4813 posts • joined 23 Apr 2010
Re: Location, Location, Location...
>I can see that if you are travelling a lot then EE might be the best overall
Within the UK, whilst I have been able to exclusively use Orange and now EE for voice, pretty much since the mid 1990's, I have often found that where EE data fails 3 are good, so have maintained my 3 mobile data contract (running since circa 2007).
Funnily enough, having had EE 4G data service (since circa 2014) it has often been when I've decided that EE data coverage is good enough that I encounter an EE data not spot with 3 data service...
So whilst I would agree EE might be the best overall, if you are travelling a lot and need data I suggest you also have device capable of connecting to a different network.
Re: '"0-RTT Resumption'
A quick web search seems to indicate that 0-RTT hasn't been evaluated against WPA2 PMKID style of attack against the STEK, although there is mention that the 0-RTT packet is encrypted.
Re: "the world is clinging stubbornly to IPv4"
>So in principle, there should be little reason why your typical home ... shouldn't be using IPv6 for many functions - with the users being largely unaware.
To illustrate this point, in investigating a Windows printer communication problem, I realised that my recently purchased printer was dual stack, given my iPads are dual stacks and my Win7 and Win10 laptops are also dual stack and all this was running straight out of the box, without further investigation, I have little idea which protocol stack these systems are using to communicate with my printer. Yes, my router might only be talking IPv4 to the world, but this doesn't impact the home LAN...
Re: What we need is IPv7.
The trouble is that this will suffer from all the same problems as IPv6.
Yes, the IPv4 specification wasn't designed to futureproof, in the same way as say ISO OSI CLNS and it's inbuilt support for multiple address formats (both present and future) was.
However, if the world had deployed OSI CLNS it would most probably have looked a lot like MAP/TOP/GOSIP, where only one address format was selected for use and thus implemented. Which would mean systems implementing this profile would not be able to communicate with systems implementing other address formats permitted in the full Standard. Ie. a CLNS implementation that only supported IPv4 addresses would be unable to directly communicate with a system using IPv6 addresses.
To allow such systems to communicate would require the existing system to have a new address handling module installed ie. a networking software and/or firmware update. (I'm ignoring potential application issues here); something only devices in current support would receive. However, as we see with mobile phones, just because your device is new doesn't mean it will actually get updates. So there would be much uncertainty about whether such an update would actually result in a situation any better than where we are today with dual stacks, which actually makes things both a lot clearer and interop a lot easier.
So, yes, IPv4/IPv6 interworking is a mess, however the real problem is the seeming lack of progress on a global public IPv6 Internet to encourage people to take the migration seriously.
Re: Second class netizen
>And pray tell, how would you propose to create something with more address space that IS compatible with IPv4 equipment ?
One of the solutions proposed at the time (early 90's) was for a simple address enlargement, leaving everything else the same. By combining this with a 1-to-1 IPv4 to IPv6 address mapping - hence the IPV4 address space within the IPv6 address scheme, a relatively efficient protocol gateway can be built. Obviously, for the transition period this placed a restriction on the IPv6 address blocks that could be used.
I think you can see that whilst it might have been a feasible transition strategy - in a private network, it has too many negatives for it to be feasible in a public network. I seem to remember this was a problem common to many proposals. Additionally, I suspect many of the proposed solutions would have worked on the early 1990's Internet, but would be unworkable on today's larger and more complex Internet.
Re: "4.3 billion addresses are moe or less all allocated"
>No, they're pretty much all allocated.
The question is to whom does this really matter?
Fundamentally, I suggest the only people directly impacted by the near exhaustion of IPv4 addresses are those who need to obtain large numbers of IP addresses at low cost. which would seem to be mobile operators and cloud operators. Established ISPs with sufficient addresses to cover their existing customers and some growth aren't directly impacted.
Interestingly, I suggest that IoT vendors can get away with things because DHCP moves the onus of having a spare IP address to allocate to their gadget on to the user. So what is going on currently, is a bit of market awareness and preparation: I expect in the next few years residential ISP's to offer IPv6 as a costed optional service enhancement - why should ISPs pay to provide a service others such as the IoT and home automation vendors will benefit from - the customer wants, the customer pays.
Re: "the world is clinging stubbornly to IPv4"
>That's coming real soon now and only with IPv6 and HNCP (Home Networking Control Protocol).
Sorry if I'm a little restrained in my excitement - I worked on various Home Networking Standards in the 1980's when home networking was also supposed to be "coming real soon now"...
Re: Mobile devices / 4G networks
An interesting contribution which shows that EE is serious about migrating their public internet services to IPv6 and doing so in a way that will be practically invisible to most of their users.
Re: Obvious need for..
>Problem was IPv6 was designed by committee, so the usual problems of feature creep.
Also most of the committee were purists and so rather than be pragmatic and agree a solution that everyone was prepared to implement in a very short space of time (the Internet then was both very small and maintained by a very small community), they wanted to solve a whole host of other issues...
Re: Mobile devices / 4G networks
>Which is odd, because one of the driving forces of IPv6 design was mobile networks.
And from my time working with 3GPP, circa 2000 it was also one of the drivers wanting the IPv6 working group to hurry up and deliver an agreed specification...
Re: "the world is clinging stubbornly to IPv4"
>IPv6 is necessary for IoT...
So what does that have to do with the deployment of IPv6 to corporate desktops?
Which I think gets us back to the entire premise of the article, a total misunderstanding of the situation.
The major network equipment manufacturers have for years been shipping kit that supports both IPv4 and IPv6, Microsoft since Win7 [aside might have been Vista but...] have shipped Windows with an IPv6 stack that works out of the box. Apple with iOS 4.1 (2010) and OS X (since 2002) included IPv6 support.
So in principle, there should be little reason why your typical home (a couple of MS/Apple systems, a printer, a games console, a couple of phones and an ISP supplied and configured router) shouldn't be using IPv6 for many functions - with the users being largely unaware.
However, I suggest the following should be giving concern:
1) The vast majority of ISP supplied routers are IPv4 only.
2) Many high street printers are still IPv4 only
3) Only with the release of Android 4.0 Ice Cream was support for IPv6 included. However, from various forums it seems that even today not all devices support it and even if they do it may only be on the mobile data connection and not the WiFi connection.
4) Most residential ISPs only deliver an IPv4 service.
5) ? What isn't clear is what is being used natively on 3/4G networks. I would assume from the lateness of IPv6 support in mobile devices that 3&4G are natively IPv4 but stand to be corrected.
Address these and the amount of traffic using IPv6 will significantly increase, without joe public even realising it...
With a large user/consumer-base using IPv6 it becomes easier to get people to make their websites accessible on both IPv4 and IPv6 - it should only be a configuration tickbox.
As for corporate networks, well back in the 80's and early 90's they were running all sorts of stuff: SNA, DECnet IV, OSLan, TCP/IP, XNS, Novell etc. yet within a very short space of time the vast majority of networks switched to IPv4, in part because the vendors (including IBM) stop developing their proprietary networking solution and migrated their product to IPv4... So I suggest once you are running an IPv6 service externally and probably also within your cloud-based datacentre, switching off IPv4 becomes a no brainer cost saving.
Re: Second class netizen
> IPv6 was proposed at a time when completely changing the "whole internet" was a smaller and still possibly manageable task.
IPv6 was the result of giving 'academics' (ie. those with a more purist and theoretical bend) the opportunity to completely change the Internet at a time when it would have been possible to do so, unfortunately, they didn't realise the door for change was only open for a very brief period of time - with the door effectively being closed on the release of Windows 95...
Looking back it is obvious that a much more pragmatic approach should have been taken that allowed for a rapid move to a more extendable IPv4 like protocol which would have allowed yet to be defined features such as a larger address space to be added. ie. take the lessons learnt from ISO OSI network addressing and do better. However, to give the authors of IPv6 their due, no one at the time really appreciated just how quickly the Internet would take off, plus as they in the main hadn't been involved in IEEE/ISO OSI/MAP/TOP/GOSIP had very little idea just how long getting technical design and agreement took.
Re: "It would have been insanely useful during"
>It's not really a backdoor when it's in the documentation for everyone to see and you can turn it off.
Agree, this does have some parallels with the 'backdoor' that Intel chips possessed, that Joanna Rutkowska exploited with her Blue Pill rootkit.
If for some reason you're still using TKIP crypto on your Wi-Fi, ditch it – Linux, Android world bug collides with it
Re: "No one should be using TKIP in 2018"?
@Ac - The really scary thing is just how much new kit, especially consumer (eg. the Sky Hub) that still supports WEP, hence whilst reverting to WEP might be a joke, I can see people actually doing exactly that ! :).
Re: "No one should be using TKIP in 2018"?
@AC - Yes I knew, just that I tried (and failed) to make a wry observation about WEP.
Re: (#) FFS, WEP... chocolate teapot
Agree, however, even in 2008 there were still too many networks using it and even better 'security' experts advising people to hide their SSIDs. We can argue about the security aspects of NAT, but compared to hiding the SSID, NAT is a security feature.
Re: "No one should be using TKIP in 2018"?
Back in 2007 the recommendation was to use WPA2...
The WiFi Alliance depreciated TKIP back in 2015, noting that it "no longer provides sufficient security to protect consumer or enterprise Wi-Fi® networks. ".
>Thank God for WEP.
Must be using real cheap or ancient kit; personally, I prefer my kit to carry the WiFi Alliance logo.
Re: Paid and Unpaid Legal Advice...
>That tack would break the rules on opt-out.
Only if the choice is incorrectly presented - I seem to remember the MS Windows 10 EULA got a green light, but that was before GDPR came into force...
If the customer doesn't consent then it has to be clear that in the absence of an automated process (eg. part of the V5c change of keeper) they, the customer, are responsible for notifying the manufacturer of when they dispose of the vehicle so that their instructions can be honoured.
Re: Paid and Unpaid Legal Advice...
>Isn't the actual issue that the subsequent owners don't have access to the data.
That is how the problem manifests, but not the real issue. As the new owner, it should be possible for them to produce the V5C to a dealer/manufacturer along with relevant id and for them to be granted access to the vehicle data, without having to involve the previous owner. This can be achieved by having the original owner signing relevant consents at the time of original sale; no consent then only limited data ie. data supplied by dealerships will be available to the new owner.
The only real issue that arises is where the new owner doesn't bother registering their interest in the vehicle with the manufacturer and the original owner also doesn't tell the manufacturer, in this instance the manufacturer will be collecting data from a third-party without their explicit consent... I suspect the solution to this will be to include in the V5c change of keeper service, a service similar to the "Tell us once" notification of death services, whereby DVLC (with the original/new keeper's consent) inform the manufacturer of the change of keeper and thus the manufacturer can block access to vehicle history until such time as a new keeper/owner registers their interest.
My oblique point was that solicitors will freely tell you what the problems are, but will only tell you about solutions once paid; the contribution from the solicitor clearly gave no hint of how the problem might be solved other than . I suspect that the solution to the GDPR compliance problem is actually very simple, even if it requires a little careful thought and walking through the various change of owner/keeper scenarios.
Re: Almost as good as The Dartford Crossing....
>Also, they will automatically remove a vehicle (after few months) if its car tax group changes to 'Disabled'.
Thanks, useful to know, they obviously take a feed from DVLC for vehicles taxed as disabled. Which seems to mean that you are driving an exempt vehicle you don't need an account and won't get a letter demanding payment.
Paid and Unpaid Legal Advice...
El Reg seem to have received unpaid legal advice:
"It could be argued that Jag as data controller have failed in security principle over personal data of the old owner. But they will point to [the] contract [an] old owner signed."
"In practical terms the problem Jag has is not having a fallback of remote deletion of data at the end of service contract where a private sale is not managed by their dealer and the old owner doesn't bother. Is it really so difficult to do that?"
The solution that a solicitor would charge for:
1) Jag modify the contract customers sign on taking on a vehicle: Customer consents to Jag letting selected third-parties such as subsequent owners of the vehicle have access to vehicle data; Customer can block access to the more personal data(*) by contacting Jag... Ie. it's your data, you, customer, are responsible for it.
2) Jag ensure they have procedures in place to ensure that only verified new owners gain access to historical vehicle data.
(*) Note I don't regard MOT and Service history as personal data.
Re: Almost as good as The Dartford Crossing....
>It only takes a couple of clicks to deregister once you realise you've been funding the new driver...
Are you sure? I mean you are assuming the Dartford Crossing system only contains unique registration details. I would not be surprised if a car can be registered against several accounts concurrently and all get billed everytime the vehicle completes a crossing...
Re: Its a bit rich
>In fact if we follow the projected graph of adminwork vs teaching for teachers , in about 15 years time , teacher will only be filling out forms and doing admin work
A bit like the police then...
Re: Asks the tech industry
Well, given the assumption that everything will be done using devices: "for instance, Microsoft recently used the BETT trade show to launch "tough" devices for kids to doodle on."
This does suggest the usual solution....
Offshoring of all the marking!
Top Euro court: No, you can't steal images from other websites (too bad a school had to be sued to confirm this little fact)
@find users who cut cat tail - Like others I don't follow your case for abolishing copyright.
However, I do agree with you that cases like the Red Bus shouldn't exist, particularly given the 'infringement' was more a copying of style - something most books on photography skills encourage - perhaps your photo will have a better composition, atmosphere etc. than the original.
Additionally, it is clear the intended use of the image was not taken into account; if you are preparing an image for putting on to a product such as a packet of tea it needs to have impact, which means small colour palette, high contract and spot colour...
Finally, it should be noted the judge wasn't actually comparing original photo's but processed images (ie. collages) and thus works of art; a point the judge simply dismisses as being insignificant...
Don't know if this judgement was appealed, but it does set a rather nasty case history precedent.
"Are you supposed to just not use an image in case there is a copyright?"
It depends on 'use'. If you intend publishing the resulting work, either on a public website or in a print publication then unless you have the relevant permission you can't use it.
>Had the pupil and/or teacher mentioned done this
The pupil had no reason to ascertain the status of the image, their use was purely educational.
The issues only arise out of what the school did with the pupil's work, namely publish it on their public website, rather than on an internal/closed user group website, without undertaking a publishers review(*).
(*) If the school had submitted the pupil's presentation to a traditional book/magazine publisher, the publisher would have ensured that all relevant permissions had been obtained prior to publication and that the published work contained image credits.
Re: Just say No to Amazon
@streaky " we don't write their laws - they're independent nations."
I suggest you do a little more research, Westminster holds a much greater sway over these ex-colonies than you suspect...
However, there is a balance between the UK funding these ex-colonies and the colonies being self-sufficient through a nice revenue earner. I've always maintained that the UK government should turn the Falkland Islands into a tax haven and thus moving the costs of maintaining the military bases from Westminster's MoD budget to the Falklands local budget...
Re: Just say No to Amazon
>As for defensive of tax havens we have very little say over the tax regimes of foreign countries.
Many of the more 'important' tax havens are British protectorates... They are used because whilst companies wish to avoid tax they do like the reassurance of UK law.
Re: How it works:-
>I'm not sure about unlisted companies, but I don't see why they couldn't set up a similar scheme.
They can and some do. The only additional hurdle is getting HMRC sign off on the (unlisted) share price calculation - impacts amount of PAYE due on initial allocation and baseline for capital gains/loss calculation.
Re: We're the ones to blame
the reason people are talking about all this in the first place, is because of ethics, not legality.
Disagree, the whole taxation debate is wholly based on numbers and a lack of comprehension: Someone with an axe to grind see's a business (preferrably foreign owned and HQ'd) with huge revenues, but paying very little UK Corporation tax, their brain, unable to fully comprehend the numbers, proceeds with the logic: if you have huge revenues you must be making huge profits so why aren't you paying huge amounts of Corporation tax, brain shuts down and mouth is engaged...
And they can point to the hodge-podge of IP address allocation as proof. Never would have happened under the ITU's watch.
Well, we can at least assume that an international body wouldn't have allocated...
Well if you look at history, I suggest the ITU would have adopted ISO OSI Network Addressing, in its full glory [sarcasm] and just made IPv4 addresses a permitted format...
Re: Cut the EU off
>Cut the EU off from the global DNS system
That would be an interesting experiment, given the fundamental design principles embedded in the DNS! :)
About all the US would be able to achieve is to replicate what China has done and effectively separate itself off from the rest of the world.
@Jellied Eel - There's also the consent issue...
In doing so, it lost most of it's value as an operations tool for finding out who to contact in the event of technical problems.
The issue is that as it stands the Whois service dates from the era when the "Internet" wasn't a public network as we now understand a public network to be. When RFC's 812 and 954 were penned, the "Internet" was still a private(ish) network mainly used by academics and a small community of collaborators, who were developing this non-proprietary network - hence why it was useful to be able to directly contact people and discuss connection and interop issues (many people forget that prior to Interop 1986 - one of the great moments in Internet history, the Internet wasn't as interoperable as it is today).
I suspect that much of the consent, privacy and reporting issues you allude to arise from the closed community ARPANET/Internet being opened to the public at large, without regard for it's fitness for purpose - this mirrors the often seen way, where prototype IT systems are dropped into production...
>I can't see the need for most of the information in WHOIS records.
That's because it dates from a different era:
RFC812 (Original Whois 1982):
"WHO SHOULD BE IN THE DATA BASE
DCA requests that each individual with a directory on an
ARPANET host, who is capable of passing traffic across the
ARPANET, be registered in the NIC Identification Data Base.
To register, send full name, middle initial, U.S. mailing
address (including mail stop and full explanation of
abbreviations and acronyms), ZIP code, telephone (including
Autovon and FTS, if available), and one network mailbox, via
electronic mail to NIC@SRI-NIC."
This was also in RFC954 which was then updated by RFC3912.
What is notable is that it seems no one has actually read the Abstract to RFC3912:
"This document updates the specification of the WHOIS protocol,
thereby obsoleting RFC 954. The update is intended to remove the
material from RFC 954 that does not have to do with the on-the-wire
protocol, and is no longer applicable in today's Internet."
Which seems to make it crystal clear that the "Who should be in the Database" section is "no longer applicable in today's Internet". Interestingly, RFC3912 contains no material to indicate just what a Whois server database needs or should contain...
Re: What has changed...
>My understanding is that this makes the capture of the interesting Wifi packets easier
No change here.
>primarily due to being able to grab EAPOL packets without needing an existing client connected to the AP.
Err no. If there have been no clients successfully connecting to an AP, the AP will have no stored PMKID's to broadcast. Additionally, as a PMKID is unique to each client, there is no 'broadcast' PMKID for any given WiFi network, hence once again there is nothing for a new AP to broadcast. For this exploit to work, you need a client that has previously connected to the AP wanting to reassociate with that AP. As part of the reassociation process, the client hands over to the AP it's credentials, namely the PMKID it is holding for the AP to examine; it is at this point that you can grab the single packet containing the optional RSN IE field containing the PMKID...
>If you are using any EAP ... If you are using WPA2
If you don't have WiFi roaming/reassociation enabled - something that was considered a security risk back in 2007 then your network isn't vulnerable.
If however you do have roaming enabled and this will be the case if you have enabled 802.11r capabilities things are different, particularly if you are using PSK...
>If you don't have that option, as long as you have an adequate Wifi password
The proof of concept uses an effective WiFi PSK of 6 alpha characters (password mask used: '?l?l?l?l?l?lt!' ie. <letter><letter><letter><letter><letter><letter>t! Note the "t!" effectively pads the 6 letters out to satisfy the 8 character minimum length requirement. Opinion is that true 8 character PSKs will take a lot longer to crack, however, to be 'safe' I agree 16 is good and 32 even better. Personally, from having used 32 character PSKs, I would suggest if you are considering using 64 character PSKs that it is probably better to go the whole hog and go to an 802.1x implementation.
Steube explained. "We receive all the data we need in the first EAPOL frame from the AP."
Are they sure about this?
"When associating with an access point, the station determines if it has a valid PMK with the target access point by checking if it has a PMKSA that matches the target access point's MAC address. If such PMK does not exist, the station and the access point perform authentication using EAP. If the station determines that it shares a PMK with the target AP, then the station proposes the use of the PMK by including the PMKID in the RSN Information Element of the (Re)Association Request message. "
Reading through a few of the blogs, this would in part explain why people are having varying levels of success in reproducing the results.
Re: About 30 years ago...
>A friend was setting up the IT for a mid-size financial company. He used a database tool to configure the initial data structure, and then put the tool away. He then wrote his own C code to take it from there.
1988... Suspect his DB requirements were comparatively trivial, and so could be satisfied by a basic C-ISAM file structure which could be manipulated through an X/Open compliant C API...
Re: It isn't happening until...
The CNBC article and the ElReg article are very unclear as to just what is going on.
From several readings, it would seem that currently Amazon are running a suite of Oracle enterprise applications on Oracle DBMS on Oracle cloud. Amazon have decided that AWS is now sufficiently well developed (and stable) for it to move its Oracle applications and DBMS off Oracles cloud onto it's own AWS cloud. Whether this is the public AWS or a private (ie. physically separate to public offering) AWS is not said. In either case it does seem that the size of Amazon's Oracle infrastructure is encountering problems on Oracle cloud that Oracle don't seem in a hurry to fix, which Oracle on AWS doesn't have.
In any case, the result is that whilst Oracle might be losing cloud revenues they are still taking application suite and DBMS revenues.
Re: What next? Create their own Binary Flag (0/1) scheme?
>You REALLY don't understand just how this all works.
Agree, this reminds me of Sun Microsystems who for exactly the reasons you give, found their internal business applications all ran on an IBM mainframe. I don't know if they managed to get off the mainframe before Oracle took them over.
Re: How do these work?
Also, it would seem for these tools to be used, the phone needs to physically be in possession of the police. Which would mean they have reason to suspect the owner having been up to no good. So we really need to know more about the circumstances under which the police are examining phones and "protecting evidence".
Re: easy option
>Rather than the £15 for 6 months offer it should show the monthly payment averaged over the contract term ?
Not brought a mobile phone in recent years.
There are several sites that do exactly that so the headline is: £23 pcm and £240 cashback
Only the detail tells you that you actually pay £33 pcm but the cashback is only paid in months 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, if you make the effort to claim it.
Because of the additional information, I am able to determine that the £25 pcm and zero cashback is in fact the better deal.
However, neither of these deals are available to existing customers wishing to upgrade. The best deal available to them is £28 pcm and no cashback...
Re: I've got an @AC
"In this, and other markets, there's an assumption that those who are not switching to the cheapest deal are somehow being unfairly ripped off. "
This is most certainly the case with contract mobile phones which include the purchase of a phone, go over their duration and the monthly charge is not reduced to reflect the fact the phone has been paid off. I seem to remember Ofcom doing something about this, not sure if they did it off their own back or were prodded by the EU.
Out of curiosity, why do you think that those people who choose not to exercise their right to switch should get a better deal, at the expense of those who currently do?
Simple, it is significantly cheaper to retain and roll over customers than it is to lose them or take on new customers; there is a price to churn - there was a sound commercial reason as to why Orange offered discounts to existing customers and why networks' have a retentions department. The problem is more about preventing exploitation of existing customers and people's very natural inertia to change.
Sounds simple but not always in practice...
"They may face a price increase, or elements of the deal they originally signed up to may change," Ofcom said.
I suspect this will have zero impact on the problem with 18 month service contracts, that many providers (eg. EE) like to offer - to the exclusion of all others.
Many providers will allow you to pay for 12 months line rental up front, at a discount to the pcm rate, I would regard this as an "element of the the deal".
However, when the line rental is due for renewal, the service provider won't allow you to renew on an annual basis, as the duration is outside of the term of the 18 month service contract, and they won't allow you to renew the service contract early, so for the last 6 months you are forced to pay the pcm line rental rate...
Re: So no anniversary edition?
You mean a release of Win 10 with the NT UI/UX?
Now that would make you feel old, go from Win10 UI/UX madness, reboot to install updates and get confronted with an NT3 UI/UX
Taking my main transmitter, WInter Hill, it transmits 6 full muxes at 100kW each - vs the four main analogue channels at 500kW each (plus C5 with less power) before digital.
Before they switched off the analogue transmitters, the digital transmitters were using even less power.
Back in 2011 the Waltham transmitter was using 10Kw on Mux 1 (BBC) now its 50Kw, with the other mux's on even less power - some on 5Kw (now on 25Kw) - which did suffer from atmospheric induced picture dropouts. Obviously, the greater the transmitter power output the poorer/smaller the receiving aerial needs to be.
Re: Not wanting to state the obvious
>Almost everyone told BT that this is what they should do 10 years ago.
However, the ones that didn't, namely Ofcom and the government, who wanted to "create a market", were the ones who had the clout to make things happen or not as is the case...
Remember Ofcom is still debating whether to allow BT to replace the POTS over copper provision with fibre. I expect them to fudge it and to come up with some formula that only permits them to roll out FTTP to those areas with a competitive 'fibre' service, just as they did with broadband.
Re: EU as a concept has no place in the Free World.
You can replace 'EU' with 'US' and your three points largely remain correct, so it would seem the US as a concept has no place in the Free World...
Really? They resigned because they were there to deliver brexit and May is desperate to deliver anything but.
Really? Remember, they signed the Chequers agreement and then resigned.
If they and Rees-Mogg really want to deliver Brexit then it is obvious what they needed to do:
1) Walk out of Chequers - it was a nice day and the drive isn't that long, with the media present they would have no problem getting a car from a network wanting an exclusive.
2) Get their mates in the Parliamentary Conservative party to back them and hold a leadership election...
As they did neither and have practically disappeared from sight, I suggest when it came to the crunch, they didn't want to deliver Brexit, they much rather someone else got their hands dirty delivering Brexit.
and has stepped in to keep the negotiations going even though there is no negotiation.
Negotiations have only just started, remember the Chequers agreement was the first time the UK government has had something to take to a negotiation... Dominic Raab is now getting his turn to face the reality of Brexit, I wonder whether Rees-Mogg will get his...
Yes, UKIP had an exit plan, it also required negotiations with the EU, albeit UKIP did recommend a different starting point. Given how much things have changed and people's understanding has grown, I hope UKIP release another amended plan.
As for the Tories, you are making a fundamentally incorrect assumption, the Tory (and Labour) party is not a monolithic party with policy dictated by the leader... The biggest challenge with Brexit has been getting the various Leave fractions within the conservative party to agree - it is clear that whilst Johnson and Davies agree that the Chequers plan is not workable, they and Rees-Mogg don't agree on the way forward...
That explains many attempts by a remain PM taking over and interfering so bad that the leave politicians put in charge of negotiating Brexit have resigned their posts.
@codejunky - you really need to ditch those rose-tinted glasses. David Davies and Boris Johnson both signed the Chequers plan, it is irrelevant what they subsequently did, they signed on the dotted line.
Given it took a brief reading of the released document for others to realise the plan was flawed, it does make you question how dim Davies and Johnson are to have not known this during the Chequers meeting and walked without signing, particularly given they have spent significantly more time working on Brexit than the rest of us.
Remember these are people who have been telling us how wonderful and easy Brexit will be... They resigned because it finally dawned on them that it was better to resign whilst you can blame someone else (and be believed by the gullible) - that its all the "cloest remain" PM's fault - than being found out to be total frauds; neither of them had a plan or a clue about what Brexit really entails.
Re: So the previous owner has agreed to a set of terms and conditions with ... whom? I don't think it's the dealership and it's certainly not any future owner of the car.So the previous owner has agreed to a set of terms and conditions with ... whom? I don't think it's the dealership and it's certainly not any future owner of the car.
Well if you buy a new car or a second hand car, through a dealer, effectively agree to two contracts: firstly with the manufacturer (eg. warranties) and secondly with the dealer for servicing etc.
Remember one of the reasons dealers 'partner' with manufacturers is because it gives them a better business potential, so they aren't looking at the single new car sale but at the n-years of servicing etc. that will follow.
One of the things I discovered about the Vauxhall scheme was that a car was registered to both its owner and to a dealership, specifically the dealership who sold the car to the customer. Thus if the original customer traded their car in at the dealership that originally supplied it, the online account termination process works. However, if the customer sells the car elsewhere, both their account and the dealers' control of it continues. Walk into another dealership and you find that they can't do anything (wrt account management), because the account is still owned. In saying the above nothing stops you from using the car and having it serviced wherever, just that if you want to take advantage of the online account and the benefits it gives, you have to unravel the online account ownership and transfer issue.