Could the EU evolve into a world government? If the U.S. joined it?

Great Debates
1

The recent rejection of the proposed European Constitution might give the world the impression that the European Union is a dead letter or failed project. But it isn’t. The referendum means only that not enough people want a constitution on the particular terms proposed. But the EU continues to tick along under its earlier treaties.

The European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_union) is truly an amazing, wonderful new thing in human history: A democratic international government! Nothing like that has ever existed before. It started out in 1952 as a coal-and-steel tariff union between France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, and now it is a continental organization wtih 25 members – something less than a full government with all the powers and sovereignty of a national government, but much more than a mere association or confederacy. It has a democratically elected Parliament (although Parliament’s actual power is less than that of other institutions, such as the Council of Ministers and the European Commission, which are chosen by national governments rather than by the people directly). It seems likely to assure peace in Europe for the foreseeable future. Just imagine that! Peace in Europe! A region torn by wars since the fall of the Roman Empire! All the member states retain their national languages and cultures, and most of their political autonomy. They remain free, in principle, to secede – but their economies are now so interdependent that no one really wants to. There are “Euroskeptics” in evey country, vocal and well-organized and sometimes influential – but everywhere a minority. Within the EU, not only are tariffs down, but borders are open to people. Every citizen of any EU member state may freely travel to, even live and work in, any other without a passport or green card. (Almost. Citizens of the newly admitted states of Eastern Europe do not yet have that privilege, but it won’t be long in coming.) In part because of that, there is a new rising “Generation E” of young people who may live and work in several countries in the course of their lives, and who identify themselves more as Europeans than as German or British or whatever. (See The United States of Europe by T.R. Reid – http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200335/qid=1129041673/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6558801-7682530?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.) The new common currency, the euro, can be used anywhere in the Union – and may soon supplant the U.S. dollar as the default currency of international commerce and finance. The EU even has the bare beginnings of its own army, the European Rapid Reaction Force. In military terms it’s much less important than NATO – but also differs from NATO in that it’s not dominated by any one country.

What next?

In this thread on whether Turkey should be admitted to the EU – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=338003 – SuaSponte posted the following:

That’s very sound thinking. Why limit it to geographical Europe?

If the NAFTA countries, Mexico, the United States, Canada, were to join the EU – at which point we would demand the treaties be renegotiated, and the organization probably would need a new name, such as the International Union – and if we then extended membership to the English-speaking “settler states” of the former British Empire – Australia, NZ, etc. – then practically all of “Western Civilization” would be united in a common political entity. NATO would be merged with the ERRF to form a new Union Army – one not under U.S. control but heavily under U.S. influence. NAFTA itself would become a dead letter – we would have a better deal, a tariff union controlled, at least in part, by an elected Parliament instead of by faceless corporate bureaucrats alone, as NAFTA is now. (The. U.S. would also have completely open borders with Mexico – and with all IU member states.)

And then we could all commit ourselves to a grand project of further expansion. Pooling our economic resources and diplomatic power, we could apply a carrot-and-stick approach, emphasis on the carrot, to get marginally democratic countries to become fully so in return for the benefits of membership. And we could offer massive investment subsidies to any country willing to take the first steps down that path. Russia first. If Russia could be turned into a real democracy and brought up to the level of economic prosperity now enjoyed by, say, Poland, and if it joined the EU, then there would be a single allied zone of peace and prosperity running all around the northern tier of the globe. And then Japan – why not? It’s not “Western,” but that’s the point. At that point, the IU would encompass all of the “G-8” countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-8) – meaning the bulk of the world’s economic power and influence would be firmly in IU hands. And then all of Latin America, one country at a time – or maybe the new South American Community of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_Community_of_Nations), which is modeled on the EU, could simply, as a unit, merge with the IU. And then all those countries, united, could take on the even more daunting challenges of Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia and China. (India andChina join last. Only way to keep them from overwhelming the others in political power by their sheer numbers.) Eventually – in 100 years, maybe in 50 – the IU would enrich, democratize and encompass every independent state on the globe, at which point the United Nations and all its organs would simply be merged with the IU government.

And then we would have a world government – not as the work of some megalomaniacal conqueror, but as the result of a gradual and peaceful process of social, political and economic evolution. World peace. Global free trade, its terms regulated only by a democratically elected International Parliament. A common currency. Open borders. Free travel.

Why not?

2

The EU is not an international government. What kind of government allows some member states to go to war (Britain, Spain and Italy supporting the Iraq war) while others do not? The EU is a well developed economic union, but only a poorly developed political union. If (and that’s a big if) the EU does become a political union, then we can talk. As the EU gains more momentum in the political arena, we see more and more opposition to it at the grassroots level within the member states. Witness the rejection by France (one of the leading advocates of the EU) of the recent consitution:

3

I don’t think the EU is REALLY an international government but more a trade union with delusions of grandure. :slight_smile: I seriously doubt it will ever progress into an international government to be honest because I don’t see how such a government could or would work by committee. You just can’t have a world government and also let all the member states have full autonomy too. The model for a world government, IMHO, is more like the United States by on a larger scale. Member states would be semi-autonomous but under a federal system (sort of what the Shi’ites and Kurds want for Iraq). All states would be able to send representatives to a world congress or parliment, all citizens would be able to elect to the executive brance for leadership of the federation, but the states would be subordinate to that federation much like the states in the union are subordinate to the federal government of the US.

And I don’t see nation states willing to give up their soverienty to a larger whole…certainly not the US. So…back to square one. The BEST you can hope for, IMHO, is an international trading relationship where there is (perhaps) a common currency and (more importantly) no trade tarrifs or barriers. Perhaps you could also allow travel between member nations without the need for passports, free movement of workers, etc…but perhaps thats not such a good idea in the current world environment of international terrorism.

-XT

4

It all depends on what counts as a “government”. The various states of the EU have long co-operated, since before the days of the EEC. That gradually increasing co-operation has ultimately yielded elections (for representatives who really only do just that - represent their region or state in the discussions of what laws should be applied to all the states.) In this sense, it is not so different from the US government in which states can make their own laws so long as they don’t contravene the limits set by the federal government elected by the national vote. But then again, that difference is arguably all the difference in the world, as evidenced by the real (literally) do-or-die-decision examples such as John’s.

My threshold of what counts as a government is actually low enough to consider that the UN is actually already the world’s de facto government, in that all the governments of the world are represented in a debate about What Should Be Done. Granted, it is a woefully powerless and undemocratic government. If The US or EU governments were like it, California or England would have disproportionately powerful influence bordering on outright bullying, and most of the representatives of the poorer states between Utah and Florida or Portugal and Greece would arrive at the chamber with absolutely no democratic mandate whatsoever.

But this was largely how the US and EU used to be in its history, and things are a whole lot more fair and democratic there now. There is no fundamental reason why the UN must be so flawed. Indeed, if its most powerful states (the US and EU) ignore what they signed (and actually wrote) - what I’d call the “constitution” of the world government - then the ineffectiveness of the UN becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

5

I think it’s a big mistake to imagine the UN as a proto-World Government. It was never supposed to be that, and it can’t be that. It was set up simply to prevent a repeat of WWI and WWII. The UN is just a talking shop, any organization that could include both the democratic United States and the totalitarian Soviet Union can’t be a world government. And of course the superpower vetos were put in place so that the superpowers would join without fear of anything happening without their consent, since a worldwide diplomatic body that didn’t include the superpowers would be pretty much useless.

Any system of world governance would have to guarantee that all member states must have a democratic system of government. We can’t allow a federation that includes some democracies and some dictatorships. But the UN was explicitly designed to allow dictatorships to join, so the dictatorships could be negotiated with.

It is useful to have a global body that includes all countries, including dictatorships. But democratic governments cannot give up their sovreignity to a body that includes dictatorships. Since kicking the dictatorships out of the UN would be counterproductive, strengthening the UN into a proto-world government is also counterproductive.

The EU is exactly the model needed for a proto-world government. You can’t join unless you agree to abide by the norms of the Union…human rights, political freedom, religious freedom, economic freedom, sound economic policy, and so on. These are things that all decent countries in the world agree on. While I can’t see the US or Japan joining the EU any time soon, I can easily imagine Canada, Australia, and NZ joining, and I don’t see a problem with joint EU and NAFTA membership for Canada. The alternative is a club of all first-world nations that only allows membership to candidates that meet the criteria. Political union with Canada or France is thinkable, political union with China or North Korea or Nigeria isn’t.

6

I think you’re putting the cart before the horse. The EU, in its present form, is something to which the U.S. might be willing to yield some small measure of its national sovereignty, assuming a best-case scenario. Once that’s accomplished, then we could talk about further political integration.

But, as I said, a step as major as admitting the U.S. to the EU would warrant a complete renegotiation of its treaties – perhaps even a new Constitution Convention with U.S. delegates participating; and everything would be on the table then.

I should add: This is a project even the neocons might be willing to get behind, in principle – assuming their talk of “spreading democracy” means something more than an American Empire. Neocons sometimes talk about uniting the “Anglosphere” – a political union or association of the U.S. with the UK and the Commonwealth countries; in effect, that would be the British Empire reconstituted, but with the U.S. as its senior partner. And what I’m talking about trumps that. The Anglosphere would be part of the International Union, but only part – a caucus, as it were.

7

Most of the countries that have joined the EU in the past couple of decades have had clear reasons for doing so – poverty, instability, etc. Why would the US or Japan want to join? Assuming that they could negotiate decent trade agreements with the EU, I don’t see why the US would give up any of its sovereignty to join the EU. I’m a bit fuzzy on this, but, as I understand the institution, it would seem more likely that the US (and other first world countries) might join into what’s currently called European Economic Community, rather than joining the actual EU. Some type of economic unity (free labor movement, lowering of tariffs, etc.) seems more likely to me than political union. But again, I’m a little fuzzy on the exact difference between the EEC and the EU – can someone enlighten me? What can and cannot Norway and Switzerland (which I think are EC but not EU) do with the community?

Frankly, I’m a bit skeptical about the whole thrust of the OP, basically because it’s never seemed to work before. It just sounds too utopian. How do you get past the vast differences in opinion in all these countries without watering down the project to the point of meaninglessness? Differing ideas on the use of military power, the way to run the economy, the welfare state, etc., won’t disappear overnight. But maybe I’m wrong – who would have guessed 15 years ago that most of the former Warsaw Pact countries would now be fully fledged members of the EU!

8

The people of Europe don’t particularly want further political integration, nor does it appear they are overly fond of further expansion for the time being. The only possible reason for the US to consider joining the EU would be for the free trade aspects and that can be accomplished with a simple free trade agreement without further integration into EU politics or giving the EU any measure of control on things like agriculture policy, food and drug administration, etc.

Not only that, but the EU governments don’t want to see the US join either since they would automatically overwhelm the influence of the current big players like France and Germany. Nor would the people of the EU particularly want a 900 pound gorilla like the US with more conservative values throwing its weight around inside their group.

You’ve let your imagination run away from you. US accession to the EU is something that nobody wants.

9

The European Economic Community was a precursor of the EU in its current form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community There is also a European Free Trade Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association), which was founded as an alternative to the EEC; and a European Economic Area (), which was designed to allow EFTA countries to participate in the European Single Market without participating in the EEC/EU; and a Council of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_europe), which is more of a diplomatic association without governing functions. The Eurozone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone) is that subset of EU member states (and some nonmembers) who have replaced their national currencies with the euro.

At present, that’s pretty much what the EU is. It differs from NAFTA in, among other things, having an elected parliament, and in having free movement of labor.

Not overnight, no. But they are disappearing, have been in the gradual process of disappearing for decades.

There you go.

10

Sorry, European Economic Area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area

11

Actually, the commision has to be aprovd by the parliament. It used to be a fomality, until some years ago, when it resigned, following some minor corruption scandal. Since then, the parliament actually took its job eriously, in particular during the hearing of the potential members of the commission. Now, the governments can’t pick anymore whoever they eventually agreed on (which was a difficult task in itself) but have to take into account the demands of the parliament, lest their proposed commission would be sent packing.

Of course, it isn’t : Denmark, Sweden and the UK didn’t adopt the Euro. And the ten new members of the EU aren’t part of the eurozone, either. So it’s only the currency in 12 countries out of 25.

12

Just to mention that the proposed constitution was “condensating” all the previous treaties into only one. Since it seems to be dead for now, I assume that in theory it would still be possible to join the EEC or probably even the original Coal and Steel Community without becoming an Union member, since these treaties still exist independantly. I don’t think it would be practical, though, so I suspect that if the USA or Vanuatu wanted to join in the free trade part without becoming members, they would probably only join the EEA, like Switzerland and Norway.

13

Thanks for the links and information BrainGlutton.

14

But if I wanted to spend my euros in the UK, wouldn’t merchants there take them?

15

I wanted to add once too that the Council of Europe has nothing to do with the EU (it includes a number of other countries, in particular Russia).

It’s important to mention this because it seems a number of Euroseptic are mixing them up, in particular when they complain about the European Court of Human Rights (which emanates from the Council of Europe, not from the EU) messing up with their own country’s court decisions. Not that I think the ECHR isn’t a good idea or doesn’t make a good job, but people should be aware of the difference, and many clearly aren’t.

Besides the fact that all members of the EU are also members of the CoE, complaining about one for a decision taken by the other is essentially the same as cursing the NAFTA when you don’t like a UN security council decision.

16

Apart from a few exceptions (airports & main tourist attractions), no. What would they do with them? They can’t give them to anyone else, and can’t pay them into their bank.

17

Some department stores would, but most businesses wouldn’t (I’m not aware of the latest developments so I might be mistaken to some extent), but I wouldn’t know what rate they would apply. The interbank rate just in order to attract customers? A rate of their own, making sure that they make some profit besides the sale?
Oh! And there’s this new scam (I can’t remember its name) spreading in several European countries (first in Ireland, then in Britain, Italy, etc…) where they offer “for you convenience” to charge you directly in dollars. The bill comes in dollars, and your CC is charged in dollars (or actually don’t offer anything, and just bring you the bill in dollars). Of course it comes with a significant fee, much higher than the small one you would pay if you were charged in Euros, pounds, etc… and VISA or Mastercard or whoever else would make the conversion. It even seem that in some cases, they try not to let you pay in euro, pounds, etc…even when the aware customer insists on doing so.
I heard it mentionned only for US dollars until now, since they prey on unsuspecting american tourists, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the same scheme is used in the future (or already is) in the UK for the Euro. It applies only to payments with plastic, though, not in cash.

18

If they’re a large enough business, they could simply have a bank account in Euros.

19

Accepting multiple currencies in cash was common in some places before the Euro was adopted - Luxembourg motorway service stations being particularly memorable. But in these situations, it was viable because there would be enough traffic in each currency to dispose of any denomination to later customers. I’m guessing some places in Switzerland still operate a similar dual system for Euros & Francs. However, these are/were purely informal arrangements, able to set whatever (extortionate) exchange rate they choose.

20

(a) that’s a big ‘if’, and (b) even if you have an account in Euros with a British bank, it doesn’t mean you can pay in cash without a hefty transaction fee. And there’s no relevant cheque clearing system. Etc etc.