Elerond

That article is like at least 17 years late. And as fun fact it was Tony Blair (former prime minister of UK) that drive through realization of EU military forces (Common Security and Defence Policy) to ensure defense of UK. Here nice picture of European defense organisations. The European Air Transport Command (EATC) is the command centre that exercises the operational control of the majority of the aerial refueling capabilities and military transport fleets of a consortium of seven Western European countries. European Air Group (EAG) is an association of the air forces of 7 member nations (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and United Kingdom) working together to stimulate change and collectively to enhance the tactical capabilities of the Group’s air forces through better cooperation. The Movement Coordination Centre Europe (MCCE) is an international military movements control centre at Eindhoven Airport in the Netherlands whose members are predominantly drawn from NATO and the EU. The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), formerly known as the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), is a major element of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union (EU) and is the domain of EU policy covering defence and military aspects, as well as civilian crisis management. The European Gendarmerie Force (EUROGENDFOR or EGF) was launched by an agreement in 2006 between five member states of the European Union (EU): France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. Romania joined in 2009; Poland in 2011. The Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (French: Organisation conjointe de coopération en matière d'armement;OCCAR) is a European intergovernmental organisation which facilitates and manages collaborative armament programmes through their lifecycle between the nations of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Finabel is an organisation promoting cooperation and interoperability between the national armies of the member states of the European Union (EU). The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. Article is about seems to speak about increasing capacities and responsibilities of EU Battlegroups (EU BG) which are military units adhering to the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of the European Union (EU). Often based on contributions from a coalition of member states, each of the eighteen Battlegroups consists of a battalion-sized force (1,500 troops) reinforced with combat support elements. Battlegroups have been fully operational from 2007.

Weren't nationalist racist old people the "cause" of this most horrid Brexit? But I guess such reasonings are only valid when it actually furthers some agenda, and when not are discarded once more. That integrity. It was nationalists (and political opportunists) in England that were major driving force behind Brexit, nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland seem to be mostly EU positive (which is most likely helped by fact that lots of English nationalists don't like EU).

How intolerant of the EU parliament to not accept different debate cultures, such as the british. That was so much tamer compared to day-to-day debates at Westminster, and most certainly compared to Thatcher vs. the opposition in the 80's. I am disappointed Farage has been in EU parliament past 17 years, that is how things go there always. He insults people and then they insult him back (sometimes other way around). It has been very constructive.

It's time to put Welsh independence on agenda – Leanne Wood It seem that all the nationalist parties are more than willing to take this opportunity offer their visions of UK's future to drive in their own agenda.

Brexit: Gibraltar in talks with Scotland to stay in EU We will leave EU, but on hindsight how about only half us leave and half will stay. But it sounds interesting arrangement, where country's central government is out of EU but its semi autonomic regions will stay in. Arrangements that are other way, aren't that uncommon in EU, but this kind arrangement would be quite interesting to see if it could work.

Speaking about those legal loopholes http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-loophole-eu-referendum-mps-law-legal-legislation-constitution-a7105181.html

Big part of western democracies is the laws that prevent majority taking rights from minorities. Things like constitutional rights depend heavily on such systems. And democracy is constantly living thing that don't stop in singular vote but continuously evolve through series of votes and even if you lose one vote you continue to argue for values/things/laws that you think are best for society so that society can reflect them again in next vote and so on until end of time. Meaning that there isn't anything that is set in stone in democratic society but only things that society at any given point of time thinks are rules they as collectively accept to abide by.

Yes this is true, for some reason Scotland has always been very ungrateful IMO to what England has done for them To be part of the UK should be celebrated yet many Scottish people resent the UK, you almost want to tell Scotland " fine leave the UK " but Scotland is very relevant and important contributor towards the UK so we want them to stay Don't you live in country that fought their way out from British(English) rule?

I can understand skepticism towards them. As it seems that nobody has plan what to do now, not even people organized referendum in first place or people that campaigned for this result.

I enjoyed the section where he lists all the things the UK will have to do to leave the EU. He basically said "Now they have to work to do x, y and z." Usually when you set a goal you have to work to attain it, John. "We want to leave the EU." "But now you have to implement things that the EU has been dictating for you." "Yeah, that's the point." Although his point seemed to be more about reality to that UK has only up to 2 years to remake agreements that it has made in past 43 years.

Its not like you to post these types of video because this is just a cruel generalization, that women comes as incredibly stupid ....seriously I feel embarrassed for her She is the worst type of person to somehow represent the intellectual reasoning for BREXIT So again this type of video will be used by people to say things like " ha ha...look how stupid people in the UK are " Do you think its fair ....yes she is hot but this is not about her looks But she did it for chickens and eggs, and she even accounted in bad things like not being able to go in Disneyland in Paris, because borders will be closed. So I think that video is most likely just someone making fun about leave voters, but the scary thing is that people seem to accept it as truth, which is something that isn't that great for democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDdLxTXBaAY Probably best reason to leave EU that I have heard.

Article 50 1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. 2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. As UK may not give their notification until October and withdrawal agreement negotiations may take years, which means that it is quite possible that we have new European parliament before UK's agreements with EU end and they actually leave the union. But at least we should have couple fun years ahead of us. Hi Elerond How you feeling about Brexit....are you negative....unsure ? Your view on this matter is important to me because of all the interesting posts you make and effort you put in to your comments It is what it is. People of UK wanted to leave union and it was their right to do so. It will most likely negate all economic gains that Finland has succeed to do in past year and sent us back to regression, because of uncertainty in economic markets, which will most likely continue for some time even after when UK actually leaves EU. If we look positive sides of things, this most likely means that some of those UK data centers need to leave from UK and move to countries that are still EU thanks to EU's data protection laws. And Finland is in pretty good position to offer them new home. And in theory our universities will get tens of millions euros in tuition fees from UK students, but I am pretty sure that their number will dramatically drop when their tuition rise from 0€ to somewhere near 18000€ per year. UK's exit has change to make EU politics easier as they were big country with lots of special rights in union and now that they leave it will make union more equal. On negative sides of things, this will make European nationalism stronger, far right parties will get influx on their popularity and we will continue to debate more about topics that actually only have marginal effect on things and much bigger issues get to be decide without public taking notice. But as I said it is what it is. It will not end the world, but it will make use take look on how things are going especially our unified Europe project.

Article 50 1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. 2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. As UK may not give their notification until October and withdrawal agreement negotiations may take years, which means that it is quite possible that we have new European parliament before UK's agreements with EU end and they actually leave the union. But at least we should have couple fun years ahead of us.

I would say that Cameron's room is most likely much more interesting. Juncker probably don't even have plans to continue his political career after his tenure in Commission is over, which is probably before actual brexit happens. EDIT: It seems that Cameron's room has become much less interesting David Cameron resigns after UK votes to leave European Union

We see how it goes in two years (or longer if UK and EU so decide) after they officially declare that they will leave EU, until that current agreements are in force.

Nice to see they are getting a boost to their economy over this. It isn't necessary that good boost, because if people buy imported stuff then they actually may suffer even some lose. If they sell stuff that is produced in UK then they may get some boost.

And not so surprisingly SNP has started to speak about new vote for Scotland's independence and Sinn Fein leaving UK and joining Ireland.

They didn't reach constitutionality in that case, but decided that government can't restricting traveling without due process. But this is what is said about freedom of movement in USA. "Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right." But of course it is hard to say what that fundamental constitutional right actually entitles. So if they let people who are on no fly list buy air pistols then they only hinder people's rights bear arms and everything is okay?

But they have right to travel, "In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), the United States Secretary of State had refused to issue a passport to an American citizen based on the suspicion that the plaintiff was going abroad to promote communism (personal restrictions/national security). Although the Court did not reach the question of constitutionality in this case, the Court, in an opinion by Justice William O. Douglas, held that the federal government may not restrict the right to travel without due process: The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values." And preventing person travel with plane hinders/restricts their right to travel quite lot especially when you take account that USA has territories where travelling without plane is difficult. And if that right can be restricted by those lists without breaking due process clause then hindering person right to bear arms should also not break that clause.

If no fly-lists aren't violation of due process then using them to put restrictions to person ability buy guns should not then be either. Meaning that if the right that those lists give officials to restrict person freedoms because they are deemed too dangerous for society to have those freedoms and way people are put on those lists are both constitutional then using those list to restrict more freedoms in name to make society safer should logically also be constitutional. Due process clause "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." If it is deemed that government don't break due process clause when restrict some rights from people based on those lists and how they put people on those lists then adding restrictions that they can impose with those lists don't seem anymore violation of persons constitutional rights than stripping them of those previous rights. In my personal opinion I think how people currently are put on no fly lists isn't just and terrorists watch lists seem to be even more problematic things. And I also am firm believer that people should be able to bear arms, even full military grade weapons although I think people shouldn't be allowed to buy guns before they are shown that they know how to use them and with heavier weapons being long time practitioners that have gone through military service. I personally own civil version of military assault rifle (meaning that its burst and full auto fire modes are disabled, but otherwise it is same weapon that is used in military). And I am currently supporting Finland's campaign to prevent EU regulation that would ban civilians owning such weapons.

The NRA would never let that get through. They don't even let the CDC do research on anything related to gun violence. NRA said they're for keeping guns from possible terrorists, what that means in practice I don't know. I do know that all the Democrat proposals involve complete violations of due process. So now Dems are against the fifth amendment, is there any provision in the bill of rights the Dems are still in favor of? Wouldn't that mean that no flight lists themselves are violation of due process? There's no constitutional right to fly on an airplane. But there is constitutional rights for due process and freedom of movement in my understanding

Suppose for a moment we had such a thing. Would you want a bureaucrat in Ottawa whom you have never met or is answerable to you in anyway having the authority of override or nullify the actions of you own legislature in Sacramento? I find the whole notion ironic really. Millions of Europeans have given their lives fighting wars over the centuries to keep their sovereign soil from being ruled by a foreign government that knows nothing about them and cares nothing for them. And in the end they just handed it all over pretty meekly. Now if the EU was, as conceived, a purely economic alliance it wouldn't be an issue but it's getting to be a lot more controlling and interfering as the years go from my point of view. That is still true. Whatever you like EU or not, it isn't foreign government that rules over us. It is complex institution that independent countries use to find common solutions to their issues. And there is always room to make adjustments, exceptions etc. to everything that is agreed via EU. Purely economic alliance is just illusion/day dream that really can't exist as other issues will always play in direct or indirect way when nations try to agree about something. In short issues that people have with EU would not go away even if EU was pure trade union and they also would not go away even if EU would not exists. Issues would maybe have bit different form because of how things would be decided but same issues would still exists. Question is more do EU make solving those issues easier or harder compared to alternatives.

Here some other other sources Business Insider Congress quietly renewed a ban on gun-violence research - http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7?r=US&IR=T&IR=T Self Congress Won’t Let The CDC Study Gun Violence, And That Needs To End Now http://www.self.com/trending/2016/06/congress-wont-let-the-cdc-study-gun-violence-and-that-needs-to-end-now/ PRI Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence LA Times The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years. Let's end its stranglehold on science. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html ABC News Why the CDC Hasn't Launched a Comprehensive Gun Study in 15 Years http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-launched-comprehensive-gun-study-15-years/story?id=39873289 Washington Post Why the CDC still isn’t researching gun violence, despite the ban being lifted two years ago https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/ The Huffington Post Doctors Condemn The NRA-Fueled Ban On Gun Violence Research http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dickey-amendment-gun-violence-research-ban_us_56606201e4b072e9d1c4eaaa American Psychological Association Gun violence research: History of the federal funding freeze http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx