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

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

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.

Well, if I take the thread title at face value, yes, a unified US/Europe could pretty much set the rules for the rest of the world. Especially if this were done quickly, before China gets too big. But I find the hypothetical to be too far out there. Europe simply isn’t close to being unified politically, and I don’t supsect they will be for a long, long time.

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.

Is that suppose to make it more appealing, that neocons like it? Frankly (pun intended), I like the Anglosphere idea from an economic standpoint, but not necessarily a political one.

[scotandrsn]

Hmmm…

Loose coalition of sovereign states, each free to engage internationally as it pleases, free to reject the common currency, with a fairly toothless central governing body.

Well, now, are we talking about the EU or the thirteen ex-British colonies under the Articles of Confederation? The group that instituted the latter charter managed to turn itself into something more cohesive and powerful, why not the former?

As for the rejection of the new Constitution by France et. al., meh. My history books say the US Constitution just made it by a hair as well. It needed the legislations of nine out of thriteen states:

Delaware: 30-0 (100% - 0%)
Pennsylvania: 46-23 (67%-33%)
New Jersey: 38-0 (100%-0)
Georgia: 26-0 (100%-0)
Connecticut: 128-40 (76%-23%)
Massachusetts: 187-168 (52.6% - 47.3%)
Maryland: 63-11: (85%-15%)
South Carolina: 149-73 (67%-33%)
New Hampshire: 57-47 (54.8%-45.2%)
Virginia: 89-79 (53%-47%)
New York: 30-27 (52.6%-47.4%)
North Carolina: 194-77 (72%-28%)
Rhode Island: 34-32 (51.5%-48.5%)

(Source)

We came as close as 17 votes to not having the Constitutional United States, or having one that looked vastly different.

If the EU Constitution’s ratification requirements had been different, it might have passed. Instead we get to see the sort of thing might have been if the Continental Congress had had to go back to the drawing board.

[John_Mace]

@scotandrsn

As for the rejection of the new Constitution by France et. al., meh. My history books say the US Constitution just made it by a hair as well. It needed the legislations of nine out of thriteen states:

But then there’s big difference from the start. The EU constitution would have had to have been ratified unaminously in order to pass. So, it didn’t fail by a hair, it failed miserably. It wasn’t just France that rejected it.

[duffer]

May I ask a side question related to the EU? (Well, I’m going to but it relates to whether or not I’ll stay here or start a new thread)

Is England/UK looking to/expected to enter the EU? From what I know of the matter it’s the one Continental country(s) we associate with Europe that isn’t on the front line of signing the pact. I’m basing this this first and foremost on England no accepting the Euro as legit currency. Any help or correction on this?

[duffer]

sigh And, of course, by “we” I mean Americans. *Disclaimer.

*[sub] By Americans I don’t imply all Americans, just the one’s that have this basic, uneducated, unenlightened ignorant view of world politics that lead to questions like that. Please be gentle.[/sub]

[BrainGlutton]

@duffer

Is England/UK looking to/expected to enter the EU?

The UK is a member of the EU. It’s just not a member of the Eurozone (countries using the euro as currency).

[duffer]

Thanks for the clarification BG

[scotandrsn]

@John Mace

But then there’s big difference from the start. The EU constitution would have had to have been ratified unaminously in order to pass.

Well one could say the Founding Fathers were foolish for not requiring the same, or one could fault the EU framers for requiring unanimity. Many of the original 13 states could not be talked into the Constitution without assurance of a Bill of Rights, and then only barely. If it could be done here, there’s no saying it can’t be done there.

@John Mace

So, it didn’t fail by a hair, it failed miserably. It wasn’t just France that rejected it.

I wasn’t talking about losing by a hair, mon frere, I was pointing out that winning by a hair, in these instances, is still winning. Did France and the other countries who turned it down stipulate their reasons? Can the causes of these objections be corrected? It might not take that much to get what votes would be required the next time around.

Me, I’m optomistic about the chances for the EU becoming a stronger union. If places as culturally disparate as New York, Georgia, Texas, California, Alaska and Hawaii can call themselves one nation, there’s no telling what Europe could become.

[BrainGlutton]

@scotandrsn

If places as culturally disparate as New York, Georgia, Texas, California, Alaska and Hawaii can call themselves one nation, there’s no telling what Europe could become.

But all those states have the same predominant English-speaking American national culture – even Hawaii (by the time it became a state).

[scotandrsn]

@BrainGlutton

But all those states have the same predominant English-speaking American national culture – even Hawaii (by the time it became a state).

At this stage of the game I don’t think multilingualism is the same burden in Europe that it is in the United States. They’ve been working around it centuries.

[XT]

@scotandrsn

At this stage of the game I don’t think multilingualism is the same burden in Europe that it is in the United States. They’ve been working around it centuries.

Well, thats true I suppose…problem is their normal work around entails pointing guns (or other pointy weapons) at each other. Its only been fairly recent history when they have dropped out of their various armed camps and begun to interact with each other in ways other than the point of a gun. That kind of thing has a lot of historical baggage that we didn’t really have in the US.

-XT

[John_Mace]

@scotandrsn

I wasn’t talking about losing by a hair, mon frere, I was pointing out that winning by a hair, in these instances, is still winning. Did France and the other countries who turned it down stipulate their reasons? Can the causes of these objections be corrected? It might not take that much to get what votes would be required the next time around.

Hey, don’t use that Frenchified talk with me!

I’m sure different people had different reasons for voting “no”, so to talk of “France” as having a reason doesn’t make much sense. Some polls suggest that many voters were simply expressing generally disatisfaction with Chirac (who wanted a “yes” vote), while I’m sure some had legitimate complaints about the constitution itself. Politics, she is complicated, mon ami.

Me, I’m optomistic about the chances for the EU becoming a stronger union. If places as culturally disparate as New York, Georgia, Texas, California, Alaska and Hawaii can call themselves one nation, there’s no telling what Europe could become.

I think the differences between the various European countries are “slightly” more deep and complex than those betwee New York and Alaska. Vive la difference!

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

I’m sure different people had different reasons for voting “no”, so to talk of “France” as having a reason doesn’t make much sense.

True. As I understand it (perhaps clairobscur can help us flesh out this area), some “Euroskeptics” are old-fashioned nationalists, and some are socialists who oppose the EU because it “institutionalizes capitalism,” and there are probably other kinds.