pen's last presidential campaign was that the Front National lost support over wanting a referendum on leaving the Euro."
A referendum is always a very delicate weapon to use. Typically, as every french know, people don't answer to the question. They vote for their opinion of whoever is in charge.
So, it's like a nuclear weapon you have to wield VERY carefully. Obviously, Cameron was not aware of this.
"The UK has always been ambivalent about membership"
This is the issue. The UK has always pissed off the whole EU about having particular rights and almost no obligations, and now, the whole EU is just impatient to see them leave ASAP.
They've been a completely spoiled child, who now demands whatever they think is due.
I'm quite sad about my fellow UK colleagues TBH. They are completely fucked by their leaders.
> I was just repeating a pretty well established fact
Err no - you've fallen into the trap setthe US and by Cummings et al.
The issue is, as others have noted the UK is being hoisted by its own pertard.
Remember the UK wants its cake and to eat it. The ardent Brexiteers wanted to be able to leave the club, yet still enjoy all the benefits of membership whilst cherry picking which rules they would abide by, the chairman and committee of the club said no to this. The ardent Brexiteers having not got their own way, have interpreted this as the club being difficult and out to punish them. Hence why they ran off to the US to get (empty) words of comfort from Trump.
It's like all the guff about remainer MP's delaying things. As we saw in the run up to monday's Parliamentary vote, Boris was threatening the Brexiteers to back his bill or he would cancel Brexit... The threat meant nothing to the remain supporting MP's.
Err no - you've fallen into the trap setthe US and by Cummings et al.The issue is, as others have noted the UK is being hoisted by its own pertard.
Remember the UK wants its cake and to eat it.
Roland6,
And yet you argue someone else has fallen for sloganeering...
No Brexiteer cared about .eu domains - and I'd imagine none do now either. But they do make their arguments rather easier to make - as this is exactly the kind of pointless political behaviour they accuse the EU of (even when it isn't guilty).
All this having your cake and eat it rubbish is so much rhetorical bullshit too. What the parties have been attempting to do is to negotiate an agreement with costs and obligations acceptable to both sides. And arguing about what the nature of that agreement should be. The question is then what the price is for those choices. It wouldn't be "the UK having our cake and eating it" if we stayed in the Single Market and Customs Union but left the more "political bits of the EU - so long as we accepted free movement and paid in our dues. If people didn't want that, then it was a different compromise with different costs.
Exactly re cake and eat it. It's how everyone should enter a negotiation, especially one of such magnitude. The EU will have started with exactly the same objective, of course from their perspective not ours.
Media reaction to that was typical and expected. Rather than report it being the normal way of approaching such things i.e. boring, it was better for them to stir up the rabble and make a big fuss about it. Sells more news.
@I ain't Spartacus
>And yet you argue someone else has fallen for sloganeering...
Well it is hard to not use some figures of (English) speech as as they do succinctly sum up the daftness and contradictions contained in the Brexiteer position...
>No Brexiteer cared about .eu domains...
Don't really disagree. However, ardent Brexiteers (such as Farage and Cummings) will pick up on anything that originates from either continental Europe or the EU27 and twist it into something to throw at the 'EU'; Including rules - the UK helped to write - which will don't favour the UK's post-Brexit position...
>All this having your cake and eat it rubbish is so much rhetorical bullshit too. What the parties have been attempting to do is to negotiate an agreement with costs and obligations acceptable to both sides. And arguing about what the nature of that agreement should be.
As we know, the relatively easy part was agreeing the basics of the financial settlement.
The difficulty has been down to the failure of the UK (Conservative) executive to decide what precise post-Brexit relationship the UK wants with the EU and communicating that to anyone outside of a closed circle of Conservatives. Rather than address the future relationship issue early ie. before triggering Art.50, T.May decided to kick it down the road, specifically to be part of the post-Brexit discussions. This has meant the Withdrawal Agreement has had to include conditions about those unknown future relationship negotiations and their possible failure - hence the inclusion of things like the Irish backstop... I note Bo.Johnson is following in T.May's steps and also not wanting to talk meaningfully (in public) about the future relationship, even if so doing could enable a better Withdrawal Agreement to be negotiated...
> The ardent Brexiteers wanted to be able to leave the club, yet still enjoy all the benefits of membership whilst cherry picking which rules they would abide by, the chairman and committee of the club said no to this.
You make it sound so simple. Remember that the UK would still have to pay for the bits that it wants to "cherry pick". No one is suggesting that the UK should get the benefits for free. (c.f. Norway and Switzerland).
And you have clearly forgotten that the EU allowed new members to pick and choose when it suited them. For example Slovakia joined the Euro but the Czech Republic retained their currency even though both joined the EU simultaneously. Clearly picking and choosing only applies to those joining the club otherwise one might think that the EU were being hypocritical.
If you really want to see the EU twist so far backwards that it can see forwards then dare to suggest that there is no reason why Catalonia couldn't secede from Spain but stay in the EU.
>If you really want to see the EU twist so far backwards that it can see forwards then dare to suggest that there is no reason why Catalonia couldn't secede from Spain but stay in the EU.
Catalonia like Scotland does present some interesting problems. I suspect the real issue is that the EU is not a government of the European people, but a club for the 28 member nations. Thus "the EU" in this this and some other matters is putting the interests of it's member nations before the interests of the people.
If the EU ever becomes a United EU and thus the member nations 'lose' their individual sovereignty then I see no reason why Scotland, Catalonia, Wales and a few others shouldn't gain 'independence' within the United EU - just as North East Lincolnshire regained independence from the ill-advised political construct of "Humberside".
With Brexit, Scotland/Wales no longer become analogous to Catalonia.
They become more like the Baltic states or Yugoslav states - parts of a failing Union state bordering the EU, rather than a splintering existing member of the the EU (Spain)
Both sides on any negotiation start by wanting their cake and eating it. What follows are a series of compromises until reaching an outcome both sides are least unhappy with.
Yes, we can't leave the club and still enjoy the full benefits. Only most naive fool would think otherwise. But it still has to be where our negotiation starts from, just like the EU negotiation will start from giving nothing away. Basic negotiation strategy. You never go in wanting nothing, you go in wanting everything and work down from there.
The current stalement in parliament seems a mix of prudent politics from the point of view of wanting to avoid no-deal, and continued dithering and prevarication by Corbyn who wants to stick it to Bojo but doesn't dare actually do something concrete because that would mean taking a side and, you know, actually doing something.
@Jimmy2Cows
we can't leave the club and still enjoy the full benefits.
But that was exactly what the Leave campaigners promised during the referendum, with Canada++, Norway+++, remaining in the SM & CU. Remember? No-one mentioned "Eating leaves but not quite as bad as Mad Max without insulin"
Time for another vote between what we have and what is actually on offer, without the rainbow unicorns in every pot.
"It's like all the guff about remainer MP's delaying things. As we saw in the run up to monday's Parliamentary vote, Boris was threatening the Brexiteers to back his bill or he would cancel Brexit... The threat meant nothing to the remain supporting MP's."
That is rather the point though, isn't it. Parliament is reflecting the "will of the people". 48% want to to stay, and 52% want to leave but those 52% can't agree on the how they want to leave. There was an interesting article on the Beeb news site the other day showing quite a number of polls all pretty much showing this. about 1/3rd want Brexit cancelled, about a 1/3rd want Boris' deal and about a 1/3rd want a hard brexit. (Not that simple, obviously, but you get the general idea) There's certainly not a 50+% agreement on anything!
48% want to to stay, and 52% want to leave
Wrong tense... wantED to... but since 2016 many Leave voters have died, young Remainers have joined the electoral register, some people have changed their mind (usually from Leave->Remain)
How about we ask the voters NOW what they want?
Relatively recently see here, for example shows a slight lead for stay, but enough "don't know"s to swing the vote.
@Pen-y-gors
"Wrong tense... wantED to... but since 2016 many Leave voters have died, young Remainers have joined the electoral register, some people have changed their mind (usually from Leave->Remain)
How about we ask the voters NOW what they want?"
We did. The brexit party won the majority for the MEP election. While it is probably true that some leave voters have died (and remain ones too I expect) and some will change their mind from leave to remain (and remain to leave) it would seem the best course of action is to implement the result that was voted for instead of stalling further for such poor arguments and demands for more votes.
"I was just repeating a pretty well established fact"
I don't think it's a fact that the EU is being a bastard to the UK "pour encourageur les autres". Rather, the EU is enforcing EU rules as to what applies to members vs what applies to non-members. Many of these rules to exclude non-EU members (eg with regard to access to Galileo) were inserted at teh specific insistence of the UK.
So, yeah with regard to .eu domains, Brussels is acting a bit of a bastard. But frankly eu domain names is probably somewhere in 1000th place in the list of Brexit priorities, and having to give up .eu domain names is certainly not the deterrent that's keeping Italy, France, Greece etc from leaving the EU.
<rant>
Really? Don't you yourself have the impression that you do sound a bit like somebody who gets behind of the wheel of a car completely thrashed, and then blames the council for placing street lights along the road on your way home?
Since the UK is famous for its restrictive clubs and societies: when did you manage to tee off on that golf, or get into that gentlemen's club without being a member? While being female? Or not wearing (the right) tie? Went to the "right" school?
As we are reminded continuously (although notably less lately): 17.4 million people "thought about it" and want to leave. And hey, that means that, with ended membership, its potential privileges end. (Gasp!)
In 2017, after the UK officially announced they wanted to leave, the EU clearly put on their website/ in their press releases, what tricky issues would have to be resolved with the UK. Since English a such a difficult language, think that their issues apply to everybody, and seem to have an attention span that can't capture the 3 bullet points all at once, it took 2 more years to understand what it said. And now seems to need even more time to get done! "So please bad EU, give us shiny people an extension, because we actually don't like you at all because you don't like Marmite, and we think we're so cool we can get another exception that applies to just us. You know, like we did since we signed up because we wanted to benefit from it, by Jove".
Eurid put all conditions and possibles clearly outlined on their website. Factual, objective, and useful. Don't like it? Well, you're not wearing the right tie, and remember the 17.4 million. Apparently that was the informed democratic decision and now can you please get on with it? It starts to get a bit tiring for the rest of us who have more to do then dwell on the past. Goodbye and good riddance I think the British (or is it English) expression is? Don't forget to pick up your tab on the way out...
</rant>
For the very topics of the .eu domains, you're certainly right. It was retarded, confusing, full ahead, then reverse. Stupid.
But for the rest, you're over-generalising ! The EU was perfectly fair with the UK. They allocated delays after delays, even after the treaty was discussed for months and agreed between PM and EU negociator.
...several other countries are likely to be doing the same thing....
I have heard that other xenophobes have quietly let their plans slide while they see just how badly this hurts us. We have become quite a poster child for the concept of remaining in the EU. It just remains to see how long this lesson lasts!
"Right at the end there you got it. The EU have to make it as difficult, costly and painful as possible for the UK to leave as they can. If they don't then several other countries are likely to be doing the same thing."
How do you square that with the red lines set by Mays unelected advisor Nick Timothy?
You would have a point if we went into the negotiation with an open mind and the best interests of the country rather than start with a xenophobes charter of what the UK wouldn't accept.
Add into that the inflammatory rhetoric from our politicians and you start to realise the people punishing the British people are our own government.
> How do you square that with the red lines set by Mays unelected advisor Nick Timothy?
I do love this kind of statement. Do you really think advisors should be elected? What if the advisor is a Civil Servant - should they be elected? Supposing you needed to appoint world-class economist as an adviser but the public refused to elect one and elected $latest-celebrity [*] instead?
What would the ballot paper look like? Each candidate for MP appears 57 times with 57 varieties combinations of different advisers so you could vote for the exact combination you fancied?
[*] Subtle plug for Perl 6 there, which keeps it IT related. ;-)
When its the advisors that are making the decisions and setting and driving policy then they should stand for election. Instead what we have a is back door system which allows people to set and deliver policy on behalf of special interest groups and simply channel it via the elected conduit.
Milne, Cummings, Timothy etc. all wield huge power over our lifes and we get no say in it. In effect they are not 'advisors' but the actual leaders of the policies that are being foisted on us.
Reality is they should not exist as part of government or our politics.
Of course advisors shouldn't be elected - and they should be paid for out of the advisees salary, not the public purse, unless they are clearly neutral civil servants.
But surely the point is that advisors give advice, they don't make rules. It is up to the advisee to reject that advice if it is stupid and against the national interest. Oh yes, and sack the advisor.
May is to blame for any red lines. The buck stops there.
No, it basically makes sense. Many geographic/country level domains can only be registered by entities with some sort of strong connection to the country, such as a registered address in the country, or a strong trading presence etc. e.g. .fr, .ie - others don't care (e.g. .uk, .tv)
The .eu is in the first group, so not unreasonable to say no new registrations by non-eu entities, but it would be nice to allow existing registrations to continue (perhaps with a notice appearing on any website to emphasise that the company is not in the eu any more)
Erm... for .us there are requirements:
"an individual who is a citizen of, or lives in, the United States and any of it possessions or territories.
An organisation or company based within the United States, or any of its possessions or territories. This includes all non-commercial, federal, state, or local governmental organisations, and their respective subdivisions, as long as they are based within the United States.
A foreign entity or organisation with a bona fide presence within the United States or any of its possessions or territories. This means that a foreign business or entity can register the domain, as long as they maintain an office or similar property within the United States, or regularly engage in lawful activities within the United States. For example, this includes the sales of goods or services within the United States. In cases such as these, the applicant must state their country of citizenship."
As there are for a lot of other domain names. I wanted to register once a .no domain, but Norway restricts that to citizens, residents or companies based in the country...
"Erm... for .us there are requirements:"
There are very similar requirements for .ca now that they have been liberalized.
Previously, registration was limited to the smallest .ca subdomain that met the requirements.
In order to register a pure .ca domain you previously had to meet the requirements separately in at least two provinces, and similar rules existed for 'sub-sub-domains'.
I am not sure about 'stripping' UK citizens of domains.
I think the .eu domain (like many region or country-based domains) has rules on ownership that require you are resident or a citizen.
What should happen if the UK leaves, so that many UK citizens who own those domains no longer meet the criteria?
I don't think they're being bastards, providing they apply the same rules to others from outside the EU (e.g. Americans etc) in denying them ownership.
If owning a .eu is one of the rights that goes with living in the EU, or being an EU citizen, then it goes without saying it would be lost if the UK is no longer in the EU, just like freedom of movement and other such rights.
Maybe the implementation is a bit clumsy, but the principle is fair enough.
Does the US require it for .us domains? I still don't understand why the EU wants to strip .eu domains from UK residents, other than to be bastards.
They probably should also include tax-paying businesses in that too. If the business has a presence, they they should be allowed to keep their domain.
sort of like what you do in Scandinavian countries during a trip to the sauna
except that this is the whole 60+ million of us getting thrashed (As well as taken to the cleaners financially)
Never mind Boris and pals with their millions (in other currencies) already salted away offshore won't mind. The'll get us out and piss off leaving us poor sods to clean up their mess...
One day someone will get a PhD (if there are any UK Universities left...) for working out exactly what this debacle has cost each and every one of us.
And where has 'dear Nigel' been recently? Has someone been able to muzzle him? Pity it could not have been done a decade ago. Perhaps we should send him the bill?
Even if you are pro Brexit, you have to admit that things have not turned out to be as rosy or as easy as the likes of BoJo promised in 2016. The words 'failure to organise a way out of a wet paper bag factory' seem to come to mind at time like this.
Basically what you're asking is; does .eu stand for Europe or European Union?
When it was originally set up, it was explicitly named for the European Union, and intended for people and organisations in the EEA (src).
So, as with practically fucking everything, it depends on the UK's future relationship with the rest of Europe. So we should have that worked out by 2030 right?
"Surely .eu identifies the continent, not just countries in Europe who belong to the European Union."
I dont know which the .eu is intended to identify and I dont really care (this TLD stupidity being just that). But it does bring the question of what the EU identifies as since it regularly mistakes itself for Europe while actually being a political union inside but not wholly.
Remain or leave the TLD argument is just the EU shooting itself in the foot. There are better implementations of taking back the domain names if that is worth more to the EU than the money.
>since it regularly mistakes itself for Europe while actually being a political union inside but not wholly.
A bit like people going about the "the people" when in fact they are referring to only 17.2M ...
The fact is the EU got first claim on .eu and just like anyone else with a TLD they can specify the rules as to who and what can use that TLD; live with it.
@Roland6
"A bit like people going about the "the people" when in fact they are referring to only 17.2M ..."
Only? Thats an odd way to talk of the majority in a vote where the rules were set by the remain and leave won. But less odd than people going about the 'the people' when referring to the minority.
"The fact is the EU got first claim on .eu and just like anyone else with a TLD they can specify the rules as to who and what can use that TLD; live with it."
I agree. Cant say I care either way about the .eu domain, but it is blazingly stupid how it is dragged into the brexit situation and handled so badly.
Only? Thats an odd way to talk of the majority in a vote where the rules were set by the remain and leave won.
"the people" generally refers to all or the vast majority, not just those who voted in a particular way. There is no evidence that having had the referendum that "the people" back the result, if anything "the people" are still divided; it is a matter of debate and its timing as to whether one side or the other has improved its position.
As for the rules being set by 'remain', I suggest you read a little more about the run up to the referendum. The referendum happened because of how vocal and influential the eurosceptics in the Conservative party were, it would be a mistake to believe the rules were wholly set by one or other side, I suspect the eurosceptics did much to water things down and persuaded D.Cameron to allow government members to campaign and thus really muddy the waters about the true status of the referendum.
@Roland6
""the people" generally refers to all or the vast majority"
Ok. So if it isnt good enough for leave to use 'the people' as in the voting result of the people actually voting on a direction for the country then there is no way remainers should refer to the people.
"it is a matter of debate and its timing as to whether one side or the other has improved its position"
Timing possibly, but not in the 3 votes supporting the leave position (referendum, GE, MEP election). So an amount of ambiguity is lost there.
"As for the rules being set by 'remain', I suggest you read a little more about the run up to the referendum."
Cameron promising to back leave if the EU dont agree to his demands. Waters down the demands before asking and walks away empty handed. Backs remain, refuses to do any leave prep and pushes propaganda at taxpayer expense to get around the spending rules. Go on...
"The referendum happened because of how vocal and influential the eurosceptics in the Conservative party were"
And of course it had been voted for in general elections a few times, lets not forget that (as far back as the labour party promising it!).
>So if it isnt good enough for leave to use 'the people' as in the voting result of the people actually voting on a direction for the country then there is no way remainers should refer to the people.
I see you are getting an appreciation of the mess! :)
>Timing possibly, but not in the 3 votes supporting the leave position
What the votes do and don't show is the level of consensus building (not) that has been going on. Hence why each of those votes didn't result in a significant swing one way-or-the-other. I fully expect a GE and/or referendum held before the current mess is resolved to deliver equally indecisive results and show once again "the people" are still divided.
>And of course it had been voted for in general elections a few times, lets not forget that (as far back as the labour party promising it!).
Yes, well UKIP have been around a while... I think we will look back at the years directly before the referendum as being a period of political madness or stupidity, where politicians did and promised many stupid things (probably because they got obsessed with focus groups and their day-to-day media/opinion poll ratings), the media stirring things up to suite their agenda and many in the electorate believing the tall stories.
>Cameron
Well I think we can now see his judgement was clouded through having to deal with the daftness and infighting that so clearly pervades the parliamentary Conservative party, so having not got the result he thought he was going to get, simply take the earliest opportunity to walk away and let others in the Conservative party deal with the mess they created.
"Timing possibly, but not in the 3 votes supporting the leave position (referendum, GE, MEP election). So an amount of ambiguity is lost there."
3 votes? I don't know about you, but in the last GE I voted for a candidate I thought might represent our constituency. I didn't care if he was le\ave or remain because theoretically, he would be representing me for up to 5 years on many, many issues, not just Brexit. I would also suggest that many, many voters in the last GE voted the same way they always do.hence why my vote is usually "wasted" because we've pretty much had a Labour MP here since Labour was invented. Not to mention that Labour in general and Corbyn in particular won't take a proper stance on Brexit. This area voting overwhelmingly for Brexit. Yet the local Labour voters marched out in force and voted Labour as usual. Labour suggest they want a "good deal", they suggest they want to put it to a public vote (another referendum), and consistently act like a remain party while making some noises about wanting to leave.
As I said in another post, Brexit is a cross-party issue and no one party.if it truly represents it's voters and the country, can do Brexit on it's own. There are leavers and remainers in both major parties and if the MPs truly represent their constituencies, there should be enough MPs to get Brexit done. It's party politics which is the problem because the parties see their own party interests as paramount, not the interests of the country.
"Timing possibly, but not in the 3 votes supporting the leave position (referendum, GE, MEP election)"
There were not three votes supporting leave.
The referendum result was so close to even that any well structured vote would have considered it insufficiently conclusive.
The general election was not just about leave vs remain, but also about long term party loyalties, and other issues important to people. There is no way it can be considered a vote supporting leave.
The MEP elections were a clear victory for remain, with pro-brexit parties getting 39.3% of the British popular vote, and pro-remain parties getting 48.6% of the British popular vote. That result was far less equivocal than the referendum results.
@AC
"There were not three votes supporting leave."
Time for a maths lesson.
"The referendum result was so close to even that any well structured vote would have considered it insufficiently conclusive."
Aka the result by the defined rules of the vote was leave. 1-0
"The general election was not just about leave vs remain, but also about long term party loyalties, and other issues important to people. There is no way it can be considered a vote supporting leave."
The lib dems make a big thing of GE's being another referendum. Labour will only allow a GE if they can bind the next government not to hard brexit. How many squealers complained that brexit was the most important thing in british politics. 2-0
"The MEP elections were a clear victory for remain, with pro-brexit parties getting 39.3% of the British popular vote, and pro-remain parties getting 48.6% of the British popular vote."
Oh shit you really cant count. The brexit party was created for leave, the change UK was created for remain and there was no contest. But in fairness the libs positioned themselves as the remain party and did very well, but less than the brexit party. You have no claim on the intentions of the other parties funnily enough for the exact reason you complain about the GE. 3-0
"That result was far less equivocal than the referendum results."
3-0 is far more than necessary but it is where we are. And yet we remain against the democratic results.
"Surely .eu identifies the continent"
Why on earth would you think that?
The continent is a mere geological background. TLDs are pretty much tied to top level administrative and governmental structures.
We have .us and .ca... I have never seen a .na (north america) top level domain - if it exists, no one uses it, but I am reasonably confident that it does not exist.
This is the official UK position:
The UK will definitely or maybe exit or remain in or out of the EU at some point in the future or not. And that is just what a minority or a majority or none of the British population might or might not want at any particular time or at no time at all. Going forward or backwards, this will allow certainty or not in our dealings or lack of dealings with our friends or partners or enemies or bemused onlookers in or out of the EU. Due to the hard work or incompetence or laziness of this or that government, the NI border issue has now been simultaneously solved, not solved or maybe solved to the agreement of everyone or no-one right now or later or never.
>That or you've just described Corbyn, who is quite happy to sit there poking Bojo, pointing and laughing all the while as he doesn't have to actually make a decision one way or the other.
But why should Corbyn or anyone else in opposition assist the Conservatives, the current mess is entirely of their own making.
Also if we look to the past, the Conservatives were masters of implementing policies, calling an election and then from the safety of the opposition benches decry the new Labour government for the mess created by said policies.
The problem with Corbyn, isn't so much what he does or doesn't do in the House of Commons, but where he actually stands on things - for example, is a vote for Corbyn a vote to remain or a vote to leave or something totally different?
"Also if we look to the past, the Conservatives were masters of implementing policies, calling an election and then from the safety of the opposition benches decry the new Labour government for the mess created by said policies."
Labour were/are no better. "There's no money left. We spent it all"
"The problem with Corbyn, isn't so much what he does or doesn't do in the House of Commons, but where he actually stands on things - for example, is a vote for Corbyn a vote to remain or a vote to leave or something totally different?"
I think he must be the most ineffectual leader Labour have ever had. He beats Kinnock hands down. Kier Hardy must be spinning in his grave.
It's not Corbyn's fault that his support in the party membership doesn't give him control over the parliamentary party in practice or over the party machine, meaning he couldn't do anything except with his shadow cabinet's own resources for the first few years unless the right agreed with it.
What is probably his fault is that he didn't take advantage of that support to perform the kind or purges the right did before and during the time Blair took over the party and so secure control of the party machine and ease out as many of the parliamentary right as possible.
Boris plays safe by asking for IT Advice from a primary school child
"As we pointed out with some prescience earlier this month, that deadline was never going to be possible thanks to the seemingly endless games of chicken played by UK politicians for the past two years."
Oh no we are! Said Katie Hopkins
"We are out on 31 Oct.
If I am proved wrong I will drink a pot of tea naked in the Apprentice losers cafe with Farages face on each nipple."
There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the fall in UK registrations is exclusively because of the actions of EUrid; simply that a fall has happened. I wouldn't have been surprised to see a fall in registrations from the UK regardless, just because of the impact of leaving the European Union. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a slight bounce, if a deal were to be approved, as a result of a so-called "Brexit Bounce", from investors holding back until there is more certainty for what the future holds for the UK.
Personally, I deeply regret our decision as a country to leave the European Union. For all of its faults, right now I have more faith that the EU institutions, bureaucrats and politicians will have respect for things like the rule of law, the courts and democracy than our own politicians or institutions.
"Loads of countries and other political unit based domains have no restriction on actually being based there to get a domain there."
And loads of others do have formal requirements.
As far as I can see, the ones with requirements are major developed nations, the ones without are impoverished nations and micro-states trying to raise foreign currency by selling off domains.
If I was in a country in the EU that was not leaving, I may think about moving domains now. I would keep my eu domain and make it a pointer to my main country domain. I would think about doing this as it does take some time for people and search engines to get accustomed to the new domain. It could take from three to six month to two years. Unless I had a presence in multiple countries, I would strongly look at moving the main domain to my country of place and having all others be forwarding.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
