Elerond

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 If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.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

In that case I would say that issue isn't that much about people on no fly list not being able to buy a gun, but process how people those end up those lists, which should be on top priority list of things to be fixed if it is currently against constitution.

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?

I think you have right organization http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetstemwedel/2015/10/01/congress-still-bans-cdc-scientists-from-studying-gun-violence/#3136ff53b700

Democrats seem to have decided to play quite heavy political game for upcoming election. They invoke fear that no flight lists, fear mongering how nobody can know if there is terrorist among refugees, Muslims etc.. They proclaim idea that they are preventing these terrorists getting their hands on weapons at least not in any legal way. They use also distrust towards government, lobbyist, and big corporations to build up their argument They also heavily really on fact that GOP senators and members of congress will block any gun control bill that they propose. This all will create narrative that GOP senators and members of congress will not prevent terrorists buying legally guns and put american people in jeopardy, because they get millions of dollars from big gun manufactures.

eyyyy That seem bit failed study. Because data pointed towards Clinton winning over Sanders. Even I was able to predict Clinton most likely taking nomination based on poll and vote data in early March. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85040-us-elections-2016/page-10?do=findComment&comment=1786341 But of course there is always possible that poll data from all polling sources was fraudulent. And that there was country wide conspiracy in Democratic primaries, with thousands of participants.

I'm in the same camp but because I'm against globalism. It is communism for the capitalist elite and against the interests of nations, which cloaks itself in liberal policies that pretend or intent to do go but end up hurting the countries that have to obey those policies. So Global Capitalism is actually Communism? Bro you high or something? Communist ideology turns into a kind of socialism that promotes the spread of socialism throughout nations. It puts globalism and global interests ahead of national interests but instead of being the state that directs it, it's private entities. That is the thing that differentiate capitalism from socialism/communism. It is all about who is in the control of things.

Allah (Allāh‎ = Arabic word referring to God in Abrahamic religions, it is same word for when they refer Christian or Jewish gods [because they believe them to be same entity as the god they worship]) it is believed to be just contraction of al ilāh (the God). Although lots of Muslims have tendency to use Allah instead of their native language version for God if their native language isn't Arabic. Also Arab Christians use Allah when they speak about their god. But anyway sounds quite stupid and strange to translate/change words in transcripts.

Yes, well, countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Denmark may feel quite a bit more uncomfortable in an E.U. without GB to balance out Germany and France, so I wouldn't be too sure things will be business as usual. Especially since GB's contributions to the budget will fall away, and that money will have to come from somewhere. And it sure won't be coming from those nice Eastern European chaps... UK has been more often against Finland in issues than on same side in EU politics. Although now that Finns Party (our anti EU - anti immigration - right wing nationalist party ) is in government and they are allies with Conservatives in EU parliament I would guess that our countries start to be more often on same page.

Dont get annoyed by this, people like this I consider fundamentalist Christians and dont represent the views of the majority of Americans or Christians ...very few people nowadays in the US would be this open about there bigotry I am not sure about your assessment of very few people, there has been quite lot people in twitter and facebook that have openly celebrated this attack. Although all don't necessary directly declare death for gays but aren't really that sympathetic towards people being killed just because who they love https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McJcI7zcBfc

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/06/13/sacramento-baptist-preacher-praises-orlando-gay-nightclub-attack/ A Sacramento Baptist preacher’s sermon praising an attack on an Orlando nightclub that killed 50 people has the local LGBT community outraged. “Are you sad that 50 pedophiles were killed today?” he said in the sermon. “Um no, I think that’s great! I think that helps society. I think Orlando, Florida is a little safer tonight.” “If we lived in a righteous government, they should round them all up and put them up against a firing wall, and blow their brains out,” Jimenez said in the sermon.