European Commission Says It Will Cancel All 300,000 UK-Owned .EU Domains (theregister.co.uk)

Brexit has hit the internet, and not in a good way. From a report: 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 organizations that are established in the United Kingdom but not in the EU and natural persons who reside in the United Kingdom will no longer be eligible to register .eu domain names," the document states, adding, "or if they are .eu registrants, to renew .eu domain names registered before the withdrawal date." Going even further, the EC suggested that existing .eu domains might be cancelled the moment Brexit happens -- expected to be 366 days from now -- with no right of appeal.

Comments

Petty.

[MachineShedFred]

Is it just me, or does this seem fairly petty and petulant? Yeah, sure, the UK won't be in the Eurozone any more, but all you're doing is (in the best case) generating revenue by making all those domain owners re-register with addresses in continental Europe, and inviting a land rush for speculators and scammers in the worst case.

Seems pretty stupid.

Re:Petty.

[Joce640k]

Rules is rules.

They voted to leave, they've got nothing coming.

Re:Petty.

[TigerPlish]

Is it just me, or does this seem fairly petty and petulant?

Politics are petty and petulant. It's all about appearances.

Re:Petty.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing someone will register fuck.eu

Re:Petty.

[CaptainDork]

It's not petty at all.

This is not a retaliatory move; it's the law.

The UK will not be part of the .eu, right?

They can get .uk

Re: Petty.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll register fc.uk.eu

Think about it

Re:Petty.

[BlueStrat]

Is it just me, or does this seem fairly petty and petulant? Yeah, sure, the UK won't be in the Eurozone any more, but all you're doing is (in the best case) generating revenue by making all those domain owners re-register with addresses in continental Europe, and inviting a land rush for speculators and scammers in the worst case.

TFA is written to sound like the EU is being petty and that any UK citizens owning .eu domains were not already aware and are having to suddenly scramble to save their websites, but that is far from the case.

This was one of the consequences that were known from the start. The vast majority of them have had plans and all the machinery in place to switch their domains since very shortly after Brexit passed.

This is much ado about nothing. It's a click-bait article.

Strat

Re:Petty.

[Zocalo]

The rules of the .EU domain are pretty clear - registrants are meant to have a connection to the EU, something many of the UK registrants will cease to have come Brexit. The revenue's not the issue here - a few €m per year is nothing in the scheme of things - so this is entirely about sticking the letter of the law and (possibly) an attempt to get another bunch of UK citizens to directly feel some pain from Brexit, of which some will hopefully complain about it and further weaken the UK government's overall position and Conservative MP's chances of retaining their seats.

Also, to nit, the UK has never been in the Eurozone as that specifically refers to countries that have adopted the Euro as their currency. They'll probably be obliged to join if they ever decide that they want to get back in, however, since adopting the Euro (and being part of Schengen) has been a mandatory condition of full membership for some time now. It's obviously going to take a *huge* change in mindset or a lot of people aging out before that even gets floated as a serious possibility in government though.

Re:Petty.

[hazardPPP]

Yeah, sure, the UK won't be in the Eurozone any more,

The UK was never in the eurozone, nor does being in the eurozone have anything to do with being able to register .eu domain names.

Re:Petty.

[Hylandr]

Living in America and receiving a highly filtered / edited newsfeed on the brexit topic I am going to guess that this isn't the first time something like this has happened, and that Brexit didn't happen for no reason at all. it takes a lot to move an entire nation to agree in the polls against the push of popular media even.

So far this action tells me that Brexit may have been the best thing to happen to the UK for quite some time. Right now it's just the .eu TLD. ( that we know of ) With a clearly petulant EU leadership that's appointed and not elected I shudder to imagine where the line would be drawn between necessity and atrocity.

tl;dr
UK dodged a bullet.

Re:Petty.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The UK will not be part of the .eu, right?

Yes, with the UK leaving the EU Common Market, this could be misleading. For instance, a UK company that currently sells dishwashers in the EU might be called:

dishwashers.eu

However, after the Brexit, and before a trade deal is agreed on (which will take forever), the UK company will only be selling dishwashers in the UK. So it would make more sense for them to call themselves:

dishwashers.co.uk

They can get .uk

"Let them eat UK!" -- Marie Antoinette

"England is a nation of shopkeepers! They taste awful!" -- Napolean

Yeah, but we'll kick your hairy ass in Waterloo!" -- English Shopkeepers

There's plenty of love to go around in Europe . . .

Re:Petty.

[king neckbeard]

Even with plenty of advance notice, this is remarkably stupid.

Re: Petty.

[cyber-vandal]

Most of the UK aren't living in borderline poverty and quite a few of the elite such as media barons are very keen on Brexit. Trade isn't a hot button issue, it's all about immigration. The papers have been banging the drum about what a great evil it is for decades.

Re:Petty.

[thegarbz]

Is it just me, or does this seem fairly petty and petulant?

No that's just misinterpretation of what the EU is. Regardless of what anyone thinks of it positively or negatively it is still fundamentally a majorly rules based bureaucracy. I don't think this is petty as much as it is a realisation that it is either kick off the domains, or dig out and take yet another legal document through an update process to make exceptions.

Also worth remembering is that the EU and UK are in the process of negotiating exit terms. Nothing is petty in a negotiation, it is all just part of your negotiation position. I also suspect that both sides will play on this one. The EU sees it as yet another thing that affects the UK, and the UK will probably use it as something they can offer to let the EU have (because who the hell needs a .eu domain anyway, most are just yet another TLD registration of another domain a company already owns anyway).

Re:Petty.

[Required Snark]

"it takes a lot to move an entire nation to agree in the polls"

How much of "a lot" is due to micro-targeted propaganda using stolen data by Cambridge Analyticica?

Re:Petty.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

With a clearly petulant EU leadership that's appointed and not elected

. . . just like the Upper House of Parliament in the UK, the House of Lords, who are appointed, and not elected.

For the US folks . . . how would you feel if instead of voting for your State Senator, he or she was appointed by a gang of old, white men, who are supposedly truly concerned about the best interests of the country . . . ?

Oh, and who voted for the gang members . . . ? Themselves . . . ?

But that's a moot point. The folks in the UK can choose whatever form of government they think is best for them.

And the Brexit decision was wisely put up as a referendum for all to vote on.

The UK politicians were very careful to pass that "Hot Potato" off quickly . . .

Re:Petty.

[Hylandr]

Methinks thou dost tinfoil-hat too much.

Re:Petty.

[rl117]

Hold on just a moment. If Scotland did leave the UK, that would effectively be breaking up the Union, and would be the end of the UK as we know it. Both Scotland and "rUK" would be entitled to their share of the split assets, and that might well include sharing of the ".uk" TLD. The same also applies to the UK exit from the EU. The UK has some entitlement to its share of the EU assets, and that's part of what these negotiations are all about. That may well include some rights to use of the .eu TLD. Though I don't see any value in it myself.

Re: Petty.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Trade isn't a hot button issue, it's all about immigration. The papers have been banging the drum about what a great evil it is for decades.

From a UK "newspaper" . . .

"A while ago I saw a grey squirrel, an invasive species, eating a native British wood pigeon. I think we need to take back control and sort out a points-based immigration system for woodland rodents."

"If everyone drives on the left side of the road, then what on earth is the point of having the right hand side of the road?"

"It's typical of the perpetually pessimistic remoaners at the BBC that traffic news on the radio is little more than a tedious list of setbacks and problems. Instead, why not read out the names of the many places and roads where there are no problems? If you don't hear your area mentioned, you can draw your own conclusions, but the rest of us can be happy because decent British roads are the best in Europe, and probably the world. We should take pride in them, not keep talking them down.

Hopefully, the trade in British humor will not be affected by Brexit . . .

Re:Petty.

[Obfuscant]

Is it just me, or does this seem fairly petty and petulant?

Yeah, the headline certainly makes it seem so. But the headline is typical /. muckraking. The summary tells a better story: no new registrations and no renewals of current registrations. And one comment that they MIGHT cancel existing ones, but that's only a maybe that they're thinking about.

making all those domain owners re-register with addresses in continental Europe,

If they're not eligible for a .eu because they're UK-based, then they aren't eligible for continental Europe domain names either.

I see no issue here. Who else but the EU registrar is authorized to determine who is allowed to register under the .eu TLD? If you leave the EU and are no longer authorized, why should you be able to renew your domain?

The ONLY problem would be for multi-national companies with a true EU presence that are based in the UK. They should be able to have a .eu domain address. That may require a subsidiary do the actual registration.

Re:Petty.

[Obfuscant]

. . . just like the Upper House of Parliament in the UK, the House of Lords, who are appointed, and not elected.

And every domain registration operator, who are not elected. When was the last time you voted for the CEO of Network Solutions, for example?

Re:Petty.

[hcs_$reboot]

Is it just me

Yes, just you. You can apply for a .eu TLD if you belong to the EU. UK leaves EU and cannot pretend to use a .eu domain anymore.

Re:Petty.

[balbeir]

f.uk.eu

Re:Petty.

[Joce640k]

it takes a lot to move an entire nation to agree in the polls against the push of popular media even.

...says somebody from the country that voted Donald Trump as president.

What both the Brexit and Trump votes have proved is that there's a whole bunch of small-minded, Xenophobic people out there if you give them a chance to vote.

Re:Petty.

[Hylandr]

I would normally mod this down as a troll but I am going to feed it instead:

What the Brexit and Trump votes proved is more people that don't buy the media's bullshit voted than those that do believe the bullshit.

And honestly, anyone that thinks they are better than anyone else for any reason are the problem here. Accusations aren't evidence, calling people xenophobic, racist, small minded etc doesn't make them so. It just makes them ( rightfully ) not like you, your cause, or your candidate.

It had nothing to do about gender, race etc. It had to do with the candidate was utterly reprehensible in her conduct and track record. As exemplified by the meltdown of her constituency afterward. Based on that fact alone we know we dodged a bullet. The media has been bordering on treason in it's 'reporting' of Trump and his activities.

Re:Petty.

[Applehu Akbar]

Is it just me, or does this seem fairly petty and petulant?

Of course. Pettiness and petulance from Brussels is why the British left the union.

Re:Petty.

[borcharc]

The UK just wanted a divorce. But her husband the EU is so angry that he will scorch the earth to try and assert his endless dominance over her. She's gone, let her go. Make a fair split of the property and debts and accept that your obsession with total dominance over her is why she left. If this were people, she would have log got a restraining order long ago.

Re:Petty.

[rtb61]

Actually that is not rules, that is a corrupt practice. I can get domain names from all over the world, but I can not get an EU one, hmm, that stinks of unfair trade practices and provides the opportunity to sue under the WTO. No one might have bothered before because who cares but now I demand that all individuals and organisations that are in the EU be actively denied domain addresses any where else in the world, what's fair for them should be fair for the of rest of us. Do they really want to pull that trigger.

Re:Petty.

[Cederic]

You forget who paid for the fucking stadium, bought half the players and has to subsidise ticket prices for the fans.

The UK owns a substantial part of that EU private property.

Re:Petty.

[mikeiver1]

Correct me if I am wrong but would this be happening if the USA had not seeded the control ICAN to these assholes?

Re:Petty.

[pjt33]

Living in America and receiving a highly filtered / edited newsfeed on the brexit topic I am going to guess that this isn't the first time something like this has happened, and that Brexit didn't happen for no reason at all. it takes a lot to move an entire nation to agree in the polls against the push of popular media even.

Your newsfeed seems more delusional than filtered. The vote was almost as far from the entire nation agreeing as is possible, and the biggest selling newspapers were pro-Leave.

Re:Petty.

[Dutch Gun]

Hard to say, but why is it any of the USA's business about how the EU and UK deal with this? As an American, I'd rather not be caught in the middle of such international squabbles.

Just fyi, it's ceded.

Re:Petty.

[nospam007]

"Is it just me, or does this seem fairly petty and petulant? "

Not at all! They will get the right to their own domains and they will have the power not to let any Polish plumber consult their sites from day one, while still letting the Irish ones in without any checks.

Wasn't that their hearts' desire?

Re:Petty.

[Hylandr]

*Shrug*

I am sorry but your claim doesn't have much merit. The last decade has proven individual perceptions aren't reliable when they differ from the result of a real event.

Brexit voted in favor of leaving the EU, person x hates it, therefore they project that the country didn't want it. Brexit DID happen, Trump IS the president, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it was some miracle that happened despite the will of the people.

Please, please ( why am I repeating this so long after the fact )

Please, just mature and deal appropriately with reality.

Re:Petty.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Of course it's petty, as are a lot of the other measures they are taking post-Brexit. But there is a reason for these measures and the way they are announced: it's a strong message to those who oppose or have doubts about the EU: "Don't be stupid like them". It is in the Commission's interest to not have a smooth Brexit, and to wreck the UK economy a little in the process, somewhat like a maffia boss who has your legs broken when you don't want to play ball anymore. This was openly discussed in some circles in Brussels, until Merkel and Hollande put a sock in that sentiment (they did want a smooth and amicable Brexit)

Not to say that Brexit was a smart move or that all of the EU is bad. But there's something seriously wrong with some of the people running it.

Re:Petty.

[hazardPPP]

So far this action tells me that Brexit may have been the best thing to happen to the UK for quite some time. Right now it's just the .eu TLD. ( that we know of ) With a clearly petulant EU leadership that's appointed and not elected I shudder to imagine where the line would be drawn between necessity and atrocity.

You have a bunch of misconceptions here.

The EU commission is no more "appointed, not elected" than the UK government.

First, the UK head of state is an unelected, herediatery monarch (this is not criticism - I happen to think this is good thing, actually - just a statement of fact). No equivalent of this exists at the EU level. There is no King of Europe.

Second, the UK has an upper house of parliament, the House of Lords, which is totally unelected - it's a mix of heredietary and appointed positions. Appointed, ostensibly, by the Queen, but in reality nowadays by the Prime Minister. There is no equivalent at the EU level - the EU has a unicameral, fully democratically elected (directly by the citizens of each country) parliament.

Third, while we think of the UK government as "elected", legally speaking it is appointed. By custom, the Prime Minister and the other ministers are all of Members of Parliament (although this is not legally required), however technically no one elected David Cameron or Theresa May Prime Minister in a nationwide vote - they were elected MPs for Whitney and Maidenhead, respectively, only by the voters in those constituencies. The Queen appoints the Prime Minister and his government. This is different from other parliamentary systems, where the president/king proposes a prime minister and a government, and the parliament approves or explicitly elects it - the UK parliament does not approve a government before it takes office - however it can pass a motion of no confidence in that government and bring it down. That is why, in order for the government to function, the Queen must appoint a government that can "command a majority" in the House of Commons. So, the government is de facto, indirectly elected by the MPs, while the MPs are directly elected by the people - so the government is de facto, indirectly elected by the people.

How does this compare to the EU? How is the European Commission appointed? It starts with the EU parliamentary elections. Then, the European Council, "taking into account the elections to the European Parliament" (Article 17 of the Lisbon Treaty), proposes a candidate for the President of the Commission. The candidate is chosen by qualified majority voting. The European Council consits of the heads of state or heads of government of each member state, who are all either directly elected (e.g. the President of France) or indirectly elected (e.g. the Prime Minister of the UK) by the people. So the council proposes a candidate to the European Parliament. The Parliament must then explicitly approve, i.e. elect the President of the Commission - an absoluty majorty of MEPs must vote in his favour. The MEPs are directly elected by the people in the member states. Then the President must propose a Commission to Parliament - i.e. the other commissioners, one for each portfolio. Each potential commissioner is then scrutinized in front of the relevant committes in Parliament. Finally, Parliament votes on the Commission as a whole, and an absolute majority of MEPs must vote for it to be approved. Then the European Council, again by a qualified majority decision, appoints the entire Commission. So you see, on paper, this is actually more democratic than the UK process for appointing a government. No unelected heads of state are involved. Each candidate for a post gets parliamentary scrutiny (like hearings in the US senate before secretary appointments). The parliament must explicitly approve i.e. elect the commission.

Finally, in the UK people indirectly vote for a Prime Minister because they know that their local candidate for MP which they are voting for is a member of

Re:Petty.

[hazardPPP]

What both the Brexit and Trump votes have proved is that there's a whole bunch of small-minded, Xenophobic people out there if you give them a chance to vote.

No. What those votes prove is that there is a lot people "left behind" (in more ways than one) and screwed over by the economic developments of the past few decades who have been ignored by the mainstream (media, political and business elites, etc.) and who therefore have lost faith in said mainstream and thus became susceptible to populist propaganda supposedly offering them a better alternative. Some believe it, some just use it as a way to stick the finger to the system they feel has let them down.

In the case of the UK however, most of the policies that have screwed those people have been the fault of the UK government, not the EU. The fact that the UK politicians have been using the EU is a scapegoat and convenient excuse ("it's not our fault, Brussels made us do it") is another matter. While people who voted for Brexit have legitimate concerns, they were duped - because the Conservative Leavers (most of them) don't give a rats' ass about jobless industrial workers and struggling working class people. They want out of the EU so they can turn in (in their fantasies) into some sort of huge offshore tax haven slash Singapore/Hong Kong deregulated capitalist paradise. While this might turn out great for them and their donors, it's probably going to make the lives of those living in England's depressed post-industrial wastelands worse.

Re:Petty.

[hazardPPP]

This with this attitude, the UK should give nothing on the way out. I can't wait for the EU to collapse. Eurotrash need their collective hands slapped until they remember basic human decency.

This is nonsense. People (especially UK Leavers and those outside the EU) don't get what the EU is about.

The EU is about rules. Common rules that everyone agrees to follow. Sure, it's not always perfect, but no organization is. Now, those rules also define what EU members can do (and not do), and what non-EU members can do (and not do). There are rights and obligations. If you want rights, obligations come with it. If you take on the obligations, you get the rights. Simple, really. The EU has been very reasonable in the exit talks. It's the UK that has been the problem - defining only strictly what it doesn't want, not what it wants. Then, when the EU says, "well, if you don't want this [single market membership, customs union membership, etc.] you can't have that [full access to the EU market as before, etc.]", the UK complains about how it's not being treated fairly. Who is then being childish and petty?

Mind, the UK already had a bunch of special statuses and exemptions as an EU member. More of those were offerred to Cameron before the Brexit referendum. The UK voted to leave, despite all of the special treatment it received over the years. Now, it wants even more special treatment...so needs to learn basic human decency?

Re: Petty.

[mapkinase]

Yes, it's petty.

Re: Petty.

[cyber-vandal]

When was that not the case, in the UK or anywhere else? I have that fear too but Brexit isn't going to remove it. In fact getting rid of "inconvenient" EU rules like the Social Chapter is going to make it easier to sack people. The bosses here drool over the prospect of being able to fire someone whenever they want like you can in the US.

Re:Petty.

[Sesostris III]

Please, not everyone in the UK talks/types like that!

Curious though, that the poster refers to the EU as "Eurotrash" and says " I can't wait for the EU to collapse", which, to me, doesn't really show much "basic human decency" itself!

Re:Petty.

[Barsteward]

" This was one of the consequences that were known from the start. " - not really, the brexiter sections all believed they would have their cake and eat it. The people who want to remain knew there were consequences and pointed that fact out numerous times but brexiters called if "fake news" or "project fear"

Re:Petty.

[Barsteward]

"So far this action tells me that Brexit may have been the best thing to happen to the UK for quite some time. " - wrong. and the vote was spit about 51.2/48.8 on those who voted which in the end it means only about 27% of voting population voted to leave. The leavers said before the vote if they lost 52/48%, it would be "unfinished business".

Re: Petty.

[Barsteward]

"What the Brexit and Trump votes proved is more people that don't buy the media's bullshit voted than those that do believe the bullshit." - you cannot get more bullshit from media like Fox news, briebart, Daily Mail, Daily Express. People who voted for Trump/Brexit did actually vote believing real bullshit and lies.

Re:Petty.

[jareth-0205]

Rules is rules.

They voted to leave, they've got nothing coming.

Yes, and also law is law. Domains are usually regarded as property so we're talking about seizing someone's property. Which sounds mighty suspect.

Re:Petty.

[Barsteward]

don't hold your breath, the EU won't collapse. the Uks stupidity has made it closer. You really are lacking facts about the EU and just rely on emotional dogma from trash newspapers

Re:Petty.

[Barsteward]

no it doesn't. the EU collectively "bought" everything. Clueless if you think the UK for most of it.

Re:Petty.

[Barsteward]

Considering the UK government don't seem to have a plan and can't tell us openly what will be affected, the EU is bringing stuff to the fore so we can see what we will lose.

Re:Petty.

[Barsteward]

the Eu is 450m people and the UK is 65m - who do you think is going to get the better deal?

Re:Petty.

[Interfacer]

Nope. You own the content. You don't own the domain name. You lease it, which is why you also lose it when you stop paying the yearly fee.

Re:Petty.

[Interfacer]

You should get some more diverse news then. I will give you 2 facts.
1) many of the remainers didn't vote because they never thought that the leave camp had a chance in hell of succeeding. the entire nation didn't move. Only a small percentage did, and they won by a hair. Since you live in the US: think of it as a constitutional amendment that got only a 51% vote in congress, and was ratified by 30% of the states. Is that an amendment you would be happy with?
2) the EU tld denotes representation in the EU and compliance with EU regulations etc. You cannot have a tld if you declare yourself exempt from those regulations.

Re:Petty.

[Interfacer]

I wish I still had mod points (I posted) because you hit the nail on the head, 100%.

Re:Petty.

[Interfacer]

I agree. It no longer matter why or how it happened. It did. That means the UK has to deal with the reality of the situation, not the dream they were sold to by the brexit campaign.

Re:Petty.

[Interfacer]

It's not about the UK giving anything on the way out. You completely misunderstand what these negotiations are about. They are about what the UK wants from the EU when they are finally outside the door.

Re:Petty.

[segedunum]

Yes, it is. I'm not aware of any other domains administered in this manner.

Re:Petty.

[pjt33]

Did you reply to the wrong comment? 52/48 being much closer to 50/50 than 100/0 is not an individual perception, and nor is the Sun and Mail being pro-Leave.

Re:Petty.

[jareth-0205]

Yes, you do lease it, but that doesn't mean that that the lease can be revoked halfway through its term.

Re: Petty.

[prefec2]

This absolutely wrong. The highest contribution was always Germany, as it has the largest single economy. Nevertheless, the UK paid more than they got back, but in turn they had access to the EU market. That was good for their economy.

Re:Petty.

[david_thornley]

You might want to watch how you write things. Somebody might think you're serious.

Re: Petty.

[prefec2]

While you are right regarding immigration , you are also wrong. Immigration would.not be an issue if people did not have the feeling of being left behind. All the right wing rubbish in the EU is based on the left behind sentiment and the corrupt elites meme. The cause of this is neolibwralism which ruined social systems and run down education. And that is the consequence of elites which are disconnected from the average population. Furthermore, the world is changing rapidly, due to the digital transformation and climate change, but instead of leading the transformation, politics is merely reacting and often fails even then. Also EU politicians use the EU as a scape goat for laws they wanted to pass nationally, but couldn't. So now the EU is used to push for the same shit and the the EU is guilty.

Re:Petty.

[david_thornley]

You can't enforce an illegal contract or lease. If I'm leasing something while it's legal, and it becomes illegal, either by a change in law or by my actions, the authorities are highly unlikely to grandfather me in.

Re: Petty.

[prefec2]

UK media supported Brexit. Just have a look on the Daily Mail, Sun and the Guardian. Then you can see that most media in the UK (in terms of viewers/readers) where pro Brexit.

Re:Petty.

[david_thornley]

Divorces have consequences. The stuff gets split up. Some friends may find it awkward to remain friends with both parties. Neither side is likely to get everything they want. Now, I'm getting benefits from my wife's employment. If we were to divorce, I'd lose those benefits. It wouldn't be a matter of dominance, it would be how the rules were written.

It also seems odd that the EU would be considered totally dominant of a country that didn't even use the euro.

Re: Petty.

[Brockmire]

+5? Wtf. Rules ARE rules. They'll get EVERYTHING coming to them, not nothing. What is your mother tongue? It isn't English.

Re:Petty.

[DethLok]

"18 U.S. Code 2381 - Treason | US Law | LII / Legal ...
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Apparently that's the US definition of treason.

I'm not sure how you think that the media has been waging war or adhering to their enemies? Most of the MSM I read seem to think that Russia is actually unfriendly to the USA. Though the POTUS and family may think differently...

Re:Petty.

[Hylandr]

I did say bordering on treason. With information being a tool of weapon it would seem they are trying to discredit everything our President is doing.

If Information weren't a weapon, then espionage wouldn't be an issue.

if there's ever going to be peace on Earth then we need to stop finding differences to hate each other for, and we certainly need to stop finding someone or some group to hold forward as a boogey-man to revile. It's not productive to the advancement of society.

Re:Petty.

[Hylandr]

Bugger, I sure did. Sorry about that!

Re:Petty.

[mikeiver1]

Thanks for the correction, couldn't recall and didn't care enough at the time to look it up. And I agree about not really wanting to be in the middle of the shit storm.

Re:Petty.

[DethLok]

That would be YOUR president, since my country doesn't have one.

I have a hereditary monarch! :)

Who, if she decided to not allow a law that my parliament had decided to pass, would very quickly find that we decided to become a republic...

Hence Big Liz is a bit of a rubber stamp.

But yes, your concerns are valid, for USAnians.

I do quite like your comment: "You can lead a sentient to skepticism, but you can't force it to think for itself."

The rest of the world is looking on with interest at both Brexit and the followup - "hold my beer" Trumpism - of the USA.

Good luck from a fellow colony of the British Empire!

And, please, don't start a nuclear war...

Re:Petty.

[Hylandr]

"And, please, don't start a nuclear war..."

Right, will get on that straight away!

If we don't go into civil war over our right to be able to stop it with the 2nd amendment that is.

Keeping government in control of the worlds most powerful military in check gets a lot harder when we are reduced to crossbows, swords and belittling comments.

Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[rsilvergun]

so far none of the benefits of Brexit have materialized and all of the promises have been walked back. I doubt they'll even get to cut back on immigration. Immigrants are usually brought in for cheap labor, I can't see the ruling class giving that up. It looks to me like you've got all the downsides and none of the up. Just do a second referendum already.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[rahvin112]

It's too late, they already initiated the withdrawal. It happens now regardless. The only thing left to do is negotiate some type of trade agreement if possible.

To get back into the EU the UK would have to make some major concessions, including adopting the EU currency. I'd imagine the rest of the EU would extract a pretty penny from the UK to be let back in and they'd always be a second class member afterwards unlike the first class founding member they were before leaving.

No, Brexit is happening, there's no turning back and it's going to hurt the UK far more than the Brexit campaigners claimed. The UK is likely to lose half their banking industry to this.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[klingens]

No, the UK could go back if they wished. The brit rebate by "I want my money back!" Thatcher however wouldn't be reinstated. That would probably be the main concession demanded by the others. Basically, no more special circumstances for the UK, they have to be a member like any other which there were not anymore for many years. So it would cost the UK a lot monetarily to go back. The Euro is a non-issue. No one would force them to join it.
The problem however is not money in any form, it's UK politics. It would kill the tories, split them up basically. And of course would sink PM May.

The UK is no founding member of anything. They joined the EU in 1973 or so. Very much a Jonny come lately. Founding members of what became today's EU were Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany in 1957 in Rome. This morphed into the 1967 "European Communities" which is what the UK joined in 1973 together with Denmark and Ireland.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[WormyOne]

Both this post and the one its responding fail to recognise that Brexit has not actually taken place. Very premature to call it, benefits or not. As for 'we're leaving the EU': don't count your chicks before they hatch!

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[klingens]

This is article is wrong and very shoddy reporting.
What the EU wants is the have all the things made after the 2009-2011 crisis like the ESM or future Eurobonds, etc. All the things the euro-group (which is not the EU) created, to be under EU administration. Right now, all these things are administered by the ECB, the euro-group with bilateral treaties between the euro countries. The EU doesn't like that, they want it in their bureaucracy in Brussels.

So far, the euro countries especially Germany, don't want that, so it's a total non-starter right now.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[thegarbz]

I doubt they'll even get to cut back on immigration.

Ironically enough some of the truly baffling talk about immigration in the UK is that they are pissed of with a) illegal immigration, and b) muslim immigration. The former won't change, and the latter will actually get worse with Brexit thanks to the UK being able to use it's immigration quota without having to accept EU migrants. ... the majority of which are Poles and everyone is fine with that because someone needs to build houses and do plumbing.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[AmiMoJo]

There are on going legal cases to determine if it can be undone, but realistically if the UK did change its mind the EU would accommodate it and change the rules if necessary.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[thegarbz]

It's too late, they already initiated the withdrawal. It happens now regardless.

That has been a matter of legal debate given how poorly drafted the leave article was. There is reason to believe that they could still cancel Brexit. That said there is zero reason to believe they will. The UK will sooner stubbornly drive themselves to hell before back pedalling on something like this.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[Ichijo]

It's too late, they already initiated the withdrawal. It happens now regardless.

Really? The citizens of the UK can vote to start the process but they cannot vote to stop it? That seems rather undemocratic. Who wrote that rule, the UK or the EU?

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[serviscope_minor]

Who wrote that rule, the UK or the EU?

Article 50? I believe it was us what wrote it.

Anyway we didn't vote to eave, we voted to get the government to tell the EU we're leaving. We can vote to get the government to tell the EU we don't want to leave any more.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[tomtomtom]

No, the UK could go back if they wished. The brit rebate by "I want my money back!" Thatcher however wouldn't be reinstated.

Which is one of the reasons why the UK as a whole will never wish to go back in my view.

The EU as it exists today is not really the same organisation as the European Communities/Common Market which existed before the Single European Act and Maastricht Treaties. That was much more of a trade block based on mutual recognition of differing national standards and a customs union with a common commercial policy which retained internal border infrastructure (including duty free zones in between countries, for example). As a trade block, it was a creature of its time, when tariffs and quotas were the biggest barriers to trade before the last few GATT rounds which rather dramatically reduced tariffs in goods on a global basis.

I don't think it would be unfair to call the UK a founder member of the "modern" EU as in particular it was instrumental in pushing for the Single Market (under Thatcher) which is the defining trade relationship within the EU (and since the mid 90s the EEA) and which did much to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade (although the Single Market rules also act as a hugely protectionist barrier against those outside the bloc). The UK has never been an enthusiastic member of the political institutions however, or of Jacques Delors's "Social Europe" vision - indeed both of these have consistently been raised as concerns about membership since their beginnings. If we had not been part of these then I doubt we'd have voted to leave.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[tomtomtom]

I think there was a strong political consensus to restrict low-skilled immigration and a general relaxation about high-skilled immigration; indeed for non-EU controlled immigration (including immigration of non-EU spouses of British citizens) strong restrictions on low-skilled immigration have been government policy under Labour, coalition and Conservative majority and minority governments. High-skilled immigration is not politically controversial. That's why the "Australian style points system" was such a vote-winner, even though it arguably would have resulted in higher total numbers.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[DaHat]

Anyway we didn't vote to eave

Good to see that #fakenews is over in the UK as well.

we voted to get the government to tell the EU we're leaving.

You can claim that if you want, but it kinda differs from the wording of the referendum:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

• Remain a member of the European Union
• Leave the European Union

Lets also just ignore all of the campaigning for the meaning of leaving prior to as well.

We can vote to get the government to tell the EU we don't want to leave any more.

You can... if you can convince the government to have another ballot initiative... and that isn't going to happen. Of course even if that magical ballot initiative were to be agreed to and voted on tomorrow... given the nature of article 50... no, it's still going to go through, like it or not.

It is interesting that the poorly thought & delivered arguments in your post echo your signature.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[hcs_$reboot]

so far none of the benefits of Brexit have materialized

Well, without imports/exports with the EU, UK will fully enjoy their own food, for one.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[trickyb]

so far none of the benefits of Brexit have materialized

Brexit hasn't happened yet... I know that this is Slashdot, but some familiarity with "causality" would be helpful.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[Sesostris III]

I'm not sure if this should be moderated "score:n, Informative" or "score:n, Funny"!

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[Barsteward]

No, Article 50 can be cancelled at any time

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[Barsteward]

oh god... this "EU army" shit is still in your head. Give it up.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[Barsteward]

but a lot of the "low skilled" workers are needed because the natives have such a sense of entitlement that those sorts of jobs are beneath them. And a lot of the "low skilled" EU workers are actually educated to university level

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[thegarbz]

The person who wrote it said it could: https://www.newstatesman.com/p...

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[thegarbz]

unlike the first class founding member

The UK wasn't a first class founding member. They were a charity case. They came along 20 years after the Treaty of Rome that laid the foundations of the EU, and many would argue the Benelux union was actually the start of the EU a whole 10 years before the Treaty of Rome.

  Not only that, at the time the UK joined they were a disaster, politically, economically, and socially. A literal charity case not only allowed to join the EU but given loads of concessions on account of their horrid state at the time. Not even the eastern block the UK has come to hate were considered low enough to warrant that level of sympathy.

They never deserved to be part of the EU, and quite a lot of people are not sad to see the back of them.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[ebvwfbw]

You're kidding, right? The sky didn't fall either. The UK is doing just fine thank you. No more being told what to do by a bunch of crazy leftists in Brussels. They have their own fascist government thank you. I'm referring to the stupid ruling recently with the dog that does the Sieg Heil salute. Something the REAL Nazis didn't have a problem with back in the day when they found out about someone that did it then. So they're more fascist than the real fascists.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[david_thornley]

The referendum did absolutely nothing to the relationship between the UK and the EU. It didn't invoke Article 50. The UK government had the power to do that, nobody else. The government could have ignored the referendum, and there were good reasons to, but didn't. Were I you, I'd refrain from complaining about other people's bad arguments.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[DaHat]

Son, this is slashdot, not twitter. Try to speak using actual words not 140 character or fewer catchphrases. I know that trying to engage your brain might make your head explode, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

I'm aware, hence you continuing to try to divert from the subject at hand.

I bet you think 350 million a week is going to go to the NHS because it was written on the side of a bus. What a nupty!

Bad news... I'm not a UK resident. It's as if you don't even know who/what you are arguing against.

The referendum was organised by our government which means its purpose was to instruct our government on what to do.

In general, elections are organized by governments, some of which include referendums, some of which are legally binding, others not. In the case of this one, the wording and statements from those who put forth the referendum was clear. If the voters choose leave, they will initiate that result, if not, not. It's rather like when a politician runs on a given platform and you are shocked & horrified when they actually do what they said they were gone to do.

This comes from the person who can barely nuderstand words at the best of times and once that high hurdle is crossed cannot actually understand the meaning of the assembled sentance.

Perhaps you should work on your typing & spelling skills before you cast any more poorly thrown stones?

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[DaHat]

The referendum did absolutely nothing to the relationship between the UK and the EU.

I never said it did on it's own.

It didn't invoke Article 50.

I never said it did.

The UK government had the power to do that, nobody else.

Who is arguing otherwise here?

The government could have ignored the referendum,

Yes, it could have, instead it did what it said it was going to do... act upon the result of the referendum, which ever way it went.

I know, it's a strange things when politicians do what they say they are going to do.

To quote our former American President: "elections have consequences."

and there were good reasons to, but didn't.

No doubt, and also good reasons to do what the electorate told them to do, as it's a good way to remain in power.

Were I you, I'd refrain from complaining about other people's bad arguments.

Perhaps you should argue against things actually said, rather than things that weren't.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[serviscope_minor]

Bad news... I'm not a UK resident. It's as if you don't even know who/what you are arguing against.

Not being from the UK doesn not preculude you from being stupid, nor does it preclude you from making staggeringly poor arguments. Anyway, I'll bet you still think that $350 million a week is going to the NHS because it was written on the side of a bus.

In general, elections are organized by governments, some of which include referendums, some of which are legally binding, others not.

This one wasn't legally binding on the government. Further, there can be no legaly binding referendums which span a general eection because whta we have for a constitution does not allow for that.

Nonethe less your prevarication won't fix your argument. The referendum was rnu by the UK government which means it instructs the UK government not the EU. The government instructs the EU, which if you remember (hard for you, I know) is precisely what happened.

In the case of this one, the wording and statements from those who put forth the referendum was clear.

Beyone "leave", nmothing is clear. No one even has a good idea of that "leave" means. If we go for a Norway model, we will no onger be a member of the EU, but the only practical difference wil be that we lose voting rights. Still leaving though.

Don't use country domains

[brianerst]

Yet another reason not to use country (or region) level domains.

A good old fashioned .com domain has none of these issues.

Re:Don't use country domains

[davidwr]

Until 2002, the .us domain operated as a locality namespace with very few 2nd-level-sub-domains other than the 50 individual states in the USA.

For governments and other organizations that were inherently geographical, using the .us country domain made a lot of sense.

Re:Don't use country domains

[thegarbz]

A good old fashioned .com domain has none of these issues.

No it has two much larger issues: Verisign and the MAFIAA.

Re:Don't use country domains

[Mister Liberty]

Believe me, some European countries have their own affiliate of the MAFIAA.

Re:Don't use country domains

[hcs_$reboot]

Plus it's very hard to get a decent .com name. .Com is so crowded that any new name has to be long and meaningless.

Re:Don't use country domains

[thegarbz]

Yes, Germany. But they are at least afforded due process before domains get seized.

Re:Is that consistent with their usual practice?

[Joce640k]

You have to be a European resident to get one and you have to make a legal declaration of your place of residence before they'll issue a domain.

Who voted to what?

[SuperKendall]

Not all of the people in the UK voted to leave. But way to make them realize they should have, by childishly having an un-elected shadow government steal a bunch of domains.

This action makes me think less of the EU, which I had thought was impossible.

Re:Who voted to what?

[thaylin]

your country voted to leave, it is something you should h ave seen coming, as you will no longer be legally eligible for the domain, trying to have your cake and eat it too so to speak

Re:Who voted to what?

[bekeleven]

It's in the EU's best interest to make leaving it an unpleasant process.

Re:Who voted to what?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Not all of the people in the UK voted to leave.

Yes, they call themselves, "Scots" . . .

Re:Who voted to what?

[king neckbeard]

What kind of fucking moron cares about the "EU's best interest?" The EU ostensibly exists for the convenience of its members states, and those states exist for the convenience and welfare of their citizens.
Petty bullshit to prevent leaving is a completely backwards understanding of the purpose of a government. Your viewpoint became obsolete around the same time as the divine right of kings.

Re:Who voted to what?

[gravewax]

".EU is the domain extension for the country code EU. It is a ccTLD (country code top level domain) for the European Union. It's open to organisations or residents that reside in the EU member states". The UK is leaving the EU, why should organisations and regulations change in the EU to accommodate the UK?

Re:Who voted to what?

[thegarbz]

This action makes me think less of the EU, which I had thought was impossible.

Just hand over part of a package for nothing in the middle of a negotiation process?
Just have a rules based organisation like the EU ignore rules?

SuperKendall you and I disagree on a lot of things, but until now I haven't thought of you as someone stupid. I honestly wonder how you thought this could possible go any other way, even if the roles were reversed (the UK also pulling everything they can for negotiations and the UK also being a hugely rules based bureaucracy).

Re:Who voted to what?

[AmiMoJo]

TLD admin organizations can set whatever rules they like. Some countries allow anyone to register, some require them to be resident. The EU is one of the latter.

So once outside the EU, naturally they will not suspend the rules for the UK unless the UK negotiated that as part of the post-brexit deal. Since the UK has a very weak position and desperately needs things like financial service access that are near impossible to get, .EU domains are going to be way down that list of things to ask for.

Plus, the UK would have to contribute to the registra operating costs, which would just further annoy Brexiteers.

By the way, the EU is not a shadow government or unelected.

Re: Who voted to what?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why the UK left. The EU only takes actions that are in its interest. The interests of the people are not considered.

Re:Who voted to what?

[SuperKendall]

The current domain holders should be grandfathered in to allow ownership of domains already purchased.

Otherwise, in the same vein of thought, why should EU visa holders continue to be able to work in the UK? UK is allowing for that, any two reasonable organizations would reach some accommodation.

But as we've seen, the EU is far from reasonable or adult.

Re:Who voted to what?

[AmiMoJo]

The EU TLD is for sites based in the EU. The idea is to give EU citizens confidence that it is an EU site operating under EU rules on things like privacy.

Since the point of brexit is supposed to be ditching those rules and leaving the EU, it makes no sense to allow UK entities to have EU domains.

If the UK wants to negotiate access and agrees to abide by the rules, fine. But the UK doesn't want that. Agreeing to the rules is one of the government's red lines, although so far they have not meant much.

Re: Who voted to what?

[dgatwood]

Arguably, the interests of the people as a whole are with a united Europe that allows the free flow of workers and tourists from country to country without a cumbersome visa process. The problem is, Great Britain was never really part of the EU. It just paid lip service to it. They used their own currency, they required passport screening to travel via train to France, etc. So they got a lot of the headaches of being in the EU, while missing a lot of the benefits.

And to the extent that a shared currency and freedom of travel between EU member countries is beneficial, it is also to the benefit of the people of the EU to make an example of Britain, to make it as painful as possible for them, to discourage anyone else from leaving, because every time any country leaves, all the other countries are worse off.

Re:Who voted to what?

[AmiMoJo]

Brexiteers assume all rules were designed to punish the UK. Even the ones we wrote, like Article 50, are just an EU plot to frustrate Brexit.

It's not just ccTLDs either. Today the EU confirmed that we would lose access to the Galileo satellite navigation system. We could negotiate access to some service/manufacturing contacts, but all secrets like military decryption keys would be off limits. As any sensible person would expect.

Re:Who voted to what?

[DRJlaw]

Not all of the people in the UK voted to leave. But way to make them realize they should have, by childishly having an un-elected shadow government steal a bunch of domains.

Yeah, they should have voted to leave, and then the UK would... still... be leaving... just like... it is now.

So why should the EU care, again?

Re: Who voted to what?

[fonos]

Going to a .EU website is an assurance that the website is based in the EU and is accountable to EU laws. UK voted to leave EU largely because they didnâ(TM)t want to follow EU law anymore. So I donâ(TM)t see any issue with this. The rules were there when they voted to leave, so in part their vote was to give up their domains.

Re:Who voted to what?

[serviscope_minor]

What kind of fucking moron cares about the "EU's best interest?"

Well, the extant members of the EU for one.

If you don't like the rules of a club and decide to leave and stop paying your fees, you can't really complain when you can't use the gym any more. Or the pool. and the sauna's off limits too. Yep and the sports massage even though you had to pay extra for it.

Oh and you also don't get the affiliate discounts at the loca supermarket either.

SERIOUSLY HOW THE FUCK IS THAT A SURPRISE TO ANYONE???

"we" (ha!) voted to leave, now the people who voted to do so are throwing a total shit fit about not getting al the cool shit we got as members. .eu domains are for members of the EU, end of. Not members and random whiny hangers on. Just members.

Re:Who voted to what?

[DontBeAMoran]

No one "owns" a domain: you simply rent it by paying the registry fee. Stop paying/renting, and it goes back in the pool.

What? Nobody ever told me about that! Where the heck do you buy a swimsuit for a domain name anyway?

Re: Who voted to what?

[serviscope_minor]

So they got a lot of the headaches of being in the EU, while missing a lot of the benefits.

No bollocks to that. We benefitted pheomenally from being in the EU.

it is also to the benefit of the people of the EU to make an example of Britain, to make it as painful as possible for them, to discourage anyone else from leaving, because every time any country leaves, all the other countries are worse off.

They're not even doing that. There's no need to do that. Just letting us leave, and by leave, I mean you know leave where we don't get all the stuff we had before---just letting us leave is more than bad enough.

they don't need to make an example of; we're making a fine example of ourselves without any assistance.

Re:Who voted to what?

[serviscope_minor]

Yes, they call themselves, "Scots" . . .

London also voted remain, and there are somewhat more Londoners than Scots.

Re: Who voted to what?

[dgatwood]

No bollocks to that. We benefitted pheomenally from being in the EU.

Sure, but the point is that you could have benefitted more. For example, every person who flew through Heathrow en route to the continent waited to get money from an ATM until they got to their destination, because they couldn't do anything with pounds sterling. That's probably millions of dollars in ATM fees every year alone that were left on the table by not going with the shared currency.

And who knows how many people visiting Paris briefly considered popping over to London, but decided not to bother because of having to get there an hour early for passport checks, plus having to deal with a different currency for part of the trip, etc. And Eurostar being a UK company means that you didn't just lose the tourist dollars; you also lost the transit fares.

Re:Who voted to what?

[alex3772]

.eu domains are for members of the EU, end of. Not members and random whiny hangers on. Just members.

Actually that is not entirely correct. .eu domains are also usable by residents/entities in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. However these countries are EFTA members and abide by the rules of the EU.

Re: Who voted to what?

[serviscope_minor]

Sure, but the point is that you could have benefitted more.

Sure.

For example, every person who flew through Heathrow en route to the continent waited to get money from an ATM until they got to their destination, because they couldn't do anything with pounds sterling.

The cash machines in heathrow dish out euros. I've done it (and got knowingly ripped off) when I forgot to stuff any euros in my walet before setting out.

Re:Who voted to what?

[serviscope_minor]

The current domain holders should be grandfathered

Oh they should, should they?

Why? The rules specifically state that owners must be in the EU (plus Norway etc).

It was an obvious consequence of Brexit that we would lose access to this. Because it's in the fucking rules of the registrar which are public.

Getting pissy because you didn't bother to figure out what actually leaving meant before voting leave isn't going to help. If you voted against your own interests out of ignorance and stupidity it's not the EU's fault or their job to fix it for you, especially when you're determined not to lift a finger to fix it for yourself.

That's you in the general sense, not you specifically since IIRC you are in fact American.

Re:Who voted to what?

[JBMcB]

why should the EU go out of its way?

The EU is actively cancelling the accounts. Keeping the accounts would entail them doing nothing. I would say they are going out of their way to cancel them.

sorry but that seems idiotic, The UK is screwing over the EU but the EU should go out of its way to accommodate that?

In what way is the UK "screwing over" the EU? The EU charter has a provision saying a country can leave if it wants to. The UK is taking advantage of that provision.

especially as people have plenty of options to keep the domain name just by registering a local presence in the EU which many of the registry services offer.

Keep in mind that we're talking about an entry in a lookup table here. TLD owners can put whatever rules they want on their TLDs, but seriously, most do not care that much.

Re:Who voted to what?

[serviscope_minor]

Actually that is not entirely correct

Yes I was simplifying slightly. They're explicitly specified how you said. It certainly excludes post Brexit UK.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keeping the accounts would be knowingly violating their own rules.

Re:Who voted to what?

[gravewax]

The UK doesn't get to get the advantages of leaving the EU and the advantages of staying, why would any country stay when they can just move out yet keep all the benefits. The reality is part of leaving the EU is leaving behind all the EU regulations and rules AND all the EU benefits. you can't be just a little bit pregnant here.

Re:Who voted to what?

[DRJlaw]

Otherwise, in the same vein of thought, why should EU visa holders continue to be able to work in the UK? UK is allowing for that, any two reasonable organizations would reach some accommodation.

Because those visa holders will already be in the UK. Those EU citizens not in the UK will be unable to enter the UK without a UK visa.

Those UK businesses not already having undertakings in the EU will not be able to maintain .eu domain names.

It's entirely symmetrical as it is.

Re:Who voted to what?

[CanadianMacFan]

Most Europeans would prefer to have the UK in the EU but overall they aren't overly excited about Brexit. It's not part of their lives.

In the UK there are three factions in the Labour Party and each one has a vision for post-Brexit, each of them not compatible with the others. This is causing the government to stall in the negotiations. It also doesn't help that the main people in charge of Brexit think that they can choose options, such as free movement of goods, like a buffet and ignore the the options they dislike, free movement of people, while the EU insists it's an all or nothing affair. This is leading to what we've seen recently where you have Prime Minister May offering up a bunch of vague promises in a speech recently only to have the EU reply back immediately with a highly detailed document many hundreds of pages long. It's not that the EU governments want the UK to leave but they are holding the UK to their triggering of Article 50 and doing so with remarkable efficiency.

The EU has had a number of crises in the recent past and they really don't want Brexit dragging out any longer than required. Additionally, if the UK comes out of this with what they really want (an exemption of the main principles that not even Norway received) then other countries are going to try and get the same deal.

Re:Who voted to what?

[mukinrestak]

I'd be sarcastic and refer to you as Captain Obvious, but judging by some of the people in this thread it must not be as obvious as I think.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Petty bullshit to prevent leaving is a completely backwards understanding of the purpose of a government.

This is like leaving your family because you feel they are hurting you, and then expecting access to the family garage and attic because it is "petty bullshit" to prevent you from using them. If you want those services, stay in the EU. I have no sympathy for the entitlement attitude of Brexiters, and I don't even live in those countries.

The EU doesn't owe non-members crap.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Anonymous Coward]

TLD rules are not law and these 300,000 domain holders will just have to get a PO box in Brussels the same way every major corporation does to prevent scammers and domain squatters.

The real losers here are EU residents that will go to the same .eu domains they always have, be scammed or have cryptomalware installed via drive by download, and the press in the EU will naturally blame Brexit instead of where bad bureaucratic decisions often lie: the EC. That same body which made other myopic decisions causing Brexit to gain steam in the first place.

Re: Who voted to what?

[jeremyp]

You ask the Greeks how beneficial the Euro is.

In reality, for British people who visit the continent regularly, it's no big deal. You just keep a few Euros in your wallet at all times. Also, Europe has credit cards just like Britain so you don't even need masses of cash.

If you want to go from Paris to London, you need to be at Gare Du Nord 45 minutes before your train leaves and the main reason for that is not the passport checks but the security screening.

Seriously, you should get a clue what you are talking about. The things you are talking about are minor irritants in comparison to things like lots of companies relocating out of the UK, losing access to the single market, losing access to the European science programmes, losing access to Europol, restrictions on free movement of people, having twenty seven more enemies.

Re: Who voted to what?

[Zontar The Mindless]

...Great Britain was never really part of the EU. It just paid lip service to it. ...

Someone's actually been paying attention, hey.

Re:Who voted to what?

[jeremyp]

The European commission is staffed by people appointed by the democratically elected governments of Europe. The Council of Europe is comprised of ministers from the democratically elected governments of Europe.

Re: Who voted to what?

[Zontar The Mindless]

The cash machines in heathrow dish out euros.

The ATMs I've seen there usually give you your choice of pounds, dollars, or euro.

Re: Who voted to what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those aren't exceptions--Norway and Iceland are members of EFTA and Schengen.

Re: Who voted to what?

[gl4ss]

That's why the UK left. The EU only takes actions that are in its interest. The interests of the people are not considered.

well before the brexit eu did a lot of things that were in fact in the interest of the UK.

a lot more than in any other member nations interest. that's why it was so perplexing for uk to leave. it gives them no benefits and only gives them a chance to get worse contracts. the UKIP lies about getting better contracts we're obviously just that. there is no need to give better contracts to the UK now. quite the opposite.

UK will be joining the same contracts under worse conditions, because not having them is even worse conditions. UK for some reason was thinking that they would make visas and harder immigration from eu while same time somehow keeping easy immigration to schengen for themselves. how the fuck does that even work? are there so many daft people in uk that they think that they own europe? well they practically did with the deal they had BEFORE but they decided to piss on it.

also, your average unemployed brit is pretty much always interviewed in front of a frigging house. the people who voted for the exit are going to get the worst hit because their unemployment benefits will plummet as the money to pay for them dries out.

Re: Who voted to what?

[webnut77]

Or the landowning in uk...

LAN downing? Is that like someone who plugs 110 volts AC into the ethernet?

Re:Who voted to what?

[Cederic]

Given the EU is not a country surely the correct response is to revoke the .eu ccTLD.

Of course, the EU wanted the .eu domain because it wants to be a country, and that's a massive factor in the UK choosing to leave.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Cederic]

EU citizens not in the UK will be unable to enter the UK without a UK visa

EU citizens will not require a visa to enter the UK during or after the transition period. Don't be silly.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Dan541]

Not all of the people in the UK voted to leave. But way to make them realize they should have, by childishly having an un-elected shadow government steal a bunch of domains.

This action makes me think less of the EU, which I had thought was impossible.

They want to make an example of the UK because they are desperate that other countries will follow.

Stopping new .eu registrations is fair enough. But to forcefully revoke already issued domains just shows that the EU cannot be trusted. Even pro-eu people should be cautious about registering .eu now that a lack of registry integrity has been proven.

Re: Who voted to what?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Confusing people with fiction is too bloody easy, there's no sport in that.

Re: Who voted to what?

[dgatwood]

Good to know, for future reference. I always assumed they were pounds-only, and thus never bothered using them. I'd imagine that's true for most travelers.

Re: Who voted to what?

[dgatwood]

You ask the Greeks how beneficial the Euro is.

Ask Mexico what happens when your currency gets devalued to the point that nobody will take it. I remember many trips when all the shopkeepers preferred U.S. dollars, because the Peso was bordering on toilet paper.

Re:Who voted to what?

[gravewax]

EU citizens not in the UK will be unable to enter the UK without a UK visa

EU citizens will not require a visa to enter the UK during or after the transition period. Don't be silly.

that isn't entirely true, they won't require a visa to VISIT. they may require a visa to work or stay for any extended period and there are potential plans/discussions to limit that number, though nothing is decided yet.

Re: Who voted to what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess which country objected to the European Parliament having more power...

Re:Who voted to what?

[hazardPPP]

There are only two countries in the EU with sizeable military budgets and capabilities (France and the UK). The UK leaving the EU won't change that at all. The EU has next to nothing to do with military planning at the moment.

Actually it will change it a lot, since it will leave only one country in the EU with a sizable military budget (France). Also, after the UK initiated Article 50 proceedings, the EU started to get more serious about military matters by creating (activating) PESCO. Continental EU countries have long wanted to give the EU a significant military dimension, but it was exactly the UK which was vetoing all those proposals (often at the behest of the Americans, who fear an EU military would make NATO far less relevant).

Re:Who voted to what?

[hazardPPP]

What kind of fucking moron cares about the "EU's best interest?" The EU ostensibly exists for the convenience of its members states, and those states exist for the convenience and welfare of their citizens.

The "EU's best interest" is shorthand here for the "best interest of its member states" i.e. "the best interest of the citizens of the EU member states".

This is what UK Leavers don't get - that in the other 27 EU states, people don't generally hate the EU and don't want to get out, and feel that they have a common interest to defend. This is demonstrated by the EU27 maintaining a common front in the Brexit talks, whereas the UK side thought it would be easy to play them against one another to get a good deal for the UK.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Sesostris III]

Whilst members are certainly elected to the European Parliament, they don't hold any real power.

The European Commission is the executive, and is staffed with appointees with no democratic mandate.

In addition to what others have said, the EU Parliament can vote out the commission. They also vote for who will be the head of the commission.

Re:Who voted to what?

[bn-7bc]

Well, galileo is a civilian system so there are no milirary encryotion involved. The UK will still have acees ro Galileo Os (hurisontal accuracy down to 1m ) Amd any cometcial service that chises to sell to uk residents/buismesses, what you thy might lose access to Is PRS (the signals used for emergency services that include fault detection and reporting)

Re:Who voted to what?

[Freischutz]

Brexiteers assume all rules were designed to punish the UK. Even the ones we wrote, like Article 50, are just an EU plot to frustrate Brexit.

It's not just ccTLDs either. Today the EU confirmed that we would lose access to the Galileo satellite navigation system. We could negotiate access to some service/manufacturing contacts, but all secrets like military decryption keys would be off limits. As any sensible person would expect.

The EU does not have to punish the UK for leaving, Brexit is a completely self-punishing exercise. Still, it amuses me how the Brexiteers manage to cast every consequence of Brexit as unfair punishment, persecution and dispossession. Just changing the context a bit brings out their irrational entitlement complexes: I'm leaving the golf club and now I'm no longer allowed to make use of club discounts, UNFAIR!!! I'm leaving the golf club and now I'm no longer allowed to get free golf lessons, PUNISHMENT!!! I'm leaving the golf club and now I'm no longer allowed to play their courses for free, BULLYING!! Now for most of us these would be natural and normal consequences of leaving the golf club, to a Brexiteer these are violations of his/her fundamental human rights. The average Brexiteers attitude can be summed up in three words: .... BWAAAAAAH!!! ... BABY WANT!!!

Re: Who voted to what?

[AmiMoJo]

I visit the continent regularly and it is a big deal. You get ripped off on the exchange rates and fees constantly, have to convert prices in your head all the time, and now your future is uncertain.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Freischutz]

Yes, they call themselves, "Scots" . . .

London also voted remain, and there are somewhat more Londoners than Scots.

Yes, but the Scots are somewhat more scary.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Barsteward]

"by childishly having an un-elected shadow government steal a bunch of domains" - that just proves you don't understand how the EU works - maybe you didn;t vote for an MEP and thats your fault. Damn right they should drop UK from the .EU domains, we will no longer be part of the group. I don't know why the clueless that voted out still want to be part of it.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Freischutz]

The European commission is staffed by people appointed by the democratically elected governments of Europe. The Council of Europe is comprised of ministers from the democratically elected governments of Europe.

There you go again, ruining his opinion with 'facts'.

Re: Who voted to what?

[Barsteward]

oh what a load of trollish bollox. You ignorance knows no bounds.

Re: Who voted to what?

[Barsteward]

And about Eurostar - its cheaper to buy a paris - london return from france that it is to buy a london - paris return in the UK - there is no equality of fares

Re: Who voted to what?

[Barsteward]

If you are apart of the EU, the EU interests are yours too, something brexiters never seem to understand. In collective decisions made by the EU (with the UKs input ) we were on the wrong side of the argument less than 60 times out of 2100+.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Barsteward]

" the EU is far from reasonable or adult." how wrong can you be. They are totally professional and prepared compared to the UK brexit muppets. stop reading the Daily Mail/Express - its bad for your comprehension of facts.

Re: Who voted to what?

[Barsteward]

"I cannot comprehend how you want everything both ways. It just boggles the mind." - that the problem with brexiters, they were told they could have their cake and eat it. they were lied to time and time again and they kept believing because they never researched a sodding thing. Its embarrassing for them as they have painted themselves into a corner.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Barsteward]

its far more democratic than the UK where less than 30% of the population can put a government in place.

Re: Who voted to what?

[Barsteward]

its all proportional and there are 28 independent countries that have to vote

Re:Who voted to what?

[Barsteward]

quite the contrary, now all the anti-EU lies have been destroyed, EU countries have come to appreciate the EU more

Re:Who voted to what?

[Sesostris III]

What's more, they see no contradiction when they (for instance) tell the EU to "go whistle"!

Re:Who voted to what?

[Interfacer]

Your country voted to leave. Granted, it only happened because many of the remainers thought their vote wouldn't matter because there would not be too many brexiteers. But regardless, your country is leaving, as a complete unit. All of you are leaving., regardless of whether the vote was 51% or 99%. The EU cannot grant special rules that apply to the remainers. As far as the legalities are concerned: you are all brexisteers.

In the current proceedings, the EU's primary objective is to look after itself, not make things as cushy as possible for the remainers who got shafted. I know the berxit camp liked to pretend, but the EU is not going to give you any membership benefits. You're no longer going to be a member. You're going to be a foreign country and will be treated as such. THAT is what brexit means.

 

Re:Who voted to what?

[Interfacer]

Actually, an EU tld should indicate that the domain complies with EU laws. The UK chose a brexit because they explicitly didn't want that. It's about more than a name.

Re: Who voted to what?

[orlanz]

The Euro was a massive boon to the Greeks! Without it, they would have never had a real chance to get out of their economic downward spiral. The idea that they would switch to their own currency scared so many of their people that they wanted to draw their bank accounts and protect them under the Euro. This was such a big concern that Greece had to initiate banking controls!

Had the Greeks left the Euro, they would still be in total economic dumps. They would have effectively defaulted on their debts (mostly hitting German banks) and lost the EU market. They would have destroyed their citizens' savings and pensions. To this day they would have little to no foreign investment. They would have been the slums of the EU. But a very cheap vacation spot for sure!

Because of the Euro, businesses had the confidence of the EU block rather than the financial discipline of a teenager. Granted they got so much debt in the first place because they were part of the EU and that confidence. But this doesn't excuse Greece's financial irresponsibility in regards to their spending.

In summary, without the Euro, Greece would have had a hard, painful, and long lasting bankruptcy. Because of it, they got a painful but hopefully effective detox and rehab program.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Interfacer]

The UK wants only the benefits, and none of the responsibilities or downsides. But that's not how the overall system works. The system as a whole cannot work if everyone only wants the perks but none of the burden.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Interfacer]

It's not about being petty. What you wanted before the vote doesn't play into it anymore. Because those people are leaving together with the rest of their country, whether they want to or not. If an EU TLD is for legal residents etc, and is an indication that the websites comply with EU regulations etc, then letting UK residents keep EU domains is not an option.

Re:Who voted to what?

[king neckbeard]

Did I say I was surprised? No, I said it was petty bullshit, because it is. There are two major approaches to Brexit: 1) make it as awkward and painful as possible in order to dissuade further members leaving. 2) work on minimizing the damage of Brexit, creating a series of treaties and agreements that mean that the UK basically remains in in most of the useful ways, with a little window dressing of greater autonomy.

1) is about preserving the EU as an institution. 2) is about preserving the trade agreements and such that make sure that Europeans don't start another world war.

Re:Who voted to what?

[houghi]

Even if you voted to stay does not matter, The country, as a whole, decided to leave.

Re:Who voted to what?

[mysidia]

The EU TLD is for sites based in the EU.

Frankly, the .EU ccTLD should be terminated as should never have been allowed in the first place, because Europe is not a Country, but an economic association with unstable membership of Countries on the same continent, And ccTLDs are specifically for
  established countries that don't randomly change in composition on the whim of some politicians.

Re:Who voted to what?

[thegarbz]

UK is allowing for that

Oh? Negotiations are finished are they? Someone should tell May that.

What you absolutists don't seem to get is what "negotiation" actually is. The UK provides something and in return the EU provides something, e.g. UK residents to continue to work in the EU. That's done then. To come back and use the same concession for something else is not a negotiation, it's a tantrum.

Mind you I would be throwing a tantrum too. If I spent years being lied to as to how great of a negotiating position the UK would have when it left only to see what reality was I would be out for blood. The stupid part is you're out for EU blood instead of that of your idiot politicians.

Re:Who voted to what?

[thegarbz]

The people who are being punished here might very well have voted stay?

Yep, democracy sucks doesn't it. Mind you there's an easy fix that several companies are adopting: Re-headquarter to the EU.

Re:Who voted to what?

[thegarbz]

some require them to be resident

Some outright refuse registrations for personal reasons. I remember having to register a business and hand over my business tax number to register in one country.

Re:Who voted to what?

[mysidia]

This is like leaving your family because you feel they are hurting you, and then expecting access to the family garage and attic

In this case, Britain contributed the most money to the budget though, so they basically paid for 50 to 75% the cost of actually building most of that house; it reasons then if they leave, Britain should have the right bits of the property in proportion to the value they had paid for, and either the whole house should be sold, or Britain gets to keep most of it for its own exclusive use now.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Lennie]

Wasn't the problem that the UK didn't make a treaty yet before the deadline because the UK government is working to slow ?

Re: Who voted to what?

[houghi]

You confuse the EU with Schengen countries, If I go to Ireland from Belgium, I still need to show a passport, just like I did 30 years ago. Schengen is for the visa stuff and workers.Ireland and the UK are not in it. Switzerland, Belgium and Denmark are.
Then there is the EURO zone. Also not the same as the EU. That is to make it easier to do business. There are EU countries that do not use the Euro. Switzerland, Ireland, UK and Denmark do not. Belgium does.
The EU is to get the same laws in the countries. Switzerland is not in it. UK, Ireland, Denmark and Belgium are.

Many countries are in all three, but some or just in one or two of the three.

And obviously all are worse of if one leaves. That includes the one leaving. I do not think it so much as turning them into a bad example as that they have nothing to bargain for, so why give them anything?
If possible, I would trade them with Canada in a hart beat. We will welcome those bi-lingual people. We have experience with that. To have people who liberated Europe in WW2 not have to brag about it would be an extra bonus.

Re:Who voted to what?

[pdxtabs]

UK citizens that are already living in the EU (and vice-versa) get to stay with the original rules from when they moved, but future migrants will have to play by the new rules. Similarly, if you are a UK citizen legally living in the EU, I'm sure that they will let you keep your EU domain. I don't see the problem (as a UK citizen that would have voted against Brexit but couldn't because I've been overseas for more than 10 years).

Re: Who voted to what?

[reanjr]

That's absurd. The US has never been an uninvited aggressor in Europe. Ask Ukrainians which nation is an aggressor.

Re: Who voted to what?

[reanjr]

I you think the UK and Europe are going to get into another World War over trade disagreements, you haven't been paying attention to history for the last 50 or so years.

Re: Who voted to what?

[reanjr]

The balance of accounts is always (designed to be) zero though, so there's no buyout needed.

Re: Who voted to what?

[reanjr]

Europe created a giant debt driven boom and bust economy, invited poor Greeks into it, and then blame the Greeks for using the boom and bust debt to drive the economy, and blame Greek government for its inability to run their own economy even though the power to control the Greek economy resides in German hands.

Re: Who voted to what?

[gizmo71]

The UK uses 240 volts AC, you insensitive clod!

Re: Who voted to what?

[gizmo71]

Ireland has used the Euro since 2002.

Re: Who voted to what?

[webnut77]

The UK uses 240 volts AC, you insensitive clod!

Those are metric volts, right?

Re: Who voted to what?

[TheRaven64]

They list the currencies that they dispense in letters that are about 20-25cm high.

Re:Who voted to what?

[TheRaven64]

Most of the areas of the UK with a functioning economy voted remain. The ones that voted leave were the ones who looked at the status quo and thought 'well, it can't be much worse...' The fact that so many people felt that is quite a problem.

I do enjoy the irony of people writing about how the leave vote was 'sticking it to the political class'. Do they really think that the political class objects to having more power transferred to Westminster?

Re: Who voted to what?

[dgatwood]

But if you start out with the assumption that their ATMs don't dispense the currency you need, why would you even bother looking for or at an ATM in the first place? And if you don't ever look at an ATM, how can you notice those signs on the ATMs?

Case in point, I've flown through Heathrow at least half a dozen times, and I've never noticed that the ATMs dispense Euros or USD. And I'm fairly observant compared with the general population. If I didn't notice it, the vast majority of people won't, except by accident.

Re:Who voted to what?

[DRJlaw]

We were discussing EU workers in the UK. Your decision to cut out the quote that I was responding to, and thus the context of the statement, is your own self-generated problem.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Cederic]

If they're not in the UK then they're not fucking workers in the UK. You introduced these EU citizens that aren't already working in the UK, don't go into denial now your shit has been called out.

Re:Who voted to what?

[DRJlaw]

I'll deny all I want, you reading-comprehension-impaired clod. We were discussing EU workers in the UK, and you can stuff it.

Re: Who voted to what?

[segedunum]

You confuse the EU with Schengen countries, If I go to Ireland from Belgium, I still need to show a passport, just like I did 30 years ago. Schengen is for the visa stuff and workers.Ireland and the UK are not in it. Switzerland, Belgium and Denmark are.

It doesn't matter. If you get an 'EU passport' you are home free, which explains why there is such a healthy trade in them. Schengen counts for very little.

Re:Who voted to what?

[segedunum]

The European commission is staffed by people appointed by the democratically elected governments of Europe. The Council of Europe is comprised of ministers from the democratically elected governments of Europe.

You concoct yourself a couple of sentences with the word 'democracy' inserted into it, if it gives you comfort.

Re:Who voted to what?

[david_thornley]

So, if the EU denies access to the .eu domain to people who aren't in the EU, it's a stupid bureaucratic decision and the only people who will suffer are in the EU? Should people in Myanmar be able to register .eu domains also?

Re: Who voted to what?

[prefec2]

The UK is a democracy of some kind. They voted out. Their government triggered the process. Now the country is leaving. You cannot be out of a club and still use its facilities. They are still part if Europe, but .eu refers to the EU.you cannot have eu in Norway.

Re:Who voted to what?

[david_thornley]

There's reasons why Captain Obvious is often hailed as a superhero. (Which, come to think of it, is at least a factual statement as many I've seen on /. today.)

Re:Who voted to what?

[david_thornley]

I don't know what my company is going to do about it. We value having facilities in the EU, and the UK was very convenient for that.

Re: Who voted to what?

[Brockmire]

Did you mean s/outside/inside? I know there's theories that Japan was going to surrender without the atom bombs and Hitler wouldn't have surrendered even with atom bombs, but I'm fairly confident the Americans and their bombs were the largest decider in Hitler's war.

Re:Who voted to what?

[thegarbz]

There's only one thing certain about Brexit. It has turned into the UK's biggest clusterfuck and that effect is spreading elsewhere. It is having some very interesting effects as well. 3 major companies have announced they are re-headquartering to the Netherlands. The interesting thing there is that rental prices in Amsterdam have skyrocketted and it's caused a housing crisis in Nord-Holland as the city was unprepared for several thousand cashed up migrants to suddenly want to live there.

It's all been very interesting. Then there's the hysteria of it. My own company has it's headquarters in the UK, but it's a multi-national company financed in USD, and with multiple head quarters all over the world (including 3 on the EU mainland). Yet the pro Brexit people hold us up as an example that Brexit will have zero impact on businesses because we announced we won't move. ... But then we don't need to either.

It sucks for all involved but at least the news is entertaining.

Re:Who voted to what?

[RockDoctor]

What kind of fucking moron cares about the "EU's best interest?"

People who think that the EU has been the most effective method found so far of preventing countries in Europe from going to war with each other. Just to remind you - the last time that happened pre-EU, about a quarter of a million English speakers died. Six million Yiddish speakers, several million gays and Roma, and around 50 million Russian speakers. Even the recent (and unfinished) spat in the Balkans was relatively mild.

Anyway, as an EU citizen, who contributed to the 1974 campaign in the full and confident knowledge of the "closer political ties" agenda, and to various other campaigns since, who speaks 4 EU languages with a fair degree of confidence and is slowly adding Polish to that stable, while contemplating either Chinese or Arabic as the next one to start, I heartily support the EU's self-defence agenda of making Brexit as destructive as possible for the leaving country. As, obviously the UK government does too, judging by their actions. Leaving and taking my tax revenue with me will be the last step. Obviously, I have two ways out.

Re: Who voted to what?

[DethLok]

ATM fees? People are charged for using an ATM? Weird... nice way to make money, though, I suppose, from people who don't just get cash out when paying for their groceries.

Re:Who voted to what?

[king neckbeard]

Which do you think has been more effective: the EU itself, or the positive ties that it brought between European nations?

Also, just to remind you, a major factor in causing the last World War was strong punitive actions against a major European power.

Re: Who voted to what?

[orlanz]

BS. The Greek government had & has all the control and ability to run their own economy and they drove it into the ground. Lavishly spending huge amounts of federal monies on Public worker salaries, pensions, and benefits. When your people aspire for a cush government job rather than a private sector one, you aren't in a sustainable situation. All the German banks did was enable them with additional capital and loans that no one else in their right mind would give. Similar to a drug dealer dealing with an addict. The addict has plenty of options to get out of their poor choices but chooses not to employ any of them.

Then when the debt became so big and the Greeks' tourism industry didn't performance enough to pay the interest, the banks backed off. When they saw the Greeks had no way to pay and they would lose billions, they ran to the German government and begged for assistance. Privatize profits, socialize debt. The German government, being financially conservative, balked at the finance irresponsibility of the Greek government. They basically said if you want a recovery program where you slowly ween off the drugs, you will meet the following financial mile stones. The Greeks just wanted more drugs to solve the problem on their own; but they had no ability to solve else they would never end up in the situation. People get pissed that the Germans would dare make demands, but it was their money, and it was the Greek government that gave that control over.

The alternative option was cold turkey and leave the Euro. Well within the right of the Greek government. I wish the Greeks would have done this! It would have taught the German, French, and other EU banks to be more responsible in who they give money to. If a few failed, all the better, a good wake up call to everyone in the EU, and a good example to the US markets: that there is no such thing as "Too big to fail." It would have taught the Greek political parties a wonderful lesson in being budgetary responsible. It would have taught the Greek people to elect responsible politicians with actual plans for their country; rather than those that throw public money & promises at them for votes.

Re:Who voted to what?

[VisceralLogic]

So, if the EU denies access to the .eu domain to people who aren't in the EU, it's a stupid bureaucratic decision and the only people who will suffer are in the EU? Should people in Myanmar be able to register .eu domains also?

Why not? Anyone can register a .TV (Tuvalu). Anyone can register a .CO (Colombia). Anyone can register a .FI (Finland). You get the picture.

Re: Who voted to what?

[JohnFinch9498]

On a per capita basis we come way down the list. But facts haven't bothered Brexiteers for decades

Re:Who voted to what?

[RockDoctor]

Which do you think has been more effective: the EU itself, or the positive ties that it brought between European nations?

I don't differentiate between them.

a major factor in causing the last World War was strong punitive actions against a major European power.

So, don't go to that extent. As far as I can see, Britain post Brexit is going to increasingly become a shitty unpleasant place to live, and the people who can leave will - leaving the country with the dregs who can't leave. It makes me feel bad for my parents, who've chosen to stay. But I've no intention of staying. Or of paying any more tax to the UK economy than I have to.

Nothing of value was lost

[Tokolosh]

Unless you domain was pee.eu

sacrebl.eu!

[trb]

will be up for grabs.

https://whois.eurid.eu/en/sear...

Re:sacrebl.eu!

[freeze128]

cordonbl.eu!

Re:sacrebl.eu!

[Mister Liberty]

unpeunerv.eu au revoir!

Re:sacrebl.eu!

[hcs_$reboot]

.eu.n.uk

There are already benefits

[SuperKendall]

One hard benefit the UK is receiving is not having to pay the EU membership fee - savings of around 8.5 billion pounds.

Not sure what other promises you think are being "walked back". Not having to be members in a government that would pull such a petty stunt seems like a huge win. You are who you partner with, after all...

Re:There are already benefits

[Luthair]

Stunt? The TLD required registrants to be located in the EU - this is not uncommon and many ccTLDs require it.

Re:There are already benefits

[Cederic]

Where the fuck does that 12 billion figure come from? It will not cost 12 billion pounds a year to replace functions costing currently only £620m - especially when some of them don't need replacing.

See http://www.fieldfisher.com/med...

Re:There are already benefits

[Barsteward]

Just a few examples:
Dan Hannen - leaving the EU will not jeopardise our place in the Single Market
£350m to the NHS
Basically "have all the benefits and none of the bills" - thats whats been "walked back"

If you want more examples visit https://brexitlies.com/

Most brexiters didn't have the capability to work out who was responsible for the UK governments mismanagement of the UK so they blamed the EU.

Re:There are already benefits

[Luthair]

Yes they should.

Re:Is that consistent with their usual practice?

[slew]

You have to be a European resident to get one and you have to make a legal declaration of your place of residence before they'll issue a domain.

As I understand it, you can also register a .EU domain if you are also in Norway, Iceland, or Liechtenstein (which are not members of the EU, but are still party to the EEA). They do exclude Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Switzerland, Turkey, and Vatican City from getting .EU domains presumably because they are not part of the EEA.

AFAIK, the UK hasn't yet dropped out of the EEA (apparently, to make it match up with the article 50 EU-brexit date, the UK has to invoke article 127 to give notice by March 29, or basically today).

Until the UK formally announces drops out of the EEA, this is really just petty posturing...

.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[mi]

Is it just me, or does this seem fairly petty and petulant?

No, it is not just you. I wanted to say the same thing: petty. "Petulant" is an SAT-word and didn't come to my mind, but now that I've looked up the meaning, I agree, it is that too.

For example, Soviet Union has, thankfully, been dead for almost 30 years now, but the top-level domain (.su) continues to exist with plenty of sites under it.

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[gravewax]

That example would be fine if the EU no longer existed. .EU means that the company or person resides in the EU and hence is under EU trading regulations. This is not new, or petty, it is simply the requirements for an EU domain name. the UK no longer belonging to the EU means any domain for individuals not in the EU under this name would be deceptive.

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[mi]

.EU means that the company or person resides in the EU and hence is under EU trading regulations.

Does it? I do not see any such language in the domain's governing document, but I may be tired and just not seeing it.

But I doubt, it is there, because, when the document was written in 2004, nobody could even imagine a country leaving the EU.

The meaning you propose is too limiting — being registered under .EU may also mean, that the company or person used to reside in the Union.

Just as the number of companies and persons used to reside in the Soviet Union, which no longer exists.

This looks more like spouses divorcing and threatening each other's items out of sheer spite. Hence "petty" and "petulant".

In return Britain should try to banish the use of English language on the .EU domains — when they leave, there will no countries left in the EU, where English is a national language :)

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[Mister Liberty]

You ARE tired. Try again tomorrow (it is there in the salutation).

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[Mike Van Pelt]

For example, Soviet Union has, thankfully, been dead for almost 30 years now, but the top-level domain (.su) continues to exist with plenty of sites under it.

And all of them spammers.

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[serviscope_minor]

This looks more like spouses divorcing and threatening each other's items out of sheer spite.

Why don't people understand? We are LEAVING. We chose to leave (for some reason). that means we don't get any of the stuff any more.

That's what fucking leaving means.

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[mi]

Please, site the clause you are referring to. Thanks!

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[bingoUV]

For eligibility, it refers to Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002. Which says

(b) register domain names in the.eu TLD through any accredited.eu Registrar requested by any:

(i) undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, or

(ii) organisation established within the Community without prejudice to the application of national law, or

(iii) natural person resident within the Community;

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[hazardPPP]

In return Britain should try to banish the use of English language on the .EU domains — when they leave, there will no countries left in the EU, where English is a national language :)

English is an official language in the Republic of Ireland and in Malta. Says so in their constitutions. In Ireland the vast majority of people speak only English in their day-to-day lives, with Irish being an everyday language only in a few rural communities. Malta is a bit weird, as I got the impression that Maltese is the dominant spoken language (almost all the locals I overheard speaking spoke Maltese among themselves) while English is the dominant written language (all business signs, ads, billboards etc. were in English - the only billboard I saw in Maltese was one put up by the government, advertising an upcoming Maltese independance day celebration).

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[gravewax]

This looks more like spouses divorcing and threatening each other's items out of sheer spite. Hence "petty" and "petulant".

In return Britain should try to banish the use of English language on the .EU domains — when they leave, there will no countries left in the EU, where English is a national language :)

firstly English originated funnily enough in the rest of Europe, it was brought to Britain as anglo Frisian dialects.
second I don't know what is so hard for you to understand, The EU isn't being petty, it isn't changing rules or trying to spite anyone. The rules exist, The UK is leaving the club and hence loses ALL CLUB privileges. They don't get to selectively choose what to keep and the EU certainly shouldn't be going out of its way to provide privileges to a leaving member, they can negotiate and trade new agreements but the benefits of being in the EU are lost to them.

Re: .su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[Barsteward]

No, because are are still and will always remain sovereign nations

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[Barsteward]

sorry, but you won;t get that through to the "cake and eat it" brigade

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[popoutman]

; when they leave, there will no countries left in the EU, where English is a national language :)

Hi, Ireland here waving over the sea at you, where English is a defined official language, second to Gaeilge.

There are reasons why American companies are looking to move to Ireland for their European points of presence, and our ability to speak English better than the English is one of those..

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[Interfacer]

Believe it or not, many of us are sorry to see you go but still understand that the EU has to make the UK face the consequences, even though it inconveniences the many friends I have in the UK.

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[mi]

This controls, who may become an accredited Registrar. It has nothing to do with revoking an earlier-issued accreditation. Issued in good faith to a then-qualified organization.

The Registry may revoke a domain name at its own initiative and without submitting the dispute to any extrajudicial settlement of conflicts, exclusively on the following grounds:
    [....] (b) holder's non-fulfilment of the general eligibility criteria pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) 733/2002;

This says may — it is up to the Registry. That it chooses to exercise this option is just that: petty and petulant.

I didn't say, it is illegal for them to do — I only disputed the assertion by gravewax, that they have to do it.

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[bingoUV]

gravewax said ".EU means that the company or person resides in the EU and hence is under EU trading regulations."

Doesn't directly say when the entity resides in the EU - maybe at the time of accreditation, maybe at any given time, maybe at the discretion of some office.

The ones I listed are eligibility criteria. Does not directly say when they are to be applied - maybe at the time of accreditation, maybe at any given time, maybe at the discretion of some office.

The other parts of the document say that the Registry "may" revoke , but not when or whether it is necessary for it to revoke immediately. gravewax also didn't say that the Registry "has to" do anything - at least in this thread.

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[mi]

gravewax also didn't say that the Registry "has to" do anything

His comment was in defense of the EU action from the OP's and mine accusations of pettiness and petulance.

The defense amounted to a claim, that the threatened domain-cancellation is, somehow, required by some law, bylaw, or procedure. His words, which you just repeated, alluded to it being necessary because the affected companies and persons will no longer reside in the EU hence no longer "under EU trading regulations".

A request to cite a law, bylaw, or procedure, that requires such an action, remains unsatisfied.

Re: .su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[bingoUV]

Yeah, "amounted to", and " alluded to". Basically your imagination.

Re: .su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[mi]

Yeah, "amounted to", and " alluded to". Basically your imagination.

Ok, what's your reading of it?

Re: .su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[bingoUV]

I read exactly what is written. If I suspect any allusion or amounting to, I ask the author before going off.

Surprise

[rl117]

I'm rather surprised that there are 300,000 .eu registrations at all, not least from the UK. Who would want one? I don't think I've ever used any site with a .eu TLD; everything is .co.uk/.org.uk/.fr/.ie/.de for the most part. I always thought it was a waste of time to bother with a .eu registration. Doesn't sound like a big loss, just some noise to create some token bargaining chip for some negotiation concession.

Re:Surprise

[tomtomtom]

Yes. I had assumed until now that it was reserved for the institutions of the EU itself as those are the only domains I've ever seen using it. I suspect a very very large number of the 300,000 are domain squatters who registered the ".eu" version of a ".com" etc. with the hope of selling it to the owners of the .com.

Re:Surprise

[hcs_$reboot]

Many domain squatters jumped onto the occasion to take the most 3 and 4 letters domains and other most common names. Many squatters are in the UK it seems.

Re: Surprise

[retchdog]

first they came for the domain squatters...

trustees and you are done

[tronicum]

there are some, very few, country domains that have such requirements. Often this leads that domain name registrar (or their resellers) offer a trustee setup that, for a small fee, register the name but you stay in control of it. I was suprised that .EU has such requirements, they are quite well hidden in the "registration policy" (not the "rules for domains" or "terms and conditions").

• rules for eu domains
• terms and conditions
• registration policy

relevant part of the registration policy:
In this first step the Registrant must verify whether it meets the General Eligibility Criteria, whereby it must be:
(i) an undertaking having its registered office, central a dministration or principal place of business within the European Union, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein, or
(ii) an organisation established within the European Union, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein without prejudice to the application of national law, or
(iii) a natural person resident within the European Union, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein.

So that are rules that are not new or changed because of the brexit...

Re:trustees and you are done

[tomtomtom]

...within the European Union, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein...

i.e. the EEA states. Odd that the domain is ".eu" and not ".eea" therefore. Also why didn't they just say "EEA"?

Re:trustees and you are done

[Anonymous Coward]

Catalonia's registrar (".cat") is NOTORIOUS for canceling domains associated with sites primarily about felines, EVEN IF every single word on the site is in Catalan & the registrant LIVES there but looks the other way for restaurants & nightclubs that are 100% English-language, because THEY'RE somehow "cultural".

Source: a guy from Barcelona who tried putting up a site with photos of Barcelona's street cats. Catalan language? Check. Catalonian citizen? Check. Topic related to life in Catalonia? Check. Felines? Bzzzzzt. TOS violation! Cancel!

Re:trustees and you are done

[novakyu]

In other words, they are privileging Liechtenstein over United Kingdom. Logical and sensible! This is not at all retaliatory!

Re:trustees and you are done

[Sesostris III]

there are some, very few, country domains that have such requirements

One being the UK for .uk domain name. See item 6 at:

Introducing .uk - Q and As

It's OK when the UK does it, but not when the EU does it, I suppose.

Re:Is that consistent with their usual practice?

[Zocalo]

Of course it's posturing, that's what a lot of diplomacy and politics is, when you get right down to it - same thing with the on-going expulsions of diplomats following the poisoning of the Skripals in the UK; tit-for-tat genitalia size comparisons. Still, as with .EU domain ownership rules, the rules of membership of the EEA are pretty clear as well, and Theresa May has stated repeatedly she's not going to accept any deal that includes some of those rules so, unless that changes, the UK is almost certainly going to be exiting the EEA, either on March 29 2019 or at the end of the "transition period" on 31st Dec 2020. I suppose you could make a case that they're jumping the gun a bit with this since the EEA exit date isn't yet set (unless it's buried in the transition period terms somewhere), but it seems pretty clear that a good deal of the UK's .EU domain owners are not going to meet the criteria and as such need to start making alternative arrangements.

Registering vs cancelling existing, in-use domains

[raymorris]

To register a .Eu domain, you're supposed to have some connection to the EU. You do not have to prove every 30 days that you're still in the EU to prevent it being cancelled. It makes since to say "UK residents without any connection to the EU can no longer register EU domains". That's no what they are doing.

These domains were properly registered by EU people, who have built communities and businesses under these names. Taking them away, after they were properly and legitimately registered and may have been in active use for several years is petty.

Additionally, they are cancelling all the domains registered to organizations with UK addresses - who may also have offices throughout the UK! Many companies with a UK address are also active in other parts of Europe and may very well qualify for .Eu domains. Heck, the EU itself has offices in England, who have registered at least one domain. I wonder if the EU leadership realises they are cancelling their own domain.

Does anyone

[oldgraybeard]

Besides the TLD entities themselves, Governments and well! less than honest individuals and entities, use any of the non .com, .net or .org domains?

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:Registering vs cancelling existing, in-use doma

[Obfuscant]

Additionally, they are cancelling all the domains registered to organizations with UK addresses -

That's not what is happening. They aren't saying they are going to cancel anything. That's a fiction made up by the Guardian writer.

Read the story. The actual statement from the EC says that at the time brexit happens those domain holders will no longer have authorization to have a .eu domain. It does not say they are going to cancel them, it only states the OBVIOUS fact that people who are not in the EU have no authority to have a .eu domain name.

What the EC ACTUALLY said is that holders of .eu domains who are no longer authorized to have them cannot renew their domains once they expire. D'oh.

Auto analogy? When you move out of the state of New York, do you expect to be able to renew your NY driver's license? Or license plate?

Re:Removing all doubt

[serviscope_minor]

I know. It's such a nerve how they won't let people who aren't paying fees use the facilities.

What arseholes. They should pay us to leave and give us all the cool shit too. And let us not take any of them dirty frenchies. /s

Re:This is spite.

[serviscope_minor]

This is nothing other than spite.

Yes it's spite for them to stick to the rules that we agreed to abide by.

fucking bastards.

It's not uncommon to register a domain in a country other than the one you live in.

Except it's in the rules of the eu domains that you can't have one if you're not in the EU.

For fucks sake, it's not spite for them to stop letting us use the EU facilities when we leave ans stop paying membership fees.

In accordance with goals of the .eu domain

[alex3772]

From the official site of EURid:

Trustworthiness
A website with a .eu or . domain name extension tells your customers that you are a legal entity based in the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway and are therefore, subject to EU law and other relevant trading standards.

I am sure the EU is willing to accomadate the UK if the UK agrees to the rules of the European Economic Area.
It is as simple as that.

Re:In accordance with goals of the .eu domain

[ooloorie]

I stand by my statement: a .eu domain "subject to EU law" means that you are subject to intrusive monitoring by EU governments, as well as EU restrictions on free speech.

This observation may annoy European moderators, but I challenge you to point out where my observation is actually factually incorrect.

"2. REVOCATION OF REGISTERED DOMAIN NAMES"

[raymorris]

> Read the story. The actual statement from the EC says

Read either the second half of the story, or the actual EU statement, before claiming to know what it says. The EU statement consists of four numbered sections, labeled with bullet points. See "2. REVOCATION OF REGISTERED DOMAIN NAMES":
--
2. REVOCATION OF REGISTERED DOMAIN NAMES": ..
revoke such domain name on its own initiative and without submitting the
dispute to any extrajudicial settlement of conflicts in accordance with point (b) of Article
20, first subparagraph, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004.
--

Cancelled, with no appeal just because your main office is in Belgium.

Re: "2. REVOCATION OF REGISTERED DOMAIN NAMES"

[Obfuscant]

I can only assume that your ellipses were intended to create confusion and a dishonest interpretation of the actual statement, because they elided a critical component of that section. It did not say that the EU registrars WOULD revoke any domain names. Here is some of what you elided -- the actual active part of that sentence:

... the Registry for .eu will be entitled to revoke such domain name on its own initiative and without submitting the dispute to any extrajudicial settlement of conflicts ...

That is exactly what I said it was. It is a statement of fact. Because entities in the UK will no longer be authorized to hold a .eu domain name, the registrars for the .eu TLD WILL BE ENTITLED TO revoke them. If you don't know the difference between "entitled to" and "will", I suggest any online dictionary.

Cancelled, with no appeal just because your main office is in Belgium.

Belgium is still part of the EU as far as I know, so no, if your main office is in Belgium you are still entitled to a .eu domain and this statement does not apply to you in ANY WAY.

What a sad muckraking attempt.

Re: "2. REVOCATION OF REGISTERED DOMAIN NAMES"

[raymorris]

> > Cancelled, with no appeal just because your main office is in Belgium.

> Belgium is still part of the EU as far as I know, so no, if your main office is in Belgium you are still entitled to a .eu domain and this statement does not apply to you in ANY WAY.

What exactly do you think "without settlement of conflicts process" means in this context? It means the registration dispute resolution process, where an affected person could point out "I moved to Belgium six months ago", or "Brussels Airlines has always been a Belgian company, our UK web host registered the domain". Once you're cancelled for having a UK address listed, it doesn't matter that it's an EU company - they've cancelled the appeal process by which you would address that.

Re: "2. REVOCATION OF REGISTERED DOMAIN NAMES"

[jeremyp]

You're a fucking idiot.

If your company's address is in Belgium, even if a UK registrar registered your .eu domain,, you still have a connection with the EU and the TLD will not be entitled to revoke your domain.

If you are a company based in the UK and you have no subsidiaries outside the UK, you are currently entitled to a .eu domain. When the UK has left the EU you will no longer be entitled to a .eu domain because you are not in the EU.

Yes it might not seem fair to the people who voted remain: I voted remain and I'm really angry about lots of things to which I will no longer be entitled, but them's the rules.

The Brexiteers are fucking us all right up the arse but the only way to stop it happening is to stop the Brexit process.

Re:Something Less Than Spite

[borcharc]

No, it's being seen as the abusive spouse in a divorce obsessed with the ruin his soon to be divorced spouse. Gotta make sure his other wives know not to leave.

What you're entitled to doesn't matter w/ no appea

[raymorris]

> you still have a connection with the EU

Yep, that's one the problems I keep pointing out. People and companies that should be able to keep their domain, EU people, are fucked when it's revoked WITH THE APPEAL PROCESS REMOVED, due to having a UK address listed. Killing the appeal process is either stupid, petty, or both, because the entire point of the appeal process is to protect people who SHOULD NOT have lost their domain because they have every right to keep it.

Not Petty - just plain damn logical

[aepervius]

.eu is reserved for specific function and persons which reside in , you guessed it eu. Just like the Uk will not be able to participate anymore in certain EU program, or HOST those EU program, they won't be able to have those .eu domain. What the FUCK do you think leaving an economic area means ? This is as if there was a .nafta and the US said "welp we leave nafta" and then withdrawing .nafta domain from US persons & programs was seen as petty. No it isn't. Expecting it to continue is stupid, just as stupid as the person which thought financial EU institution in UK would continue to be in UK after brexit. It is just plain damn logical that if you leave a club, they withdraw any damn usage and privilege you have.

Easily worked around, Ltd in Ireland

[drnb]

Rules is rules.

Creating a simple Ltd Company in Ireland and hiring an Irish proxy company to be its address, contact, mail recipient, etc establishes an EU presence. Domain registration proceeds. Domain availability uninterrupted by Brexit. Rules is rules, works both ways.

Re: Easily worked around, Ltd in Ireland

[drnb]

I find no problem with this. I am just pointing out that legitimate UK companies will feel no impact to this symbolic gesture of the EU.

To be fair, the EU rules will increase scams as impersonation becomes more plausible. But symbolism apparently trumps security.

Re:Registering vs cancelling existing, in-use doma

[bingoUV]

These domains were properly registered by EU people, who have built communities and businesses under these names. Taking them away, after they were properly and legitimately registered and may have been in active use for several years is petty.

1. UK people should have thought about this when voting to exit. Actions have consequences.

2. If they have significant business presence in the EU, they can get an EU address and register. In breaking any relationship, there are some "problems" - you need to do some work to keep using the advantages of the relationship.

3. Why should the EU "communities" do business with non-EU businesses which are in a jurisdiction that doesn't even agree to abide by EU rules , under false pretense of a .eu TLD giving them a false sense of the business being subject to EU rules ?

These are the principles why there are laws against false advertising , trademark infringement, bait and switch etc. Your TLD says something about the rules you operate under - let that something be the truth.

Re:The US should do the same with all .com domains

[hcs_$reboot]

where do you see "us" in "com" ?

Re:This is spite.

[Sesostris III]

Interestingly, the rules for a .uk domain name are:

6. Will the rules of registration be the same as those for existing .co.uk, .org.uk domains or more like the rules for new gTLDs?

The rules will be largely the same as for existing .co.uks, .org.uks, with a few exceptions.

- Where the registrant is overseas an address for service in the UK will be required.

- PO Boxes will be unacceptable in the address.

Introducing .uk - Q and As

In other words, with an equivalent rule as for a .eu domain name.

Re:Who slapped who for what?

[Barsteward]

you getting solace from little ole Iceland kicking the bigger UK's butt in the Cod wars? LOL

Re: Is the UK really going to go through with this

[Barsteward]

referendums are advisory in the UK, the government can ignore the result if they wish to.

Re:The US should do the same with all .com domains

[OrangeTide]

To me .com looks like the domain for the United States Department of Commerce.

Re:What you're entitled to doesn't matter w/ no ap

[Obfuscant]

People and companies that should be able to keep their domain, EU people, are fucked when it's revoked WITH THE APPEAL PROCESS REMOVED, due to having a UK address listed.

I'm sorry that English is not your primary language, and that it is causing you so much trouble.

If you are in Belgium, then the statement about the .eu registrar being entitled to cancel your domain name DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU. Thus, any statement about an appeal process being removed DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU.

"DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU" means, in simple terms, that the entire statement DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU. If the .eu registrar CHOOSES to cancel the domain (because he believed he was entitled to based on the statement) then as a Belgian you would have every right to appeal that decision BECAUSE THE STATEMENT THAT THERE IS NO APPEAL PROCESS DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU.

I'm sorry, there is no simpler way to explain it to you.

Re:Fuck nationalists before they fuck you

[ebvwfbw]

They understood it, they were being screwed. Brussels was telling them what they could and couldn't do and they had to suck it up. All of those leftist and in some cases fascist rules.

Predictions were the sky would fall, well it hasn't. They're doing just fine. Maybe the US will have to rescue Europe soon from the fascists in Europe again.