Get on with the times and make your talking points current. Your facts are currently in 2014. This is the drill: temperature has gone up in 16 years, it has gone up in 17 years, it hasn't gone up in 18 years, it has gone up in 19 years, it has gone up in 20 years....
So please quote 18 years as your refutation for climate warming, dammit.
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.
"Pascal is Pascal is Pascal is dog meat." -- M. Devine and P. Larson, Computer Science 340