If the US had not decided that motor vehicles (cars and trucks) were the ONLY transport methods worth keeping, this discussion would be quite different. In Europe, where I live, we still have goods trains - that is trains that carry cargo. In the UK, some goods used to be carried by canal boats. But the UK, much like the US, has had for many years a conservative government that also looks at motor vehicles as a primary transport of goods. Conservatives are holding back free thought.

When nuclear power competed against oil and coal, it had an advantage. But now it competes against wind and sun, and costs many times what those other and newer technologies cost. It has lost any advantage it may once have had and no offers only danger on a huge scale. No thanks.

The reason why Trump became president is quite clear and all you have to do is look up the Electoral College on Wikipedia. The short answer is that during the 19th century, many states converted the Electoral College to a "winner take all" system. Once that was done, the popular vote became rather meaningless. Since then, the loser of the popular vote has nevertheless four times won the electoral college under the "winner take all" system. Coincidentally, all four of those corrupt selections were to the benefit of the republican party.

The US has a corrupt election system when the will of the majority is ignored to the benefit of one political party.

The UK did NOT "vote for Brexit". It was a referendum. A poll, if that's easier for you to understand. There is no law or legal obligation to actually go out and withdraw from the EU as a result. The current government, a right-wing government (Trump), agreed with the outcome of the poll and hopes to stay in power by implementing the result preferred by 51.9 percent of the people. They have no legal obligation to do this. They have already lost one legal challenge, which they are appealing and will likely lose a second time.

Sorry to break it to you, but Hillary did not lose the vote, she was done in by the corrupt Electoral College. As of now, she is leading the Idiot by 1,334,672 votes. That doesn't exactly sound like a loss to me. Furthermore, since the polls closed, her lead has gone up by at least 100 percent.

Perhaps you could explain to us howso the US is a democracy if a candidate wins the election by over one million votes, but the loser is crowned with the prize. Oddly, I thought a democracy was "rule by the majority". Notice: it's majority, not Electoral Votes.

Even though I am not American, I would rather see Snowden running for US president than the idiot Trump. I cannot see how Snowden could do more damage to the US and the world at large than Trump.

Sure capitalism will win when you live in a fantasy world or simply make stuff up (as you have done). Europe does not have "few" phones (http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/), but approximately as many as the corrupt US. Perhaps you're too young or too dumb to recall capitalism greatest triumph in 2008: the sub-prime mortgage that was started by American capitalists and provided a near disaster for all those "dirty socialism" countries that did not invent any economic scams to enrich the scammers at the cost of the trusting.

Before you start bleeting bullshit about capitalism, maybe you ought to look things up first - you know, like instead of talking out of your ass.

Hang on a second there. Let's not forget that the US budget includes about $600 billion on military spending. I'd wager you could safely cut several hundred billion from the military and still be prepared to fight any wimp who thumbs his nose at the US. Or, to put that another way: "U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined." (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/).
There are undoubtedly other areas of the US budget that could be safely trimmed and before you know it, you've saved enough to pay for UBI.

Once computers and robots replace, say, 50 percent of the workforce, what will happen to that 50 percent? No income?

That comment is proof how little Americans understand about Europe and the EU.

But anyway: certainly it is in the best interests of the EU and all member states to give the UK all the benefits they want and absolve them of all responsibilities they don't want. That way, they'll set a great model for any other states that also want to leave .

"In Amsterdam, Uber recently stopped offering UberPop" Yes, this is true, but the rest of the sentence should probably read: After courts told them twice to stop.

Americans are, to put it mildly, obsessed with autos as a means of transport. In Europe, we have public transport that is often better (more efficient) than an auto. Taxis (in Amsterdam) where I live, are mostly used by tourists. Local people hardly ever use them because (well, mostly we travel by bike) the public transport option is far cheaper and just as efficient. No worry about parking, for example. And no long walks from the public transport stop to your destination.

What Uber is doing is not unlike opening a Kosher restaurant in Amman.

Which Amsterdam is that? I live in the one in the Netherlands. You apparently do not. Why? If you did, you would know that buses and trams have their own traffic lane where autos are not permitted. So the scenario you described is a fantasy.

The National Guard is not a militia, it is a military reserve unit. The second amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Clearly, the connection (and there certainly is one) between militia and arms is clear. However, the US is in the "Emperor's Clothes" mode and chooses to ignore the connection and insist that anyone can have arms whenever they want. The consequences of this will-full blindness have been clear for years.

Self-driving cars have no test record in conventional commuter traffic (AFAIK). Assuming for the moment, that the cars are built so that a human driver can instantly take control of the car, I can easily see a situation where a drunk enters the car and decides that he knows better than the automated system. Or perhaps someone else who decides to change the destination when they either remember something or see a sign along the rode for free strawberries. I've read many comments by Americans who drive while on holiday in Europe because they like the idea of stopping when they see something interesting. How does a driverless car help in that situation?

And you are the idiot if you think that taking a train to a grocery store is how public transport works. Fortunately, where I live, most stores are in the same area where people live. Because the US is so obsessed with cars, many shopping centres are built in the countryside where walking to a store is no longer possible. In that situation, there should be buses, not trains.

Driverless cars, it seems to me, is the US answer to climate change. A "have your cake and eat it too" solution.

While we are here because we like technology, let's be realistic: VW, GM, etc. - would you trust them to make a flawless device that would keep you and your family safe? I wouldn't.

I read the entire document linked from the anti-EU politician and nowhere could I find the claim she is making. This is quite typical of anti-EU UK politicians - they complain about something the EU has done or is doing... in their imagination.

I agree with your post. And it's exactly why I find self-driving autos a ridiculous idea.