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.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing someone will register fuck.eu

Re: Petty.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll register fc.uk.eu

Think about it

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.

[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.

[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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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

[thegarbz]

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

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[Sesostris III]

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

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?

[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?

[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.

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...

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

[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.

.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.)

[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.)

[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.)

[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;

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...

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.

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: "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"

[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: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.