Will A No-Deal Brexit Void 340,000 British-Owned .EU Domains? (theguardian.com)
212
The Guardian reports on what may happen next to British businesses and individuals who own .EU domains:
There are about 340,000 registered British holders of these web addresses, and the government has urged them to make contingency plans as their web addresses will disappear if the UK does not agree on a deal with Brussels. The domains were introduced in 2006 as a rival to the likes of .com and .org but are available only to individuals or businesses based in the EU or the European Economic Area (EEA)...
Updated government guidance confirms that if the UK leaves without a deal at the end of March then domain owners based in the UK will have two months leeway to move their principal location to somewhere within the EU or EEA. "These .EU domain names will then be withdrawn and will become inoperable," states the guidance issued by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, which confirms warnings issued this year by the EU's domain registrar. "This means you may not be able to access your .EU websites or email from 30 May 2019."
After a year, all the British-registered .EU domains will be made available for purchase by individuals and companies who continue to reside in the EU. This raises the possibility that on the anniversary of a no-deal Brexit, one lucky German or Spaniard could be able to mark the occasion by taking over the Leave.EU domain and using it for their own purposes.
Updated government guidance confirms that if the UK leaves without a deal at the end of March then domain owners based in the UK will have two months leeway to move their principal location to somewhere within the EU or EEA. "These .EU domain names will then be withdrawn and will become inoperable," states the guidance issued by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, which confirms warnings issued this year by the EU's domain registrar. "This means you may not be able to access your .EU websites or email from 30 May 2019."
After a year, all the British-registered .EU domains will be made available for purchase by individuals and companies who continue to reside in the EU. This raises the possibility that on the anniversary of a no-deal Brexit, one lucky German or Spaniard could be able to mark the occasion by taking over the Leave.EU domain and using it for their own purposes.
Forwarding Company (Score:2)
As far as issues surrounding Brexit go, this is pretty inconsequential.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the fact that the domain will not be released for re-registration until a year after Brexit. By that time, everyone will have figured out how to find the new domain, or switched to a competitor.
Re: (Score:1)
I've never seen one in the wild (Score:1)
You could void every single .eu domain in the world and I wouldn't even notice. The majority are probably owned by domain-squatters and front-running registrars.
Indeed, apart from few official EU pages... (Score:2)
I doubt any of the many
No. (Score:1)
Last I checked, you don't really have to live somewhere to own something. It would be a petty move to push that 'logic' now. Well, not as petty as Brexit itself, but almost as pointless and self-destructive for the sake of making a statement that means almost nothing.
There's something really odd about the human psychology - where the common welfare throughout history has always been cheaper to maintain than paying for the consequences of it breaking down - but folks seem to viscerally dislike any status i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You should try trading the rules of the domain registry. Rules that the UK voted for. The TL;DR is that you do indeed have to be in the EU to own one.
Re: (Score:2)
You've never tried to register a com.au, have you? It's fairly territorial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and this is old news, this has been known for a year. So if they don't set up a holding company in the EU, British holders of .eu domains will not be able to extend them anymore.
Why is this so hard to understand? Are Leavers really all morons? </rhetorical>
Brit Bongs are funny (Score:1)
These Brixiteers really are ridiculous people.
The UK in particular has spent the last 20 years sending literally their shittiest asshole politicians who were either too incompetent or corrupt for meaningful work to the EU for representation.
They have, at every single turn, sought to disrupt the EU for doing much of anything.
They spent 20 years doing this shit.
Now, after all this time of trying to fuck everything up, they bitch that things are fucked up in the EU. Of course they are you idiots! You spent the
Re: (Score:2)
Parliament is going to cancel Brexit next week, most likely.
Worse (Score:2, Insightful)
No deal Brexit means effectively shutting off the supply lines from continental Europe to Great Britian. It'll mean food shortages, medicine shortage, looting, riots and deaths. It will mean the return of terrorist warfare in Ireland. Lots of websites breaking will be a pain but not the biggest of problems.
Charlie Stross writes well
http://www.antipope.org/charli... [antipope.org]
That the UK government has allowed us to get this close to it shows that they are not competent but also that game theory on a game of chicken
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
The USA was not brought to halt by Trump's presidency
The USA was brought down due to incredible complex systems in place to prevent the TRUMPOTUS from bringing down the country. Holy shit I shudder to think what it would be like of the President of the USA had the power some other countries afford their chiefs.
Likewise the UK will not crumble after Brexit, but it definitely will be (negatively) affected.
Define crumble and list a timeframe as well. Germany is currently an economic powerhouse and they lost a frigging world war. The UK won't crumble in the longrun, but a no-deal Brexit will definitely set them back many years at best, and actually cause h
Re: (Score:2)
Yes how terrible it has become in the U.S. under Trump. Unemployment is at an all time low, particularly in certain segments which are seeing historic low numbers. The stock market, while not at the all time high it was in 2018 is nearly there. Oh wait Trump was president in Jan 2018 too. Yes I just don't know what to do with the extra money I'm not paying the government in taxes.
I'm not even going to talk about the large increase in money for research that the DOE facility I work for got under the present
Re: Worse (Score:2)
The (excellent) Marshall Plan that built Western Europe to be a fortress of success against the USSR.
Western Germany received $1.3 bn and UK received $2.8 bn - the most of it.
What was your point, again?
Better (Score:3, Insightful)
None of that will happen, what will happen is that the UK being free of stupid EU rules and regulations will become a vast economic powerhouse where people go for things the EU will not allow... a giant grey market wonderland of prosperity.
Stick that in your pipe of gloom and smoke it.
Re: (Score:2)
Bananas any bloody shape we want. Toddlers with tits because the food is full of hormones. Spitfires, three-pin plugs and Vera Lynn!
Re:Better (Score:4, Insightful)
The bananas thing is penalty even more stupid thank you might realise. There is, like all the best lies a small grain of truth in it. There were rules, but they were OUR rules that we persuaded the EU to adopt.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, just a free kick.
You're welcome.
Speech-to-text playing up?
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh looks like my autocorrect went nuts.
The bananas thing is even more stupid. The rules were widely misrepresented, but the rules which did exist were our rules in the first place. Evil EU making everyone adopt our rules...
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. But saying "it was them!" is pretty much on Farage's level.
A better refutation would be on the actual merits of the system. It codified the categories (A=cosmetically perfect, B=edible but a bit spotty), IIRC. This may well make perfect sense if you're in the banana business.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that we won't be able to sell that stuff to the EU, and won't be able to compete with China and the US.
Meanwhile everyone is back to working 48 hour weeks and gets to pay US prices for health insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They have new groups now, the IRA doesn't exist anymore.
But if there is a hard border inside Ireland again, expect people to start singing Kevin Barry and detonating ordinance. The Irish people don't tolerate internal obstacles to trade.
The point of the "backstop" is to prevent war, it is as simple as that. Any trade border has to run in the sea, if it runs across land it will be an unmitigated disaster, and also violate the peace treaty.
UK is not very important anymore. (Score:2)
Would California be better off leaving the USA? Doubtful. Would Quebec be better off leaving Canada? Almost certainly not. Is the UK going to be better off without the EU. My money is on no.
Brexit was voted for primarily by old folks pining for the days when the British Empire was a significant player in the world. Those days are long gone and are not coming back. Sorry.
You were an important player on an important team. Soon you will be just another country of 65 million. Granted, you are twice the
Re: (Score:2)
The US was better off after leaving the UK. So was Singapore from Malaysia. And Brazil from Portugal. Just to name a few.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is we're not giving up naval bases so it would mean war and California would burn.
So it really is like that line in Hotel California then.........
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the possibility that not all of CA would exit. SoCal might (probably would) want to stay. So there could be a N vs S situation as well.
Quite probably. Same with the First Nations in Quebec.
A referendum in Ireland (and quite possibly Scotland) is pretty much a sure thing eventually after the UK leaves the EU.
If you are going to start pulling things apart you ought to think about how small the pieces can get.
Would there be war with a CAexit? Yes. Would CA burn? Yes, but it does that every summer now. Would the US burn? Yes. Would Russia and China rile up all sides to encourage such a thing? Absolutely!
Putin has wet dreams about such things.
GDPR (Score:2)
Just finished making a big deal about hiding the real names and information of site owners from Whois searches. So unless the EU is going to violate its own rules, how will they even know who owns what?
Re: (Score:2)
They won't use the whois search, they'll use the information they just hid.
This isn't hard to figure out.
Why would they care? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Who honestly would care if a .EU domain was lost?
In fact you could then derive some benefit by being able to write off the expense of the domain as a loss.
That's performing a lot better than the value of having a domain that ends with .eu, which not one person in the history of the internet has typed on purpose.
Find a single company who has a .EU domain not backed by other more common domains like .com. Just one.
Re: (Score:2)
At the risk of being modded troll, gnaa.eu - but you've got to admit they've been a part of slashdot for a long time.
Germany or Spain? (Score:1)
Either the person who made the summary is trolling, or he has no clue about the EU. It's far more likely that a political group from Italy or France will try to get the domain "leave.eu".
Anyway, nationalism is on the rise everywhere in Europe, even in Germany, and unless something completely unexpected happens, the end of the EU is now just a matter of time.
Re: (Score:2)
>>Either the person... has no clue...
You have no clue about languages.
"Léave" has no meaning whatsoever neither in Italian, nor in French.
Also, we are not interested by your separatist bullshit, thank you very much.
Re: (Score:2)
Either the person who made the summary is trolling, or he has no clue about the EU.
While technically you're right I suspect it's not for the reason you think.
The EU want to banish UK .eu domain owners even if the UK leaves with an agreed deal. 'No deal' is irrelevant on this one.
It's petty nationalism by EU nationalists seeking to impose whatever pathetic punishments they can on anybody that dares challenge their authoritarian superstate ideals.
The problem is divergence of aims (Score:3)
The goal is that the individual countries shall become the equivalent of US states. So, for instance, any citizen of the US can move wherever he wants to. Anyone can go live in California any time they choose. Anyone can invest anyplace they want and sell their goods anywhere, as long as they meet Federal standards.
In the same way, the EU target is that anyone in the EU should be able to move to Germany or the UK any time they choose. Same with investment. Same with sales of goods, which of course requires one set of standards, which in turn requires a court to enforce the rules.
The model the EU has chosen, in implementing this, is based on the Continental European models. Naturally enough, since that is who the founders were. So we find a mixture of the French and Prussian approaches to government and democracy. You have a technocratic civil service, with entry by competitive examination, government mainly by appointed officials, extensive powers for the executive to rule by decree. As with the Zollverein of the 19c, this has produced a large internal market with a tariff wall, a system whose essential goal is to make enough concessions to big agriculture and big business to keep both on board, and has also resulted in extensive regulation with the aim of managing tradeoffs among large corporate or national interests.
The classic example of this is the CAP, whose sole aim is to protect the EU (originally French) farm industry, in exchange for tariff barriers for other imported goods and services.
The UK electorate, when invited by its leaders to join the EU, was assured that this was purely a trading arrangement of sovereign countries, and that all talk of a federal European state was scare mongering. For many decades the EU and the UK told these two different stories about the enterprise. Finally however there came earthquakes which laid bare the contradiction. One was the financial crash and the crisis over Greek debt. This is continuing with the much bigger problem of Italian debt. The other was the migration crisis.
What this showed was a combination of dysfunctionality and unaccountability. If you take the second first, it turned out that Greece was powerless. There was no democratic influence on policy. There was also no democratic influence on the subsequent money printing by the EU central bank. Because those in charge were not elected on a European basis.
Americans will find this hard to visualize. You have to imagine America without any Presidential elections, without a Senate, and with a Congress which cannot initiate legislation and which commutes between Washington and some little city in California every few weeks. An arrangement which is widely ridiculed, but which it is powerless to change. Meanwhile, government is done by a civil service whose head is appointed by agreement of the Governors of the States, and this body has extensive rights to pass decrees which the States are then obliged to implement in state law.
So, there's a lack of accountability, but more than that, you can see that half the institutions which make Federal Government work in the US are missing. And that is why the migrant crisis was such an eye opener: there were no internal borders, but there was also no border force.
In the buildup to the UK Referendum all this became increasingly apparent and on TV every night (and all day, since the BBC has a 24 hour news channel). At the same time, there was the increasing consensus in Brussels, Paris and Germany that the answer to the financial and immigration issues was more Europe.
Much of the UK outside London had also over the years come to understand what the 'free movement of people', one of the famous Four Freedoms of the EU, really meant. It meant the freedom for everyone in a low wage
Re: (Score:2)
It's okay, on the New and Improved Slashdot you are allowed to say 'Jews' these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that the UK mainstream press is in some way Jewish dominated? That is the kind of weird paranoid idiocy which seems to have taken root in some quarters of the Labour Party, but it is, obviously, just a paranoid fantasy.
Or perhaps you are trying to suggest that I think it? Well, lets be explicit, just in case.
If you look at the voting patterns and the support for Remain, either in the referendum itself or the post-referendum argument, there is
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right. Go pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Re:If so, small price to pay for freedom (Score:5, Informative)
TFS and TFA do not present this as the best argument for overturning the referendum. It's presented as a consequence and a notice.
Also, this is one in a long list of consequences of Leave.
You are being deliberately deceptive and divisive.
Please Leave.
Re: (Score:2)
TFS and TFA do not present this as the best argument for overturning the referendum. It's presented as a consequence and a notice.
Also, this is one in a long list of consequences of Leave.
And... This is one of the consequences that is actually News for Nerds and relevant in this forum.
Re:If so, small price to pay for freedom (Score:4, Informative)
And in fact the headline is wrong. This will happen even if we leave with a deal, as negotiating continued use of the .eu TLD is unlikely to be a high priority.
Re: If so, small price to pay for freedom (Score:1)
Why was this truth nugget downvoted
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed, I think Scotland and Northern Ireland should regain their freedom from the faceless bureaucrats in London so they can continue to enjoy all the benefits of being in the EU.
I have no problem letting England and Wales languish alone.
dom
Re: (Score:2)
This does amuse me - Nicola Sturgeon is outraged that the UK as a whole is exiting the EU when Scotland voted to remain BUT she would have no problem taking a 51/49 split in favour of Scottish independence and dragging the 49% out of the UK.
It's almost as if she's a politician with the ability to ignore things she doesn't like!
Re: (Score:2)
One of the main reasons why the Scottish independence referendum failed was that people wanted to remain in the EU, something that wouldn't happen if they left the UK. She's outraged because only a couple years after the Sottish referendum the UK has a non-binding referendum with such a small margin of victory that is going to take Scotland out of the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
There were many reasons the last Scottish referendum failed, including membership of the EU (Sturgeon and Salmond insisted they would gain independent membership due to continuation policy, the EU said no), a monetary union in the Pound with the UK including policy decisions, which the UK said no to, and a reliance on North Sea oil and gas revenues, which was to form the backbone of an independent Scottish budget, but dropped through the floor barely a year later.
The last campaign for Scottish independence
Re: (Score:2)
Pray tell us how many of the promises in 'The Vow' were actually realised by Westminster.
Untill then, you can piss off.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical fucking Scottish nationalist.
"We must be independent from England but we must give up our independence to the EU"
Face it, you're just a bunch of racist cunts that betray everything positive about my country.
Re: (Score:3)
The best argument for aborting this madness is democracy.
The first referendum was flawed. It betrayed the recent Scottish referendum which was won on the promise of continued EU membership for a start. The campaigns were awful, the amount of misinformation and cheating was unprecedented, even before looking at the foreign interference.
What has been done since then does not resemble any of the promises or proposals that were made. In fact it is the exact opposite of many of them.
And now it's all deadlocked a
Re: If so, small price to pay for freedom (Score:1)
Did you even read your own link? 751 EU reps. Between 6 and 96 per country. They meet a few days a month. Since you are a dumbass, I shall explain in terms you might understand.
Any faux elected body that carries so little representation per member and in this case per state leaves the value of an individual citizen vote at approximately zero. Their level of representation is so minimal as to be effectively zero. So, who actually writes all the laws, regulations, and policies?
Unelected bureaucrats. Ex
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that the MPs sitting in London are writing the laws that they vote for? Or the members of the Senate or the Congress in Washington?
There are bureaucracies behind every level of elected office from the city up to the EU. Part of that is lawyers who specialize in writing up the laws. Less so for cities or for less important laws such as changing the national anthem. There is a special language that needs to be used and if you don't get the grammar correct there may be serious implications.
Re: (Score:2)
The European Parliament does not possess legislative initiative. It cannot propose laws, which means it cannot control policy. It is at best a rubber stamp for the Commission, at worst nothing but a ceremonial debating club.
Re: (Score:1)
a few days before the UK has to decide if they stay or leave. The UK is quite likely to stay in EU (rather than face a hard brexit).
I want to believe that too, but they've come this far...
Re: (Score:1)
"a few days before the UK has to decide if they stay or leave. The UK is quite likely to stay in EU (rather than face a hard brexit)."
How it will be (honest question: I'm not that versed on the petty details of this issue).
For all that I know, UK already "filled the paperwork", so to say, to leave the EU, so there's nothing else to be done: doing nothing means UK leaves the EU by the end of the month.
And I don't see UK doing anything, so that's what will happen. For all that I know, phoning Brussels a few
Re:I wouldn't worry much (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't know much, then. It's a matter of record that Article 50 may be revoked unilaterally.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Isn't there a Trump rally you could be at?
Re: (Score:2)
"You don't know much, then"
That's exactly what I said, didn't you notice?
Thank you for your links... while the first ones didn't offer light to the issue (back to 2018), this one is quite clear: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/d... [europa.eu]
On those grounds, the Court (Full Court) hereby rules:
Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member Sta
Re: (Score:2)
Yup; I'm also expecting a last minute change-of-heart.
It's not just the economic openness.
There's also the entitlement to vote in the parliament.
Re:I wouldn't worry much (Score:5, Insightful)
Even the official Vote Leave campaign wasn't dumb enough to try to leave the way Teresa May has. Their leaflet said that they would negotiate the withdrawal before triggering Article 50.
May's red lines fucked the UK. The EU's single market is nearly over 6x larger than the UK market, so clearly they were never going to do anything to damage it just for the sake of Britain. Her only plan seems to have been to negotiate a deal that she can claim delivers some perverse form of brexit, and then run down the clock until everyone panics and accepts it.
Fortunately Parliament is fighting hard to stop her, but all the while it's damaging the UK. Even if it cancels right now, a lot of harm has already been done.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Fighting hard? Well some of them are. Not many though.
The ERG are stupid or venal enough to want to leave with no deal. The larger majority of the conservative party seems terrified of them. Corbyn desperately wants to leave and most of the Labour party are either behind him or terrified of losing their seats or being deselected. The result is a whole pile of nothing from most of them and then just going back to blandly voting along party lines on anything that would matter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The official Leave campaign was stupid, and believed the EU would cave 100% and give the UK everything including a fake membership in the EU but still let the UK leave.
That is like a divorce attorny saying you get to keep the house, the kids, the cars, the vacation homes, and 100% of his income for all eternity and he has only random visitation rights.
Life doesn't work that way.
The whole leave Campaign was stupid Britian is going to be a shell of it's former self inside of 30 years. I say britian, as Scotl
Re: I wouldn't worry much (Score:1)
Sure, sure, stay and we will give you some cookies but keep taking away your rights, er uh privileges, until we have absolute control and then we take away your cookies, too.
Only a small child would fall for that. Oh wait, the Remainers fell for it.
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt they actually believed the bullshit they were saying, it was just to win the vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Both the manufacturing sector and the culture are completely orthogonal to the EU membership and so is your leadership. Leaving the EU won't do anything to solve these problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wouldn't worry much (Score:5, Interesting)
The EU wasn't going to negotiate at all until Article 50 was triggered.
From a US viewpoint, it sounds like the Leave campaign expected to be able to retain all the benefits of being in the EU, while only giving up the parts of membership that they didn't like. And they expected the EU to negotiate on their terms, and give them everything they wanted. And then after the referendum, they found out that's not how the real world works.
I've often felt that the Leave campaign never had any intention of succeeding. Their goals seemed so unrealistic that I assumed their intention was just to create conflict in politics. When they did win the vote, no one really knew how to proceed from there, so they mostly just choose a path of maximum conflict to avoid having to make the hard decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU was never going to negotiate in the way brexiteers thought they would.
The UK market is less than 1/6th the size of the rest of the EU's single market. So clearly it makes no sense for the EU to damage its biggest market for the UK's sake, and the UK is just a small player in comparison with a weak hand.
Also the EU has lots of deals with other countries that showed the kind of thing on offer. In fact brexiteers like Farage pointed to Norway as a model we could emulate.
So all this "cake and eat it" shi
Re: (Score:2)
The EU wasn't going to negotiate at all until Article 50 was triggered.
From a US viewpoint, it sounds like the Leave campaign expected to be able to retain all the benefits of being in the EU, while only giving up the parts of membership that they didn't like. And they expected the EU to negotiate on their terms, and give them everything they wanted. And then after the referendum, they found out that's not how the real world works.
That is dead on.
They wanted to have their cake and thought they'd be able to eat it as well.
And as a result we're being held hostage by a small number who have got what they want and are willing to drag the whole country into hell with them to keep it.
Re: (Score:2)
Their leaflet said that they would negotiate the withdrawal before triggering Article 50.
Their leaflets can say a lot of things, but you have to realise that the UK's bureaucracy is rivaled only by that of the EU, and negotiating prior to triggering Article 50 wasn't legally possible. May did try that in 2016, the EU said no and pointed to their regulations. Her failed attempts at getting the negotiation started dominated the news for weeks.
Here's a quote for you: “I cannot go an inch beyond the ‘no negotiations without notification’ principle,” - Margaritis Schinas, Chi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of May, but I can't hold this against her. Other parties have been repeatedly invited to come up with alternatives to the red lines only to spew back garbage, wishfull thinking, and legal impossibilities.
It isn't "wishful thinking" to point out that the alternatives to an impossible policy are actually all entirely different policies, which is what other parties have offered. It isn't up to the parties who disagree with the impossible plan to fix it; their duty is to promote better policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the official Vote Leave campaign wasn't dumb enough to try to leave the way Teresa May has. Their leaflet said that they would negotiate the withdrawal before triggering Article 50.
Negotiate what? I don't think the leave camp had any plan on winning nor any idea of what to do in case of victory (as hinted by the reaction of Nigel Farage the days after). Would have it been anyone else than May, how would the negotiation been better? The EU has to protect its members, it's its sole existence purpose. What is there to negotiate in that condition?
Maybe the Brexit will serve as a warning to other not to follow nationalist scammers that just want simpler and better tax avoidance schemes at
Re:I wouldn't worry much (Score:5, Insightful)
The idiots simply asserted that they could negotiate some sort of sweatheart deal with the EU, when actually the EU needs to withhold any sort of special privileges at all, or else they'd see a whole raft of countries also wanting half-way-out.
That was never something Brussels would agree to. And yet, it is what was presented to the British people to vote on. Absurd.
This is the value of a written Constitution that is difficult to change; you don't have some 51% vote that changes the very legal basic of the country.
"Barnier's Staircase" was the obvious reality even before the Brexit vote; these are well-established diplomatic concepts in the EU already when dealing with potential new members.
It is all a giant sack of lies and false promises, and it always was. If you don't want a "hard" exit, then you can't reasonably exit; a soft exit has to be on the EU's terms, because they have to protect themselves from a mass-exit. The EU has to offer "soft" exit deals that protect themselves at the expense of the country leaving, otherwise they have to hold their ground and say, "Don't leave unless you mean it."
Here in the US, a State would have to win a war with the rest of the country to leave. In most cases, unless they were given an option historically. Hawaii and Texas, for example, entered on special terms. But anybody else, no, they can't just vote locally to leave, because it affects everybody in the country. Agreeing to not have totally open borders between different political areas is a really big step, it is like a national marriage; you're not supposed to divorce on a whim, and you have to expect it will be painful and expensive for everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
or else they'd see a whole raft of countries also wanting half-way-out.
It's more like they would see a raft of countries also wanting half-way in. Everyone wants access to the EU single market because it's so lucrative, but it's only so lucrative because of it's integrity. The moment that gets compromised it's ruined.
That's why they EU won't do anything about the backstop. If the UK can unilaterally exit the backstop then it fucks the single market, which is over 6x bigger than the UK one so obviously they are going to prioritize it.
Re:I wouldn't worry much (Score:5, Insightful)
No they didn't. They were told they could eat their cake and have it - get the benefits of membership without the costs and the obligations.
I lost count of how many times I heard "The Germans will still want to sell their cars, the French will still want to sell their wine" and shit like that.
Re: (Score:2)
No they didn't. They were told they could eat their cake and have it - get the benefits of membership without the costs and the obligations.
I lost count of how many times I heard "The Germans will still want to sell their cars, the French will still want to sell their wine" and shit like that.
And the riposte to that is "The French and Germans know we won't be able to afford it after Brexit anyway".
Re: (Score:2)
Well that rather depends on what type of Brexit happens. If it's a soft Brexit, i.e. staying in the customs union, then things probably won't change economy-wise that much.
A quarter of the globe, pink it was. And you could still buy potatoes by the pound. None of these so-called "kilograms".
Re: (Score:2)
There is no cake. The cake is a lie.
Re: (Score:1)
"Hard brexit" just means "no deal brexit" which is what the UK citizenry voted for in the referendum.
The citizens voted for no single thing in the referendum other than change. It was a protest vote, and it was incredibly clear that no one had a fucking clue what Brexit would look like or what the implications were. They were literally voting for a great unknown.
The EU beaurocrats don't want this, because they can't make an example out of us.
What an utterly ignorant comment. The EU don't want this because it would cost the EU a shitton. Not nearly as much as the UK, but a shitton none the less. Hell if this did go through it would turn the UK into the very example you think the EU want
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like:
"This guy *used* to work as a nurse but doesn't any more, so taking away his nurse card is just spite?"
1) The domains aren't your property. .uk and not the .eu.
2) The domains have conditions attached to their ownership, including that you have to be in the EU.
3) If you were a true EU entity (not just someone who only trades in the UK), you would be unaffected because you'd still have a European base somewhere. If not, you should have bought the
4) All you need do to maintain registration is have an EU
Re: Seizure of Property (Score:1)
giving millions in aid mostly just makes 3rd world more dependant on us, rather than actually helping them.
Re: (Score:2)
you'd have to have a REALLY, REALLY good reason to do that, not just "we asked people and they said they wanted it"
Unfortunately, nobody wanted your opinion on whose opinions should be heard. You think you'll get somebody smart in charge, what you get is someone on top of "Mt.Stupid" [wordpress.com] because they're the most confident everybody else is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
and the only reason to take their domains away is spite.
Actually there's a very good reason to take their domains away, and one that the UK should be all too familiar with given how they are experts in the topic: Bureaucracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop the hysteria, please, or you may hurt yourself. What will happen, without regard to the media frenzy to dig new scare every day, is that nobody will rush to "purge" anything, and people on both sides of la Manche will work hard and in good faith to figure out a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the domain registrar should just ignore the laws of its host and do what it thinks it should. I mean there's no reason we should be stripped of the domains, it's not like we voted to make EU domains only four members of the EU oh wait yes we did that's exactly what we voted for.
I love how moron Brexiteers are pissed off that we're being held to laws that we ourselves voted to put in place. I guess the EU is too democratic while simultaneously not being democratic enough.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not like we voted to make EU domains only four members of the EU oh wait yes we did that's exactly what we voted for.
It doesn't matter too much what people historically voted for. The EU TLD is not the property of any country or government; although it was was designated for those associated some way with the EU. Technically, every ccTLD is the property of the internet community as a whole, and each ccTLD is delegated to a TLD manager, but that is just whoever happens to apply for it fir
Re: (Score:3)
What "scare tactics" are you referring to? Be specific. The EU even refrained from participation in the referendum campaign so that it does not exert undue influence, and it has been as cooperative as possible with the British negotiators since then. All the sound and the fury is coming from London, and there is a good reason for that - the referendum was never a serious leave Brexit thing, the idiot Cameron was just planning to use it as a scare tactic against the EU.
Well, it kinda backfired, but how is th
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
We voted for the law that makes EU domains only for use by EU members, you raging fuckwit.
Re:More scare tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of all the outrage over how the EU is steering the Article 50 process. We fucking wrote it, we decided that would be how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
In Britain's defence, at the time it was drafted they probably never thought it would apply to them. Nor indeed to anyone.
Sure, that's no excuse for public servants operating at such a high level of office ... but (shrugs).
Re: (Score:2)
It was written for the UK in the first place. To whom else would it apply?
Re: (Score:2)
This not an XOR - The evidence supports them being both.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in that case, I guess that makes you the raging fuckwits, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
No one's saying that Britain will turn into Rwanda within 50 years because it left the EU.
It's just a question of: better off in, or better off out?
Re: (Score:2)
England will be modeled after Albania, and Scotland will Brexit and rejoin the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
What scare tactics? This is the equivalent of 'If you cancel your membership your not welcome in the club anymore". What could be wrong with that?
Why do conservatives always insist on getting free handouts?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not that much freedom. The UK already had its own unique deal which means they neither have the Euro nor are in the Schengen Area. In fact in several degrees they retain more of their own sovereignty than Norway, a non-EU country, does.
Re: (Score:2)
This is also why the EU won't cut them the deal they wanted.
Check out the friction between Switzerland and the EU for example. Switzerland is not in the EU either but they still have to accept EU workers inside Switzerland.