If the US had been structured like the EU, we'd have had much more than one civil war.
The US funds their 'Greek states' by funneling federal money over to them and reducing their sovereignity even further in the process. 'Schengen' is there in the US -- do you need a passport/visa to cross state lines? Who takes care of immigration in the US? And finally, the only civil war the US had was about leaving the union, a thing we're now going through with Brexit. No war in sight.
I'm not really clear on what you're arguing for here. Should the EU be structured more like the US, reduce sovereignity, and start building up the military to force Great Britain in line? Or should the US get rid of the dollar so that every state can devalue their own currency when they're in trouble? Please explain what the right structure of the EU would be, one that the US can follow without civil wars.
Change for the sake of change is not improvement. It's just
The only argument so far I heard about the headphone thing is indeed that the jack is old. So it needs to go. A feature-by-feature comparison shows however that this is not necessarily progress. Bluetooth means that you need to recharge your headphones, or that you need an adapter. These are net negatives. The positive is that the phone can be thinner. In my view that's an overall negative.
The same people that want to remain 'sovereign' have completely forgotten to vote a majority into parliament that agrees with them. So now the UK government does exactly what you blame Junker on: they don't care what their MP's say, they are going to do it regardless and state that they have the power to do it. In contrast with Junker, who has no power without the backing of the council of ministers and can be easily obstructed by the European parliament, they can actually do it.
There's a good reason to have a representative democracy, and not a direct democracy. In a representative democracy the ones that are voted in are on the hook for figuring out how to implement decisions. In a direct democracy, as we're witnessing in the UK, the people vote one way, and everyone is now scratching their head to figure out what it means and how to do it. The preferred way seems to involve working around the democratic institutions.
So here we have the situation where a direct democracy is at odds with the representative democracy. You are saying that the former takes precedence? Ready to disband parliament and do legislation through referendum? Good luck with that.
I know that you're raised in the American educational system where Republic is erroneously equated with a representative democracy, but please educate yourself a bit out of that little box that they put you in. Personally, I live in a constitutional monarchy, and all the stuff you're saying about a 'Republic' holds for my country. My country has a king, but he's been neutered. I share this particular form of government with the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and Spain, among others. These all are representative democracies, and they protect minority interest, rights and groups through a strong parliamentary tradition. Please explain how these countries are Republics, and the Republic of China is not.
So your president is right, you live in a democracy. A representative democracy with an elected head of state.
Which unelected bureaucrats decide in the EU? You have the council of ministers, who are elected, you have the EU commission, which is probably what you refer to, and then you have the European Parliament, elected, that actually decide what becomes law and what not, and which, incidentally, also needs to approve the EU commission from even being formed. The process of becoming a commisioner is a bit sketchy, but power is limited and checks and balances are in place.
Compare that with the British "democracy". It has a government that is 'selected' to do the job by a party that has typically no more than 30% of the vote of the country but for some reason has the deciding vote. This government of unelected bureaucrats, backed by a minority of the population, is now determined to make a major change in its relation with its neighbours and its economy based on a single opinion poll that they decided to hold. They will ostensibly not go through a parliamentary vote to start this process, side-stepping the legislative body completely and throwing what remained of the British democracy out of the window. And then there's the House of Lords.
The UK has obviously voted against democracy. They will now be ruled by their betters.
How do you suggest the EU would deal with this proactively? Every tax deal that any country makes needs to go through Brussels first to be approved?
Ireland has been warned time and time again that these shenanigans are against existing treaties. That the actual legal proceedings take time is a given and any good lawyer would have known that this is a possible outcome. Apple has good lawyers: they knew this was either illegal or borderline legal according to EU treaties and took their chances.
!07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH