In Theresa May, the British home secretary who is set to become the next prime minister of the UK on Wednesday (13 July), the EU will get a pragmatic, meticulous and tough negotiator, who is unlikely to rush into Brexit talks. The 59-year-old is likely to use the summer to hammer out a negotiating position for Britain to leave the EU.  May, who was a quiet supporter of the Remain camp, ruled out a second referendum in her leadership campaign and vowed to honour the British voters' choice of leaving the EU. “Brexit means Brexit and we’re going to make a success of it,” she said when she launched her leadership bid for the Conservative Party.  “There will be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it by the back door, and no second referendum.” May is unlikely to bow to pressure from EU leaders to start negotiations by triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty any time soon. Until the procedure is officially launched, the UK remains in control of timing and can still be at the table of the EU as a full member. She might use the time to feel out what other leaders are ready to give to the UK, and build alliances among the remaining 27 members. The EU 27 will meet in September without the UK to discuss the EU's future, and May will be ushered into her first EU summit in late October.

EU leaders are likely to want to hear how she envisages the British exit and future relationships with the block.  May needs to navigate between more pragmatic states like Germany, Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands that would want to maintain strong trading ties with the UK, and others like Belgium and France that are likely to want to make an example out of Britain. Central and Eastern European states could be sympathetic to May, as they share the UK's view of the EU as a loose cooperation, not a federal state, but rights and benefits of their citizens living and working in the UK could mean trouble for the talks.  France's presidential election in May, and Germany's general election next autumn could complicate matters, as their leaders are likely to be grounded by election campaigns and would be less flexible in the negotiations.   May might want to delay launching Article 50 further into next year, not to have Brexit negotiations held hostage by the various campaigns.  British media reported that May could appoint Liam Fox, a previous contender for the Tory leadership, or David Davis, another senior Tory MP, both Brexiteers as lead negotiatiors for the talks with the EU.

Davis suggested in a blog post that triggering Article 50 should happen before or by the beginning of next year.

...anterior post ....continued...

The argument between the two heads of the dragon called the EU is the main hurdle to the transformations and reforms that the ones who have been hit by the wave of the Brexit vote. Aside from some cosmetic measures, if they even do get taken, most likely the EU will forget the need to bring up again a constitutional project that would end the institutional aberrations, the massive democratic shortcomings, the huge waste of funds and the inability to decide precisely on the most serious issues that need to be resolved, from the energy policies, to security and financial and budgetary ones, all the way to those that concern the control of individual movement in the EU space, whether it is the control of borders, legal or illegal immigration or professional mobility caused by the dynamic of the workforce.  There is no doubt, the EU should learn something, with both of its heads: "Or first of all, history teaches us that a people that doesn't move forwards is standing still, in fact it is going backwards, that the law of progress is like that, the quicker you move, the farther you get." But I am afraid that not even one of the heads of the EU will get to that wisdom on its own, and if they do, they'll fail to agree on how to use it. Just like the Brits who one day found themselves that not only are they not going forward, but they're actually going backwards!!! 

The European Union resembles to a disturbing degree that unfortunate two headed dragon, that can't agree on any decision, or action to take: one head is the government factor and it is represented by the leaders of the member countries united in a Council, or who negotiate, discuss and even decide before getting to the official meetings; the other head is made up of the big bureaucracy in Brussels, whose top representative is the European Commission. The first reactions to the Brexit?? The government "head", through the voice of Mrs. Merkel used a very "soft" tone, has hinted, that the issue should not be approached hastily, that no one should lift the stone to throw it, that the essence of the Brexit exercise, in an almost biblical sense, shouldn't be the "death of the sinner", but their redemption, if possible, and if not, at least maintaining a relationship that is as cordial as possible, and of course, mutually beneficial. Roughly speaking, Germany has commercial exchanges of approximately 60 billion Euros, in direct commercial exchanges with the United Kingdom alone!!! To avoid making it look like it was siding with the British, by in fact defending its own interests, it changed its tune at the meeting with France and Italy and went with a sterner statement, which doesn't matter anyway: we are not going to negotiate anything with the British, neither formally, nor informally, until they submit their official request to exit the EU and they'd better hurry!!! The other head of the dragon breathed fire! Even through the "nostrils" of the President of the Commission, Claude Junker, the minute the results of the referendum in the UK were announced. The warlike message was: when it comes to the exit process, no one should expect a rain of rose petals. It will be full of thorns, unpleasant and very costly. This message has two goals. One is the attempt of the bureaucracy in Brussels to nip in the bud any other potential deserters who would think that the exit from the EU might a be a pleasant walk in the park! No it is not, it is a ride through the beast infested forest! And the exit leads into a precipice! The second target is the other head of the dragon, the governmental one. It should forget the soft approaches and do what they have to do, meaning breathe fire and burn things. Or else, it runs the risk of having the world think they are dinosaurs and just like dinosaurs evolved into birds, they will turn into chicken over time, like dinosaurs devolved into birds, that anybody can just place in a pot and boil!

The Hungarian referendum is not legally binding.  A European Commission spokeswoman told this website that the “decision making process agreed to by all EU member states and as enshrined in the treaties” would “remain the same” no matter how people voted in October.  But Zoltan Kovacs, the Orban government spokesman recently told journalists in Brussels, that the outcome of the vote “cannot be disregarded by the European Commission”. “The political implications are going to be considerable,” he added.  Slovak prime minister Robert Fico, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the EU, also told press on Wednesday (6 June) that every EU leader has a sovereign right to call a referendum. He warned that if the EU does not reform itself swiftly enough, member states, backed by angry societies, could start to pick and unpick EU policies.

“My fear is that if over the next five to six months we are not successful in finding a solution for the functioning of the EU, then there would be an increasing … possibility of referendums in different areas,” Fico said.

Hungary’s referendum aims to steer EU migration policy away from mandatory quotas and to bolster the government’s domestic support, but its political consequences could be more far-reaching.

Hungary announced Tuesday (5 June) that it would hold its referendum on migration on 2 October. “The government is asking the people of Hungary to say no to mandatory relocation and to Brussels’ immigration policy”, Antal Rogan, prime minister Viktor Orban's cabinet chief, said.

The plebiscite was first announced in February, with a government-financed campaign that started in May pasting billboards up and down the country that said: “We are sending a message to Brussels, so that they understand it too”.  Emboldened by the Brexit referendum and by the Dutch vote on Ukraine, Orban is hoping that his referendum will make him more powerful both in Europe and at home.  The question to be put to the 8 million Hungarian voters, 50 percent of whom have to show up at the ballot boxes for the outcome to be valid, asks: “Do you want the European Union to be entitled to prescribe the mandatory settlement of non-Hungarian citizens in Hungary without the consent of parliament?”.  It refers to a European Commission proposal on the reform of the EU asylum system that includes permanent quotas for distributing refugees based on member states’ size and wealth.

A previous EU decision on a one-off mandatory quota to help Greece and Italy is being challenged by Hungary and by Slovakia, the current EU presidency, at the EU court in Luxembourg.

France has suggested it is prepared to reach a deal to allow Britain to limit free movement of EU migrants while retaining access to the Single Market.  Michel Sapin, France’s finance minister, said that “everything is on the table” as he appeared to break ranks with the rest of the European Union.  Until now European leaders have insisted that Britain must continue to let in EU migrants if it wants to enjoy the benefits of free trade.  But Mr Sapin told BBC Two’s Newsnight on Wednesday night: “Everything will be on the table because Britain will make proposals, and we will negotiate all these aspects with a desire to come to an agreement.  “Britain won’t be in the same position as it was beforehand. Things will change. Things have already changed. We return to zero. As we say in France, a clean slate.  “When we negotiate with a country, a third party, Norway, Switzerland to take countries that are very close, we discuss all subjects: under what conditions there is freedom of movement of people; freedom of movement of goods; of capital.  “That is something that is very important for the UK with all the questions about financial services. So we discuss everything.”

 The comments represent a significant boost to Britain. Earlier this week, Mr Cameron attempted to lay the groundwork for Brexit negotiations by warning European leaders that they will have to reform free movement if Britain is to retain close economic ties with the continent.  In his final meeting with EU leaders before standing down as Prime Minister, Mr Cameron claimed that British voters backed a Brexit because people believe the country has “no control” of its borders.

The real reason for the ongoing trouble in the European Union, including the recent vote by the British people to leave the bloc, is that the EU is bankrupt. We know in retrospect that the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union was the real reason the Warsaw pact fell apart, with Poland acting as the first domino. For the same reason, we can predict England was the first domino in the collapse of the European Union.  The emerging consensus view is, as Pentagon analysts put it, “Brexit may lead to Frexit (French exit), the collapse of banks, populism, nationalism and anti-globalism.” This is also likely lead to an end to Khazarian mafia sponsored Muslim immigration. The situation in France has already become so chaotic that French police say they are becoming too exhausted to deal with the daily, violent demonstrations taking place throughout the country. French President Francois Hollande, who has only 11% public support, is trying to ban demonstrations but it is hard to see who will enforce his “ban.” In other words, France is headed for revolution.  “This is the worst period I recall, there is nothing like it,” is how former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan described the general situation and the market chaos that followed the Brexit vote.

The European Council has offered a narrow window, saying that Britain has not left until Article 50 is activated formally by the Prime Minister, “if it is indeed the intention of the British government.” Mr Cameron has left it to his successor to activate it. Mrs Merkel is in no hurry. Senior EU sources say they can wait until Christmas, but prevarication would trash Britain's credit-worthiness. There are two problems. Firstly, to not activate Article 50 would be a rejection of democracy on a scale that could only be described as a coup, and would poison British public life for generations.

Secondly, a wave of movements demanding referendums on the terms of membership, given a huge boost by Mr Cameron, is tearing across Europe – in France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Italy, Hungary.  Marine Le Pen could will run rampant in French elections in the spring.

Leaders anticipated that Boris Johnson would pursue a 'vote leave for a better deal' strategy, and ruled it out from February, precisely to prevent this scenario.  Jean-Claude Juncker said on Friday: “The repercussions of the British referendum could quickly put a stop to such crass rabble-rousing, as it should soon become clear that the UK was better off inside the EU.” Britain simply has to go, on bad terms, pour encourager les autres.

As far as Brussels is concerned, Britain has left.  At home on Friday morning, Britons were dumbstruck, agog at the result, or chuffed at having taught Brussels a lesson.  We now see street protests to overturn the result, internet petitions, suggestions that the UK or Scottish Parliament could revoke it or somehow make it go away. Westminster is occupied by Labour coups and Tory successions. Few seem to believe we are going.   In Brussels, they have been ready to say goodbye for a long time. Britain had been half-way out the door for forty years. David Cameron had announced this referendum in January 2013. He had won an election on the back of it, and many expected him to lose it. He, and they, repeated many times that it was final and binding. Patience is exhausted.  On Friday there was grave sadness, but no panic. The timetable for the talks was announced days before the vote. Martin Schulz, the president of the Parliament, spoke at dawn; Donald Tusk, the president of the Council, delivered a statement at 07.40 GMT. The founding members' foreign ministers met on Saturday; sherpas for the 27 remaining states will meet today to sketch out the months ahead.  Leaders have demanded Article 50 is activated immediately, to create certainty. Realistically, Mr Cameron has until Christmas.

Although inflation in Italy has slowed to next to nothing, it is still saddled with the effects of earlier inflation and so is uncompetitive. What the advent of the euro has done to Italy – and also to several other countries – is to impose Germanic values in one sphere while having very little effect on performance in most others. It is the combination of Germanic money and Italian practices that is so devastating.  One clear lesson from this is that the EU is far from being the only factor affecting economic performance in Europe. Within the EU, it is possible to do things relatively well, and it is also possible to do things relatively badly. (The same is true for countries outside the EU.) But the Italian experience also makes it clear that the various things the EU supposedly does to improve economic performance aren’t worth very much. Yes, Italy is in the single market and enjoys all the much-vaunted advantages of that arrangement: it has a seat at the table when regulations and standards are framed; these rules apply both in Italy and across the single market; no customs forms are needed when Italian goods head northward; no tariffs are encountered.  Similarly, when Italian goods and services are sold to other eurozone countries there are no problems about exchange rate uncertainty or the cost of changing money. Yet Italy has not been carried forward on a wave of prosperity brought about by the absence of form-filling at borders and the convenience of operating in a common currency. Funny that. It may have had some very successful companies, but Italy has rarely been blessed with stable and effective government. This is why Italy has traditionally been an extremely europhile country. Most Italians felt quite relaxed about Rome ceding power to Brussels. But now, in reaction to recent appalling economic performance, coupled with the EU’s imposition of an unelected “technocratic” prime minister in 2011, more and more Italians are thinking radically about the future. In a recent opinion poll, 58pc of Italians said they wanted a referendum on EU membership and 48pc said that they would vote to leave the EU.  Leaving the euro would be a good start. If the new lira dropped by 20pc-30pc, as it probably would, within a couple of years Italy would be enjoying an export boom as it retook market share from other countries, mostly in Europe. The result would be a resumption of decent economic growth and a fall in unemployment.  Come to think of it, is that a key reason why many business leaders in the countries to the north are pretty keen to keep Italy in?

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier says the EU must not fall into "depression and paralysis" after the UK voted to leave the bloc.  He made the comments arriving for an urgent meeting of the six EU founder members to discuss the decision.  They will consider the process and speed of Britain's exit, and are also likely to discuss how to dissuade others from doing the same.  Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron has said he will step down by October.  The six countries attending the talks in Berlin - Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands - first joined forces in the 1950s and still form the core of the EU.  The first summit of EU leaders with no British representation will be held on Wednesday. The EU has urged the UK to start negotiations to leave quickly.  European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker stressed the "Union of the remaining 27 members will continue".  Global stock markets fell heavily on the news of the so-called "Brexit", where the UK voted by 52% to 48% to leave the EU. The value of the pound has also fallen dramatically.

Here is a longer extract from Nigel Farage's controversial 'victory' speech:  "If the predications now are right this will be a victory for real people, a victory for ordinary people, a victory for decent people. We have fought against the multinationals, against the big merchant banks, against big politics, against lies against lies, corruption and deceit and today honesty and decency and belief in nation I think now is going to win.  We will have done it without having to fight, without a single bullet having been fired.  I hope this victory brings down this failed projects and brings us to a Europe of sovereign nation states trading together.  Let June the 23rd go down in our history as our independence day."

For Britain, the dangers of Brexit are not immediate. They are hazily distant and they have been well-rehearsed in this campaign. If a post-Brexit government fails to offer a credible trade and finance policy, Britain could lose its global footing and slide into decline, like the Dutch in the 18th Century. My preference is the European Economic Area, the Norwegian option, a temporary way-station to retain unfettered access to the EU market and 'passporting' rights for the City. It is a withdrawal in safe stages, with all the compromises that this entails.  Remainers warn that the EU might block this. Some even claim that it would have to crush a post-Brexit Britain as a demonstration to prevent others breaking loose. There would be no kid gloves for "deserters" in the telling words of Jean-Claude Juncker, the Commission chief.  But to argue such a case is to imply that the EU can be held together only by coercion, like the British, French, Spanish, and Russian empires in their day. It is to suggest that the EU is a prison, and if that were the case the project could not possibly have any future...

Mr Lacey made his claim about the Queen questioning dinner guests in a blog for the Daily Beast website.  He told The Telegraph: "She asked the question in the context of a general debate - she loves a bit of forthright discussion and this sort of remark is tossed around the dinner table like a ping pong ball. That is the way she frames her questions."  A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said: "We would not comment on private conversations the Queen may or may not have had, but the Queen is above politics, has remained politically neutral for the 64 years of her reign and we are very clear that the EU referendum is a matter for the British people."

 

Before referendum campaigning paused following the tragic murder of Jo Cox, there was growing disbelief among leading Remainers – the careerists, the big businessmen, the Bilderbergers, the Davos groupies and that tragic subset of my own trade that sees the journalist’s job as being to propitiate the governing elite – that polls should show a consistent lead for the Leave camp. It is disbelief born of their almost complete detachment from the realities of life outside London’s more exclusive postal districts. In their blissfully ignorant private world, they applaud each other’s existences, praise each other’s insights, and rejoice in their smug membership of an elite in which they feel safe because its ways are beyond democratic will: until now. As their presumptions and assumptions have been assaulted and undermined they have flailed about in panic: witness the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a straight face and to the embarrassment even of his supporters, promising an austerity budget to punish the nation should it vote Leave – even though he must have known a combination of his own MPs, the SNP and Labour would never allow such a measure through parliament...In the real world, as some politicians have belatedly recognized, people want change. They dislike being told that the United Kingdom cannot run itself. They deplore doomsayers who have lost faith in their country. They are angry that their country’s borders are open not just to geniuses with PhDs, nurses, teachers, plumbers, electricians and others who can contribute to it, but to welfare tourists, pickpockets, rapists and murderers. They resent a foreign power overruling their courts and their elected government. They are frustrated at being unable to change key policies when they vote. They detest contributing £8.5 billion a year net for Brussels to spend in countries less efficient, less productive and more corrupt than ours. They have had enough, above all, of being told that unless the UK concedes in perpetuity to foreign rule it will be worthless, and face ruin, danger and unremitting failure.

 

Let there be no illusion about the trauma of Brexit. Anybody who claims that Britain can lightly disengage after 43 years enmeshed in EU affairs is a charlatan, or a dreamer, or has little contact with the realities of global finance and geopolitics.  Stripped of distractions, it comes down to an elemental choice: whether to restore the full self-government of this nation, or to continue living under a higher supranational regime, ruled by a European Council that we do not elect in any meaningful sense, and that the British people can never remove, even when it persists in error.

For some of us - and we do not take our cue from the Leave campaign - it has nothing to do with payments into the EU budget. Whatever the sum, it is economically trivial, worth unfettered access to a giant market.  We are deciding whether to be guided by a Commission with quasi-executive powers that operates more like the priesthood of the 13th Century papacy than a modern civil service; and whether to submit to a European Court (ECJ) that claims sweeping supremacy, with no right of appeal.  It is whether you think the nation states of Europe are the only authentic fora of democracy, be it in this country, or Sweden, or the Netherlands, or France - where Nicholas Sarkozy has launched his presidential bid with an invocation of King Clovis and 1,500 years of Frankish unity.

Peter Mandelson, the former EU trade commissioner and ex-business secretary, said Schäuble’s comments “finally knocks on the head the leave campaign’s claim that we can leave the EU and still enjoy the benefits of the single market”.  “We cannot leave the club and continue to use its facilities,” the Labour peer said. “Being outside the single market wold be a hammer blow to the UK economy. Our future trade [would] be hit and our manufacturing sector, which relies on the single market’s free movement of goods and people, [would] be at risk. This is the cold reality of Brexit that the British people must face. If we leave we lose the economic gains of being the world’s largest free-trade zone, putting jobs and livelihoods at risk.”  Iain Duncan Smith, the former work and pensions secretary, said of Schäuble’s comments: “To quote Mandy Rice-Davis, he would say that, wouldn’t he? … What I call the realpolitik underneath the surface is that they don’t want to get into spats. Of course they don’t. We’re a friend, we cooperate in Nato, the G8 and G20. Mr Schauble’s bound to say what he said. Come on. Don’t tell me that Mr Osborne hasn’t been on that line to him almost permanently for the last few weeks …“You’ll probably get a load of these statements. Every finance minister in Europe is going to line up. They’ve probably got them every day between now and the referendum.”

The leave campaign has said it does not want to be in the single market, because it would not want the UK to have free movement. But its leading advocates, including Boris Johnson and Gove, dismiss the idea that Germany or other EU countries would impose trade tariffs given they sell the UK more in manufactured goods than they buy.

The ASI survey of more than 1,750 adults, carried out by YouGov on June 8, showed that 54pc of Britons would  support Britain pursuing such a deal for five to 10 years immediately following Brexit were the UK to leave. Just 25pc said that they would oppose such an arrangement. Norway, as one member of the four-strong European Free Trade Association (EFTA), is also a part of the European Economic Area (EEA), commonly referred to as the European single market. Sam Bowman, executive director of the ASI, said that a deal that kept the UK in the EEA would “take the risk out of leaving the EU, providing the time it would take to come up with a unique British solution” for trade with the economic bloc.  Experts at the Treasury, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr), and the London School of Economics have all found that remaining a part of the EEA would pose the least severe economic risk to  the UK after a decision to split from the EU.  The potential hit to gross domestic product (GDP) from such a move compares favourably with other post-EU options, including a bespoke deal along the lines of that enjoyed by Switzerland, or deciding not to forge a trade agreement at all, and instead relying on the minimum tariff rates secured by the UK’s membership of the World Trade Organization. Other polls show that a large proportion of support for withdrawal is motivated by opposition to EU migration. As such, political experts have suggested that joining up to EFTA, which requires members to allow EU citizens to come and live and work in the UK, could be politically unpalatable.

Euroscepticism is on the rise across Europe, new research has suggested, with little more than two weeks to go before Britons decide whether to remain within the EU.

Nonetheless, the Pew Research Center report found that a slim majority - a median of 51% - of respondents across 10 EU countries still favoured the EU.

Forty-two percent want more power returned to their national capitals.

Another poll has found most Europeans want the UK to stay in the EU.

How Eurosceptic is the European Parliament?

Eurosceptic 'earthquake' in EU elections

Would Brexit make Putin happy?

Germany conflicted on Brexit

The findings, by TNS (in French), contrasted with its survey among Britons, which found that 41% supported remaining within the 28-member bloc, compared with 43% in favour of leaving.

The UK holds a referendum on 23 June on whether it should stay in the EU or leave.

In its poll results released on Tuesday, the Pew Research Center found a majority of people were unfavourable towards the EU in Greece (71%) and France (61%).

That followed a steep decline in EU favourability in France (down 17 percentage points from 2015 to 2016) and Spain (down 16 points over the same period). In the UK, support was down eight points, and in Italy six.

In five of the six nations surveyed in both 2015 and 2016, it found favourability had declined.

Delegates from Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Montenegro, Netherlands, Spain, Romania and the United Kingdom descended on Barcelona on the 26th of May for the 2nd edition of the Euromat Gaming Summit. The international audience were treated to insights from some of Europe's leading operators as well as a panel discussion with regulators from Spain, Italy, Belgium and the European Commission.  Commenting on the event, Eduardo Antoja, President of Euromat said: "My main conclusion from today's panel discussions is that land-based gaming continues to be the bigger segment of the gaming industry, representing almost 70% of players' expenditure. It will continue to be the first choice for many years provided that regulation keeps pace with technological, social and economic reality. Today Euromat confirmed that it's not just a great representative body for our industry, it's a think tank for our sector". Euromat confirmed that the next edition of the Euromat Gaming Summit will take place in Berlin, Germany in 2017. 

The Brexit doesn't matter. Not to the authorities in Great Britain nor to the European ones. Had it mattered and stood any chance of being successful, the leaders in Brussels would have made at least a tactical break in their march towards the merging of nations into a utopian conglomerate, in which citizens are turned into simple numbers and asked to pay their taxes without asking questions. The Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs has recently approved the introduction of the unified fiscal identification number for citizens and companies in the EU. "The adequate identification of taxpayers is essential for the efficient exchange of information between the tax administrations", the EU document states.  American analyst Martin Armstrong writes on his blog that "through this measure, the EU is preparing the groundwork for the move to electronic money".  Before reaching this "ideal", the far nearer effect will be that of the introduction of a unified European tax, as well as the centralization of the taxation of companies. In the case of the fiscal regime applied to companies, the European "ideal" is represented by the prohibition to lower the profit tax rate below 15%, which is in fact the prohibition to increase the competitiveness by lowering the tax burden.    In Armstrong's opinion, "this hidden maneuver represents a step towards the taking over of the states' taxation power and the creation of a unified taxation framework in Europe". In this way, the fiscal competition, one of the factors that have contributed to the development of the continent in the past, will be eliminated. European countries, especially the developing ones, will be denied any opportunity to compete with developed countries and will be sentenced to the status of economic colonies, which are only good for the plundering of their natural resources and credit-based consumption.  Thus, "the single identification code represents a direct attack on sovereignty, in an attempt to create a centralized taxation at the level of the EU", according to the European blogs that reproduced the information.  In the British press, as well as in the continental one, an assiduous search is needed to find this information. I have been unsuccessful so far, and the eur-lex.europa.eu website was not accessible.