And Now for a World Government - opinion by Gideon Rachman of the London Financial Times

[Makalakumu]

Interesting opinions, here are some excerpts...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Here are some problems that Rachmen recognizes...

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

What are your thoughts on Mr. Rachman's opinions?

 

[Tez3]

Interesting opinions, here are some excerpts...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1



Here are some problems that Rachmen recognizes...



What are your thoughts on Mr. Rachman's opinions?

I think he's misrepresenting the European model as it's not as united as he writes. Not all the countries in the EU use the European currency, the court is only for cases that have run their course in the respective countries, it acts as an appeal court, the thousands of pages of law don't apply to everyone equally, countries are allowed to opt out of bits they don't like and the ability to deploy forces isn't under European command, each country is still in command of it's forces and if they decide not to deploy they won't. There really isn't much of a European model to follow really. Each country is still independant, with it's own laws,head of state, military etc, some have the Euro currency others don't. Sort of negates his argument really.

 

[Cryozombie]

What are your thoughts on Mr. Rachman's opinions?

Hmm. Weird timing on this... I just read a Sci Fi book in which the world has a global government, and the Main char talks about the change that occured when it happened, and the riots and assassinations and widespread dissent and in the end, pretty much global Martial Law and poverty.

I could see that.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Out of curiosity, can a member nation leave the EU once it's a member?

 

[Tez3]

I'm not sure, in times you describe countries seem to want to devolve not merge. There are many calls for areas in the main countries to gain independance. I can see Europe breaking up into even smaller countries.
there is little agreement in the EU as it is, it's mostly a place for fatcat politicians to live off very generous expenses and pay.

 

[exile]

I think he's misrepresenting the European model as it's not as united as he writes. Not all the countries in the EU use the European currency, the court is only for cases that have run their course in the respective countries, it acts as an appeal court, the thousands of pages of law don't apply to everyone equally, countries are allowed to opt out of bits they don't like and the ability to deploy forces isn't under European command, each country is still in command of it's forces and if they decide not to deploy they won't. There really isn't much of a European model to follow really. Each country is still independant, with it's own laws,head of state, military etc, some have the Euro currency others don't. Sort of negates his argument really.

Good points, Tez!

To me, it looks like the EU is the political manifestation of the Europeans' experience with the horrific wars of the previous century plus. The Franco-Prussian War (almost forgotten today, but sickeningly bloody), WWI and WWII all in the space of seventy years left the continent almost burned to the ground. The EU is to a large extent a recognition of the need to avoid total war amongst the European countries ever occurring again. But at the same time, the experience of Nazi hegemony and probably other factors as well made the Europeans very suspicious of any effort to impose a single common sovereignty over them. So the situation is almost paradoxical, and it shows: too much push towards a homogeneous single mega-state, and individual players rebel and assert their own identity.

The EU situation is really about the question: is it possible, on the one hand, to maintain your valuable individual identity, while at the same time to put in place a formal way to link yourself to others so that the interest in group survival outweighs reckless ambitions to dominate others? We'd all better hope that the answer is yes....

 

[Sukerkin]

It is indeed the case, as has been laid out quite elegantly above, that there are two conflicting forces at work within the EU. One is a drive to ensure that we don't do something so foolish again as to go to war with each other. The other is to ensure that noone gets to tell us what to do within our own borders.

The latter is particularly prevelent in Britain as far as I can tell, largely because we have been very public 'losers' as far as the EU goes. We pay more and get less than anyone else that I can think of and that sits ill with our national perception that we pulled 'them', especially France, out of the fire twice in the 20th Century. Both times with (late arriving as we see it) American help.

We are the only EU member who actually sees America as more of an ally than any European country. I have ideas, completely unsubstantiatable, that this has it's roots in the fact that you were our colony whilst those European types have often times been our enemy in times gone by - especially France, who essentially ensured you won the War of Independance.

At present, I think the power that is at the forefront in Western Europe is the one of disintegration. Britain is a prime example of this, as the Union has fragmented, even tho' this was not in the best interests of either Scotland or Wales. Meantime, on the Eastern border of the EU, former splintered constituents of the USSR are joining the Union.

It sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

The situation is made even worse because on a global scale, certain Eurasian powers are growing in influence and chaffing under the American 'yoke' as the last 'superpower' attempts to enforce it's dominance on the world stage, with heavily 'christian' flavour in the mix.

This might all sound like World Government is ever so far away and on the scale of one lifetime it may be so. But the currents are in place, signified particularly by the un-fanfared government absorption of the banking sector via monumental public sector 'loans', for things to begin to move in that direction.

The big question then becomes not if it will happen but what the outcome will be when it does.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"One world government has outlawed war among nations
Now social control requires population termination "

 

[elder999]

"One world government has outlawed war among nations
Now social control requires population termination "

Queensryche, NM 156

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I almost see this as an eventuality in the future. (a long way away) I think though before this happens we may see trading blocks like the America's, Europe, Asia excluding Russia, etc. However, eventually in the distant future we will probably unite under one government and then let the fun begin.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I'm just glad that one way or another I won't live to see it.