World government?

[unbeliever]

Are we heading for a world government?

The debate on the matter of Brexit has got me thinking. I know, scary right?

 

Amongst the remainers, there are many who believe that sovereignty is illusory or unimportant and that free trade does not function property without a common regulatory framework.

 

They've got me wondering if they're right. The logical extension of this would be a world-wide Federation. Is that where we're heading?

[Berberis]

Have you been watching

by any chance?

[JFKvsNixon]

Are we heading for a world government?

The debate on the matter of Brexit has got me thinking. I know, scary right?

 

Amongst the remainers, there are many who believe that sovereignty is illusory or unimportant and that free trade does not function property without a common regulatory framework.

 

They've got me wondering if they're right. The logical extension of this would be a world-wide Federation. Is that where we're heading?

 

Eventually I'd say yes, but not for many many centuries. I think that we've still got a lot of maturing as a species before we take that step.

[geared]

Half the planet practically runs on corruption, do you really want them having a say on stuff over here??

 

If you want a couple of examples of how bad it can get then just look at Fifa and the UN.

 

Fifa is/was rotten to the core with corruption because Blatter figured out it was easier to bribe a load of people than actually bother with democratic votes.

The UN is a great example of how utterly useless and wasteful such a large worldwide governmental organisation can be.

Edited May 9, 2016 by geared

[L00b]

Amongst the remainers, there are many who believe that sovereignty is illusory or unimportant and that free trade does not function property without a common regulatory framework.

I disagree with your suggestion that remainers have purported that sovereignty is illusory or unimportant. It is neither.

 

I agree however that free trade does not function properly without a common regulatory framework.

 

No regulatory framework = international trade warfare running to the bottom faster than a rocket-propelled lead weight.

 

Hence, and beside any mention of the EU as a trading club: GATT, WTO, TRIPs, NAFTA, ASEAN, etc, etc.

 

The contentious issues arise at the interface between both. Inevitably, since the two concepts are, fundamentally, opposed to one another (national interest versus international cooperation).

 

As regards a world government...No, we're still not headed there any more than we were 50 years ago (if anything the Cold War of old is making a gradual return, now augmented and grown multi-lateral with the Middle Eastern lot, since -with the sole exception of Assad- US and Russian proxies of old have vanished, and there are no replacements, just more failed states).

 

Would it be a good thing? For mankind, very probably, but certainly not for us in the 1st world right now, since the (expected) associated policies to level inequalities globally would see us lose out to 'bring up' the 2nd and 3rd world.

Edited May 9, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

I disagree with your suggestion that remainers have purported that sovereignty is illusory or unimportant. It is neither.

 

I agree however that free trade does not function properly without a common regulatory framework.

 

No regulatory framework = international trade warfare running to the bottom faster than a rocket-propelled lead weight.

 

Hence, and beside any mention of the EU as a trading club: GATT, WTO, TRIPs, NAFTA, ASEAN, etc, etc.

 

The contentious issues arise at the interface between both. Inevitably, since the two concepts are, fundamentally, opposed to one another (national interest versus international cooperation).

 

As regards a world government...No, we're still not headed there any more than we were 50 years ago (if anything the Cold War of old is making a gradual return, now augmented and grown multi-lateral with the Middle Eastern lot, since -with the sole exception of Assad- US and Russian proxies of old have vanished, and there are no replacements, just more failed states).

 

Would it be a good thing? For mankind, very probably, but certainly not for us in the 1st world right now, since the (expected) associated policies to level inequalities globally would see us lose out to 'bring up' the 2nd and 3rd world.

 

Is that automatically the case?

Diversity and wealth inequality amongst the states and commonwealths of the USA persists after over 200 years of being united (sometimes by force) into an ever tightening federation.

 

Surely there is an awful lot of wealth inequality in the EU. From what I understand from your posts, you think that despite the inequality levelling we're better of in anyway.

Edited May 9, 2016 by unbeliever

[Cyclone]

I've voted that it would be a good thing.

 

But at the moment I don't really see us heading that way. The EU was the only supra national organisation that was growing, and now idiotically we are considering leaving.

[sutty27]

I didn't vote because I doubt it could happen for centuries and whether is was good or bad would depend on a lot of unforeseeable variables.

[L00b]

Is that automatically the case?

I'm not sure I understand what bit of my post you query here, sorry. Do you mind expanding or rephrasing?

Diversity and wealth inequality amongst the states and commonwealths of the USA persists after over 200 years of being united (sometimes by force) into an ever tightening federation.

So long as there is, and wherever there is, wealth inequality, vested interests will always push and pull to at least maintain that status quo. That's just human nature, and runs fundamentally counter to the establishment of a 'world government': it's far easier to lobby and influence smaller entities like a national government, than a global one .

 

It goes to the heart of my last sentence earlier, and why a world government isn't likely to happen for decades and centuries, short of some sort of cataclysm with a global levelling effect (from the ashes of which such a 'world government' would have the best chances of arising).

Surely there is an awful lot of wealth inequality in the EU.

There certainly is, just like there is amongst the states and commonwealths of the USA, and everywhere you look outside the EU and the US.

From what I understand from your posts, you think that despite the inequality levelling we're better of in anyway.

That's because I contrast the current position of the UK intra-EU against the expected position of the UK post-Brexit on the basis of 1st world economies that are not in the EU or a similar grouping, and fast-rising 2nd world economies (China and Brazil in particular). Where antis- and pros- differ, is about that expected position and over what term.

 

In that particular respect, after decades of working in the private sector in the UK and elsewhere, rubbing daily with domestic and foreign MDs, CEOs, CFOs, <etc.>...I tend to realism with a healthy dose of cynicism (maybe fatalism is more apt), rather than loftier idealism/nationalism. That's why I see Remain as 'less worse than' Brexit, rather than a 'bed of roses': I'm certainly not blind to the EU's numerous faults and failings. To the contrary of Brexiters however, I do believe that it can be worked upon and improved, and that's better done from within than from without. And the EU is, ideologically at least, far more of an egalitarian 'socialist' beast than the US, Russia, China, India and Brazil will ever be.

 

But in brief and simple terms: I'd sooner be poor in the EU than in the US, or than anywhere else outside the EU and the US

Edited May 9, 2016 by L00b

[geared]

I've voted that it would be a good thing.

 

But at the moment I don't really see us heading that way. The EU was the only supra national organisation that was growing, and now idiotically we are considering leaving.

 

You'll also end up with many more Greece situations, as inevitably a once size fits all approach is taken to all countries which can be incompatible with their culture.