An EU for the whole damn planet - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15052823
It all started in Italy, a few hundred year ago. It's called the Renaissance, it was also the first stirrings of capitalism, and what made it stir was the first stirrings of the global economy.

What we have now are the problems of success, everything from climate change to IP rights, to disputes over taxation to problems arising from the international nature of the internet.

What we need is a set of rules for everybody (that wants to be in this global EU), a body to legislate, and another to adjudicate disputes and noncompliance.

It would beat the crap out of having another World War...

After WW2, Ike, Truman, and nearly everybody, wanted to avoid WW3 by tying the world together though business and diplomacy. It worked reasonably well.

But you can see the world they painstakingly built crumbling in front of your eyes.

All the reasons they built that world still exist. We need to build on that legacy, and there is really only one way to do that.
#15052829
One world government? No thank you
Social networks are all spying on you there are more and more cameras everywhere and in a world where there is one government there will be no escape from this the government will know everything about you where you go who you fuck what drugs you take.
in a one world government the social networks will be controlled by the government or those networks will surely provide information (just like they do it now)
also considering how things are going lately will all the SJW crap I would prefer a multi government world where you could escape to other country if you dont like being controlled by certain type of government
#15052832
Zionist Nationalist wrote:
One world government? No thank you



Yeah, I knew that would being all the paranoids out of the woodwork.

There is something Darwinian about this, you know. Civilisations fail to adapt, and then they collapse.
#15052836
late wrote:Yeah, I knew that would being all the paranoids out of the woodwork.

There is something Darwinian about this, you know. Civilizations fail to adapt, and then they collapse.


I dont want to live in a world with one government and one way of thinking this is a scary world
I prefer a no world government anarchist society is a better alternative than being watched by the big brother 24/7
#15052840
Zionist Nationalist wrote:
I dont want to live in a world with one government and one way of thinking this is a scary world
I prefer a no world government anarchist society is a better alternative than being watched by the big brother 24/7



And that's why you see so much post-apocalypse entertainment...
#15052849
Zionist Nationalist wrote:
You are a fool if you trust the government
a global government will lead to the demise of the civil liberties

The EU is a good example of why it is a bad idea



We get it, species suicide is preferable to government.
#15052859
A world government would make me a lot poorer. While I'm willing to make some sacrifices of my privilege for fellow Europeans, I would not choose to make any sacrifices for the ever expanding Muslim and African populations.
#15052861
late wrote:It all started in Italy, a few hundred year ago. It's called the Renaissance, it was also the first stirrings of capitalism, and what made it stir was the first stirrings of the global economy.

What we have now are the problems of success, everything from climate change to IP rights, to disputes over taxation to problems arising from the international nature of the internet.

What we need is a set of rules for everybody (that wants to be in this global EU), a body to legislate, and another to adjudicate disputes and noncompliance.

It would beat the crap out of having another World War...

After WW2, Ike, Truman, and nearly everybody, wanted to avoid WW3 by tying the world together though business and diplomacy. It worked reasonably well.

But you can see the world they painstakingly built crumbling in front of your eyes.

All the reasons they built that world still exist. We need to build on that legacy, and there is really only one way to do that.

Yeah good luck with that. That's currently not possible. I am fine with having a unified body for Europe because we share a lot of common values but this doesn't work for the whole world. Chinese have a autocratic shithole rule why would I want to be ruled by a common body with them. Even more so is the situation durring bad times when some sacrifice is required.

Having said that not all people in Europe want a more unified EU for Europe. They want a more looser eu. So no. Unifying Europe long term will take a lot more time with 2 steps forward 1 step back approach.
#15052867
JohnRawls wrote:
Yeah good luck with that. That's currently not possible. I am fine with having a unified body for Europe because we share a lot of common values but this doesn't work for the whole world. Chinese have a autocratic shithole rule why would I want to be ruled by a common body with them. Even more so is the situation during bad times when some sacrifice is required.

Having said that not all people in Europe want a more unified EU for Europe. They want a looser EU. So, no. Unifying Europe long term will take a lot more time with 2 steps forward 1 step back approach.



I wasn't talking about unifying Europe more...

You are quite correct that it's not currently possible. But it's one of those things reality will drag us into, whether we like it or not.
#15052915
late wrote:It all started in Italy, a few hundred year ago. It's called the Renaissance,


Everybody likes the Renaissance, but it has nothing to do with the EU. It could even be argued that it is related to the very opposite. If anything, the HRE (Holy Roman Empire) is the predecessor of the EU. The burgeoning trading empires of the city states in the North of Italy, where the Italian Renaissance started, or The Netherlands, were the first to leave the safe harbour of the HRE. They probably felt that with the wealth accumulated from their trading empires, they could go it on their own, just like the British, who see themselves as a global trading nation, believe that they can go it on their own without the EU. Of course, there were other factors that hastened the decline of the HRE, most notably French imperialism.

Eurosceptics erroneously claim that the EU is against national sovereignty. That is a profoundly mistaken understanding of the EU. The EU protects and enhances the national sovereignty of its member states. Like the HRE, the EU is a Union of sovereign nations to protect against imperialism both inside and outside. Imperialism is nationalism gone wrong. It's an excessive form of nationalism that doesn't stay inside the national borders. Obviously, only the big powers can play the imperial game. For small and medium sized nations, a Union of nations like the EU is most beneficial.

Even though the EU did expand from the initial 7 member to the current 27 or 28 members, the expansion was entirely voluntary and not achieved by military force, as would be the case in an empire. Moreover, the EU does not have a the central decision-making body like the "imperial presidency" in the US or the presidential systems in Russia, Turkey or France. Even if the EU were to politically integrate, its federal structure and the diversity of its members will always prevent imperial policies.

If the EU were to open membership to nations beyond Europe, there would be more than a hundred candidates for membership; however, most would not meet membership criteria such as democracy, rule of law, etc. Admitting member with very different political or economic systems would destroy the EU. Thus, the solution would be a system of concentric rings of decreasing integration, in which the core would be fully integrated, and the periphery only shares some of the functions, such as the single market, etc., without, for example, the single currency or political integration.

This system of decreasing levels of integration around a central core already exists as is shown by this Euler diagram of the EU. Beyond the 50 odd nations in this diagram, there are further circles of Partnership Agreements, Association Agreements, Free Trade Agreements with countries ranging from Japan to Canada.

The task ahead will be to make the link between trade and climate. In other words, as in the EU's trade agreement with Mercosur, there will have to be clauses for protecting the climate (and social standards) that kick in when contracting nations violate their commitments under the Paris Agreement. While many of these agreements have been in the negotiating phase for years or even decades, Trump's unilateralism, which aims at the destruction of international organisations such as the WTO, has spurred the EU into action to build a global trade network independent of the pax-Americana. Due to the weaponizing of the US dollar, the EU has also started to promote the Euro as an international currency of trade.

Image
#15052925
Zionist Nationalist wrote:The HRE was a failure if anything that is a bad example


The HRE was not a failure. I am not sure if you can call an entity that existed around a thousand years a failure.
#15052926
late wrote:It all started in Italy, a few hundred year ago. It's called the Renaissance, it was also the first stirrings of capitalism, and what made it stir was the first stirrings of the global economy.

What we have now are the problems of success, everything from climate change to IP rights, to disputes over taxation to problems arising from the international nature of the internet.

What we need is a set of rules for everybody (that wants to be in this global EU), a body to legislate, and another to adjudicate disputes and noncompliance.

It would beat the crap out of having another World War...

After WW2, Ike, Truman, and nearly everybody, wanted to avoid WW3 by tying the world together though business and diplomacy. It worked reasonably well.

But you can see the world they painstakingly built crumbling in front of your eyes.

All the reasons they built that world still exist. We need to build on that legacy, and there is really only one way to do that.


The problem with your vision of a global EU is that the majority would likely not be in favour, yet if your global EU was run along the same lines as the European EU, the majority would have no choice. It would be a blueprint for WW3.
#15052928
Red Rackham wrote:The problem with your vision of a global EU is that the majority would likely not be in favour, yet if your global EU was run along the same lines as the European EU, the majority would have no choice. It would be a blueprint for WW3.


Ah yes, the claims that the EU is a totalitarian 4th Reich.... Sure. Whatever you say.... Brexit moved psychie of some British in the direction of Russia. The Russians are always worshiping WW2 nowadays because they have nothing else to feel proud for and UK seems to be going in the same direction. Well congrats for not achieving anything since WW2 i guess....
#15052935
JohnRawls wrote:Ah yes, the claims that the EU is a totalitarian 4th Reich.... Sure. Whatever you say.... Brexit moved psychie of some British in the direction of Russia. The Russians are always worshiping WW2 nowadays because they have nothing else to feel proud for and UK seems to be going in the same direction. Well congrats for not achieving anything since WW2 i guess....


John, in how many countries which are now EU states were the people given a choice? We know four former countries [Excluding the UK] held referendums and voted against the EU and are now EU states because they were forced to hold a second referendum. The Fourth Reich will not be denied. The EU is like the Hotel California, you can check out anytime, but you can never leave. The EU is designed to be unremovable. Gorbachev said...

"the most puzzling development in politics is the determination of European leaders to recreate the Soviet Union in Europe"

And never were truer words said. If some sort of a global EU was endorsed by the majority of people in the world, then so be it. But it would never happen. The [European] EU exists because people are not given a choice. And that is a recipe for disaster.
#15053004
Atlantis wrote:
If the EU were to open membership to nations beyond Europe


Obviously, only the big powers can play the imperial game. For small and medium sized nations, a Union of nations like the EU is most beneficial.

Even though the EU did expand from the initial 7 member to the current 27 or 28 members, the expansion was entirely voluntary and not achieved by military force, as would be the case in an empire.

Moreover, the EU does not have a the central decision-making body like the "imperial presidency" in the US or the presidential systems in Russia, Turkey or France. Even if the EU were to politically integrate, its federal structure and the diversity of its members will always prevent imperial policies.



The task ahead will be to make the link between trade and climate. In other words, as in the EU's trade agreement with Mercosur, there will have to be clauses for protecting the climate (and social standards) that kick in when contracting nations violate their commitments under the Paris Agreement. While many of these agreements have been in the negotiating phase for years or even decades, Trump's unilateralism, which aims at the destruction of international organisations such as the WTO, has spurred the EU into action to build a global trade network independent of the pax-Americana. Due to the weaponizing of the US dollar, the EU has also started to promote the Euro as an international currency of trade.



Again, I was not talking about expanding the EU.

I said it would have to be like the EU, which removes your imperial arguments.

Your last two paragraphs are two sides of the same coin. Paris isn't working, the old ways of doing things won't work, and failure is not an option.
#15053005
Red Rackham wrote:
"the most puzzling development in politics is the determination of European leaders to recreate the Soviet Union in Europe"

And never were truer words said.



Nonsense.

The Soviet Union was a command economy. The EU is not.

If you went to Hungary (which I did), you would see Russian troops on the streets, with nice new AKs. You would see tanks hiding in bushes, in case troops with heavy firepower to subdue the people wasn't enough.

The ruble was nonconvertible. Which means business outside their empire was barter. Russian money and assets were not liquid, assets inside the EU are quite liquid. Barter???

Lastly, the Soviets clearly had imperial ambitions... It's close to impossible to get the EU organised to mount an effective defense. There was the deal they made in 2014, but it's going very slowly.

You could make an argument that the EU, and the Soviets, are complete opposites.

Your assertion is baseless and bootless.
#15053022
Red Rackham wrote:John, in how many countries which are now EU states were the people given a choice? We know four former countries [Excluding the UK] held referendums and voted against the EU and are now EU states because they were forced to hold a second referendum. The Fourth Reich will not be denied. The EU is like the Hotel California, you can check out anytime, but you can never leave. The EU is designed to be unremovable. Gorbachev said...

"the most puzzling development in politics is the determination of European leaders to recreate the Soviet Union in Europe"

And never were truer words said. If some sort of a global EU was endorsed by the majority of people in the world, then so be it. But it would never happen. The [European] EU exists because people are not given a choice. And that is a recipe for disaster.


Actually in every EU country there was a choice. Its a myth that there wasn't :roll:

People saying the EU is a recreation of the Soviet Union make me laugh. That just shows that those people absolutely have no clue what the Soviet Union was, how it was created and how it functioned.

I don't know how the UK perception is so flawed and biased on this. It is not just stupid, its ignorance of the highest order in my opinion. But yes, as Carl Jung said "Thinking is hard that is why most people judge"
#15053142
JohnRawls wrote:People saying the EU is a recreation of the Soviet Union make me laugh.


It's silly but there are some parallels.

The EU enforces a certain economic model (free markets) in its treaties. It's very difficult to leave the EU, close to impossible if you're part of the Eurozone. In the case you're outside the EU it's difficult to remain more or less independent.

See for example the effect of the EU's economic principles on non-member Norway:
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2018/11/norways-bad-deal

China rarely does anything well. It just does thin[…]

First Nations voices in support of Coastal GasLi[…]

But I am trying to explain to pet owners that the[…]

Who believes him?

@Finfinder Don't be all sanctimonious with me wh[…]