mightychurch.com

At church we’ve been studying early Genesis lately. Why does all this “World Government” talk remind me of the Tower of Babel approach to life ? You know, where sinful man tried to make a better world - without God’s help !

Why does all this “World Government” talk remind me of the Tower of Babel approach to life ?

Because you’ve got a false dichotomy stuck right in the middle of your political worldview?

Kevin, if a non-Christian engineer builds a great bridge that serves people for the next few generations, has it made society better and met some needs? Even if he only employed non-Christians, was it with or without God’s help? What if he built it with a few Christians, does it make it a “Christian” bridge? Or were the builders trying to make a great bridge “without God”?

Bridge building, good hospitals, good agricultural systems, good sustainable energy systems, art, music, movies… all the things that make life on this world better… do you approach them every time a non-Christian builds / makes / creates something and just rant, “They’re just sinful men trying to make a better world — without God’s help!”

Can’t you sometimes just take something at face value, and just say “Cool movie!” or “Cool and pragmatic political idea!”

I think you need to go back and read your prophets, and what they said about how Israel should live in Babylon. Were they to impose theocratic rule over it, or just try to prosper Babylon as they lived there, despite the fact that the current ruler was hardly God-fearing?

Was Paul on a mission to impose theocratic rule over the ancient world by Jihad? Or did he spell out in Romans the beginnings of theological principles that we use in discussing the separation of “Church and State 101”?

Ok, Dave, tell me how you think a world government can actually work? Tell me what you think we should be willing to accept from other non-democratic countries in order to make this happen? Tell what changes we should be willing to accept from other democratic countries to make this happen?

For example, 4 Australia states cannot get the Murray-Darling Basin in order and the Federal government is not really going to make them. If 4 Australian states, with common heritage, similar parliamentary structures, common ethnic make-ups who all live in the same Federation cannot sort out the water flows for a river, how on God’s green earth can a world with thousands of different languages, dozens of different and opposing government structures, tens of thousands of different ethnic groups who live thousands of kms away from each other have one common, democratic government?

I think you are staring too deeply into your navel if you genuinely think that a democratic world government is ever going happen.

Hmm, interesting post, but I had hoped it was going to be Kevin answering the false theological objections he has twice raised against a world government without really demonstrating why?

Now, Lee, someone could have raised similar objections to the EU during WW1 and WW2. Then the Berlin wall came down, the common economic zone gradually became a common currency and a common supra-national constitution is gradually evolving.

Anyway, your post basically shouts “Tell me, tell me NOW!” which of course I can’t, as I can’t see the future, and I’m not trying to. I’m just trying to promote discussion of the idea, not outline the inevitability of such a thing. There are a number of huge crisis coming our way, and so who even knows that the EU will survive peak oil & global warming? But many smarter people than myself think the EU is much more than a “United States of Europe”, which it most definitely is not (Yet! And I hope it never becomes so).

What we may have in the EU is a prototype of a new model for all nations to interact. Gradually, over time, the African Union will hopefully become something akin to the EU. Asian bodies will scramble to unite to compete. There may well be outsiders like Burma and North Korea for generations yet, or else, they too will collapse just as the Soviet Empire did… creating new opportunities. Various South American leaders are playing with a similar idea for their nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAN

However, the smaller the state, the more likely the chances of collapse in the peak oil and global warming eras, and the more vulnerable to suddenly requesting membership in the larger alliances. The USA seems to use the threat of the big stick in international relations, but the EU has the slower, carrot approach to enticing nations to improve their human rights and democratic and economic institutions in the hope of improved trade with the EU, and who knows?, the future promise of joining. (Like Turkey).

The objection about the smaller states I think is moot given the potential for collapse, instability, and rapid change. China’s culture will probably make it one of the last countries likely to join a future World Federation.

The ultimate irony here is that I’m sure America, the founder of modern democratic ideals, will also probably be one of the last to join. They do love their right to unilateral action so!

You mean the monetary EU that is groaning under the weight of the billions of euros its member countries (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain) cannot repay without a bailout because they have fiddled the books to keep on borrowing of the back of the stronger economies? Despite saying they would be so dodgy?

You mean the EU that has a figure head President that can’t really do anything because (rightly) sovereign countries aren’t going to allow someone from Brussels dictate what they should and shouldn’t do?

The best model for a World Federation is the United Nations - in has an approach of consensus and a democratic model. The problem is it is completely dysfunctional, getting situations where Egypt, China, Russia, Cuba and Saudi Arabia are voting members on the Human Rights Commission (which has condemned Israel 15 times in 2 years but has yet to condemn Sudan for example) or the Copenhagen Climate Change conference, which is the farce to end all farces.

The bottom line is a World Government won’t work, in fact it is completely unworkable. No one wants to make their interests subservient to the interests of others and there are too many countries with no respect for true democratic ideals that would seek to rort the system. The only prototypes of a world federation are so dysfunctional to be ridiculous.

I can imagine someone arguing the same prior to Australia’s Federation. “It can’t be done, why would NSW want to foot the bill for poorer states? Why should we give Tasmanians so much more power per vote than Sydneyites? No one will go for this… there are too many states that will rort the system.”

....etc.

Yet despite WW1 and WW2, the EU exists, and is currently bailing out some member states that would otherwise have collapsed financially into hyperinflation basket cases. And in doing so there will no doubt be important conditions attached, for the mutual benefit of all. So it sounds like you’re against the EU because the richer nations helped the poorer nations out in this instance, and, well, that just doesn’t seem a reason to write it off to me. I’d even see that as a compassionate policy… maybe even a Christian policy… but at least we can see that it is wiser to keep one’s trading partners prosperous when one can, even if for selfish reasons.

I find your suggestion that the UN is the best model for a world Federation a bit odd. A diplomatic group that do dirty deals behind closed doors? When was the last time you voted for who represented Australia in the UN?

On the other hand, I love the fact that the Lisbon treaty is making EU democratic  deliberations more accountable and open, with mandatory broadcasts of deliberations. (Oh yeah, and that word democracy means they vote for the people who make the decisions, unlike the UN.)

So once again, I see economic pressures to reduce what economists call “externalities”. Like it or not, at this stage the pressures seem to be towards amalgamation. African and South American nations are starting the long process of forming their own free trade areas and common currency zones. The goal in Africa is for these more stable economic zones to gradually join together into larger zones, and with this will come the inevitable African Central Bank, African Parliament, etc. The baby steps towards this happening is starting now.

There are many obstacles to overcome, yes. But they have at least begun. There are timetables for achieving various goals. They’ll probably fail half of them with complications, but the journey seems to be in that direction.

So imagine in a generation or so there’s an African Union, European Union, and South American Union. How will Russia and Asia and the Middle East respond? Oh yeah, I forgot, Kevin Rudd has already appointed someone to kick start Asian Union discussions….

Now another topic: Imagine one world currency.

This would save TRILLIONS of dollars in currency exchange fees, money which could then go to important projects instead of fat-cat bankers. It would stop runs on currencies… there would be only 1. It would tidy up all sorts of economic equations and concerns. Exporting a crop or good or service? Well, it will be sold on the merits of the goods, not sold because someone’s exchange happens to be ridiculously low. Or to put it another way, people won’t suddenly find themselves unemployed because something as abstract as the value of their money against another currency suddenly changed.

I know a number of economists that simply love the tidier looking economics of a single currency world. For more:

http://www.singleglobalcurrency.org/

By now many Christians are screaming, “But what about the Anti-Christ?!!!” to which I reply:
a/ I’m an Amil and so that’s irrelevant
b/ Even if your reading of Scripture is true, BRING IT ON! It means the Lord will return. How many Pre-trib or Post-Trib varieties of millenarians actually spend their time worrying over and campaigning AGAINST what they see as God’s plans for the world? I never could figure that out.
c/ I must go shave my head in case I have Damian Thorn’s 666 birthmark up there somewhere… oh wait, the army already did that to me in 1987 and I’m clear.

Germany isn’t supporting the economic development of poorer countries but bailing out a country that lied about their financial situation and fiddled with the books in order to borrow lots and lots of money which they now can’t pay back. Greece threatens to destabilize the whole eurozone and it isn’t just Greece but Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain that are in the same boat. Normally countries can mess around with the value of their currency to help themselves but Greece can’t because it isn’t the only country with the euro.

There could be some benefits in one world economy and one world government but really, would it be worth the hassle? it is one thing to talk and EUs and AUs, where there are similar populations and similar history but its a different kettle of fish if you were to contemplate a merger of Australia, NZ, the Pacific Islands and Indonesia just because they are close to each other. A world federation would be 50 million times worse and you just trade one series of problems for another series.

But the bottom line is that a world governmental and economic federation would never never ever happen. It would too many disparate political and economic systems coming under the same system. Are you willing to abide by the system of the Chinese or Cubans? How about Saudi Arabia?

In regards to the non-democratic nature of diplomats in the UN, I don’t see how having direct elections would change it. Even here in Australia, with an active media and good, non-corrupt government, grubby deals are done all the time over everything. I would argue that backroom deals ensure that government actually happens; if everything were transparent then politicians would be even more bland and conviction-less. At lease where there is anonymity in the backroom, they can be real humans and get stuff done, even if it isn’t always what we want.

A world federation would be 50 million times worse and you just trade one series of problems for another series.

Assertion without evidence.

But the bottom line is that a world governmental and economic federation would never never ever happen. It would too many disparate political and economic systems coming under the same system. Are you willing to abide by the system of the Chinese or Cubans? How about Saudi Arabia?

Who said anything about totalitarian regimes forcing their governmental structures out on the world? Rather, it will be more like the EU enticing countries in, to join for mutual economic and political benefit. There are conditions for membership, you know.

But Cuba won’t want to join? Burma’s happy the way they are? Yeah, right. Smaller ‘rogue’ states are prone to collapse, sudden uprisings, total about face (EG: Gadaffi) and even stepping over the line. (Afghanistan, or the perception of stepping over the line with the belief of WMD’s in Iraq).

In regards to the non-democratic nature of diplomats in the UN, I don’t see how having direct elections would change it. Even here in Australia, with an active media and good, non-corrupt government, grubby deals are done all the time over everything. I would argue that backroom deals ensure that government actually happens; if everything were transparent then politicians would be even more bland and conviction-less. At lease where there is anonymity in the backroom, they can be real humans and get stuff done, even if it isn’t always what we want.

OK, so now we’ve established that you don’t really think that much about democracy after all.

I’m talking about at least getting the VOTING ON POLICIES to be more open and accountable, and at some level accountable to the people who voted a member in. There are many mechanisms for improving democracies. EG: Australians should have the power to recall their representative if that member no longer really reflects the views of their electorate. We don’t have that, but many European countries consider that a natural democratic right! (The local electorate signs a large enough petition and the member is recalled to sit another election. I’m amazed that we don’t have that right here!)

I’ll agree with you that no system of government is perfect because it contains human beings in it, but there are better systems than others.

Actually democracy should be considered the least bad system out the lot, rather than the best. I say that because it isn’t the case the electorate is always right. Voters are just as greedy, stupid and self-interested as politicians. I like democracy but I have no illusions that it is some unbeatable system. We divide up power between different parts of our government so that they can’t hoard it and abuse it. The downside is that democracy is a really inefficient system. I remember an episode of the West Wing, where the Communications Director wanted to help bring about change to social security because unless something was done, social security was going to bankrupt the government. Everyone wanted to know what was on the agenda because they would fiercely defend their patch if they didn’t like what they were going to hear. And Toby (the Communications Director) made a very interesting comment - the only way you’ll get a deal done is it is done behind closed doors and everything was done anonymously. If anything was leaked about who said what, a deal would never get done to save the system. I think that sums up the problem with democracy.

Assertion without evidence.

Oh really, then tell me why Greece is looking at an EU bailout? Why are people worried about the sovereign debt of Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland? Maybe because your much vaunted federation just traded one series of problems (currency instability, exchange rates) for another set (crappy governments going mental with debt because Germany and France have their economic s**t together, Greece being unable to devalue their currency when trouble comes).

Who said anything about totalitarian regimes forcing their governmental structures out on the world? Rather, it will be more like the EU enticing countries in, to join for mutual economic and political benefit. There are conditions for membership, you know.

True but it isn’t a world federation if don’t include the majority of Aftrica, eastern Europe, Russia, a large section of South America and the majority of Asia, who don’t comply with democratic ideals and still get by.

In any event, why bother? What is creating another parliament going to give us that we don’t have already, apart from achieving some pie-in-the-sky ideal of world unity? What is it that we will get in return from suborning our sovereignty to some bunch of losers in Brussels, as opposed to the losers we have at the moment?

’m talking about at least getting the VOTING ON POLICIES to be more open and accountable, and at some level accountable to the people who voted a member in.

Yeah, they’re called elections and we have them every so often. If you don’t like what your local member is doing, then send them a letter.

There are many mechanisms for improving democracies. EG: Australians should have the power to recall their representative if that member no longer really reflects the views of their electorate. We don’t have that, but many European countries consider that a natural democratic right! (The local electorate signs a large enough petition and the member is recalled to sit another election. I’m amazed that we don’t have that right here!)

What makes you think that the electorate has more wisdom than politicians? We choose them to represent us, not to parrot us. We elect them to use their judgement, not to purely mirror the desires of their electorate (which is impossible anyway). If we had a recall method, then politicians would never make hard or complex decisions in fear of being recalled. Elections are the best method for judgement on politicians.

In any event, why bother? What is creating another parliament going to give us that we don’t have already, apart from achieving some pie-in-the-sky ideal of world unity? What is it that we will get in return from suborning our sovereignty to some bunch of losers in Brussels, as opposed to the losers we have at the moment?

I get to vote on issues of world significance. Imagine instead of a bunch of politicians sitting in Copenhagen, we could actually put the solution to global problems to a global electorate! Imagine a GLOBAL referendum on how to solve climate change and peak oil? Imagine saving a trillion dollars a year by using one currency? Imagine far, far less wars?

Yeah, they’re called elections and we have them every so often. If you don’t like what your local member is doing, then send them a letter.

I did. Nothing happened, not even a reply. Zip! So if the political philosophers I read can imagine a better domestic democracy than we currently have, surely they’ll be cluey as to the pro’s and con’s of WORLD POWER and how to avoid it falling into the wrong hands.

What makes you think that the electorate has more wisdom than politicians? We choose them to represent us, not to parrot us.

Can I quote that back to you when someone you voted for goes all greenie on you and decides to get real serious about climate change?

We elect them to use their judgement, not to purely mirror the desires of their electorate (which is impossible anyway). If we had a recall method, then politicians would never make hard or complex decisions in fear of being recalled. Elections are the best method for judgement on politicians.

Not true. This is an existing right in many European countries. I understand that California has the power of recall built into their constitution, and yet they go ahead with controversial projects all the time.

I get to vote on issues of world significance. Imagine instead of a bunch of politicians sitting in Copenhagen, we could actually put the solution to global problems to a global electorate!

I find this most laughable at all. I think you should start advocating for the model of Clive Hamilton - the suspension of democracy. If 198 leaders or however many there were at Copenhagen cannot agree then 6 billion people will never agree. 4.5 billion people have no real interest in compromising their chances of actually developing a real economy. To have a vote, you need a consensus on a proposition to vote on and as the republican debate showed us, the wrong proposition will always sink a vote.

Can I quote that back to you when someone you voted for goes all greenie on you and decides to get real serious about climate change?

Sure, when you find a major political party that is serious on climate change according to your greenie standards. Neither currently would fit because people in general aren’t willing to tax themselves into oblivion for the sake of inner-city existential loathing.

for the sake of inner-city existential loathing.

...or science, and saving lives.

Look at the EU… is it good or bad that some BNP reps got into the EU Parliament? (Hang on, they have 3 levels of government…. I’ll have to check that it was the parliament).

I’d say it is SHOCKING that a few BNP’s got into the EU parliament because it reveals the state of British sentiment about racial issues etc, but ultimately, it reflects a healthy democracy because if even eeewwwwky parties like that can get a spot at the top job, then it demonstrates a guarantee that all voices will be heard.

...or science, and saving lives.

That would be true except the Green Left have rejected any solution that doesn’t involve the deindustrialisation of the West.

Look at the EU… is it good or bad that some BNP reps got into the EU Parliament?

The better question is: has democracy improved through the addition of the EU parliament? I would say no because in the end, countries respond to their own internal interests and not some overarching interest stemming from somewhere else. A world government would be exactly the same.

That would be true except the Green Left have rejected any solution that doesn’t involve the deindustrialisation of the West.

I’m part of the Green Left and I say rubbish. That’s a lazy and uncharitable straw-man. Want to try again?

I would say no because in the end, countries respond to their own internal interests and not some overarching interest stemming from somewhere else.

Yeah, that must be why the EU is bailing out Greece, self interest. But what was that Adam Smith came up with about how Capitalism works?

A world government would be exactly the same.

Excellent! We’d have WORLD authorities bailing out countries that got themselves into financial trouble, and in the rescue package demanding new accountability and responsible economic management laws and procedures. Bring it on!

Hey Lee,
it would be great if you could retract the straw-man accusation above. While there are a few “de-industrialisation nutters” in the greenie movement, it would be great if you could refrain from tarnishing the serious science of climate change with this kind of cheap shot.

For instance, Dr Barry Brook is a climatologist so alarmed that he runs a blog all about nuclear power.

He has convinced me that nuclear is an option… NOT the only option, but one plan if all others fail.

From my dummies guide to nuclear power page:

  * IFR’s eat today’s nuclear waste, and are the only way to economically solve the previous generation’s nuclear waste!
  * Instead of old waste being an expensive problem to dispose of, it becomes a fuel that could run the world for the next 500 years! Just the American waste alone would then be worth $30 trillion dollars! (Point 4 here).
  * Nuclear waste from older reactors has to be stored for 100 thousand years, but after ‘burning’ in an IFR it is reduced to 10% of the mass and then only has to be stored for 300 years because it is so radioactive that it quickly burns itself out.
  * 500 years of cheap baseload power is attractive in a world of peak oil, gas, and coal, and who knows what other energy alternatives we may have discovered and developed by then?
  * If we started building IFR’s today, by the time we ran out of ‘normal waste’ to reprocess, the first few generations of IFR ’super-hot’ waste would have burnt themselves out and could be decommissioned from high security storage and be safe! That’s the nuclear waste problem solved!

http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/alternative-energy/nuclear/

Dr Barry Brooks is a climatologist and runs the following blog. Want to have a look around and see if it sounds like a de-industrialist?
http://bravenewclimate.com/

I really don’t know why I’m bothering to answer your cheap shots… strawman attacks like that are worthy of the label “internet troll”.

From an email list I’m on comes a rave about a new movie, “World Vote Now!”

I don’t know about the use of the word Utopia in the preview, because although I love Australia I wouldn’t regard it as a Utopia. (But maybe if I’d grown up in Ethiopia or Darfur, I wouldn’t dismiss the use of that word so easily?)

Otherwise, I’ve just got to see this movie! The preview says it might be doable in 12 to 15 years.

More on the film “World Vote Now”:
http://www.worldvotenow.com/

Forwarded from: http://en.unpacampaign.org/news/482.php

At an event inside the European Parliament hosted by European lawmaker Graham Watson, the Club of Rome EU Chapter and the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, the cornerstones for a possible future global democracy were debated on the occasion of a special screening of the
documentary ‘World Vote Now’ by Joel Ben Marsden.

Jessica Elio, Charge d’affaires of the Bolivian Embassy to the EU elaborated on the proposal for a global referendum that Bolivian President Evo Morales made during the recent Climate talks in Copenhagen. “When my President, went to Copenhagen, what most struck him was the lack of democracy,” she stated. “It is the people that will decide what the states have not been able to decide.” According to President Morales, the citizens of all nations should be asked, among other things, whether consumption patterns on the planet should be changed, and whether pollutants emission should be reduced to one
percent. Elio commented that “President Morales gave this idea, now it is up to a World Vote to decide on this.”

Pau Solanilla, representing the Spanish Presidency of the EU Council, stated that “we need to create the conditions for this democratic process.” Solanilla named five fundamental conditions for global democracy. These included global citizenship with equal rights and
duties, a global constitution and rules at the global level, a global public opinion and debate, a parliamentary assembly at the global level and truly global political actors,“that think globally and not
only in terms of their territory or their particular interests.”

Solanilla, who is Parliamentary Advisor to the Spanish Secretary of State for the EU stressed that “we need a kind of parliamentary assembly.”

The Director of the Secretariat of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, Andreas Bummel, pointed out that the efforts for global democracy are closely connected with the struggle to establish democracy at the national level. “Both is interlinked and cannot be separated,” he said.

Commenting on the debate, the Director of amnesty international’s EU office, Nicolas J. Beger said that “I do not see why the Utopia of global democracy should not come.”

Graham Watson summarized: “People are recognizing that we have a global economy, but we don’t yet have a global culture, or a global governance or even a coherent vision of global concern. And that’s what I think we have to build.”

*Brussels Declaration on Global Democracy*
On the occasion of the event, Watson presented the Brussels Declaration on Global Democracy that demands “sound democratic structures at the global level” and that “mechanisms and preconditions are explored that make it possible to conduct a global referendum.”
Initial supporters of this declaration include former UN Secretary General, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, UBUNTU-World Forum of Civil Society Networks, the Club of Rome   EU Chapter and the Union of European Federalists.

Download the Declaration: http://www.kdun.org/en/documents/2010declaration.pdf
Pictures of the event: http://www.flickr.com/photos/unpacampaign/sets/72157623504964782/

So how would you break the deadlock on the Doha round of trade talks then? If countries cannot agree to trade conditions, how could they agree to a world government?

Why is this such an issue now? What is more important for the long term picture is the slow creation of economic free-trade and common currency areas across Africa and South America. It’s the gradual alignment of currencies and economies that leads to the formation of larger political unions that can pool resources under one Federal Government.

So the real question is, what trade deadlocks are there in the European Union?

(Edit to rewrite following section for clarity)

In other words, when did the EU have a Doha within it’s borders?

And what happens as EU styled zones gradually form across Africa and South America and Central Asia, and then they too start to kick of discussions about more global legislation?

I don’t know why people immediately imagine a world dictator. But at least with the release of the World Vote Now documentary, people will start to realise that it is outrageous that they can’t vote on global matters or elect people to positions of global Federation.

With movies like World Vote Now increasing across the net and various distribution channels, people are starting to see that ensuring our right to vote on world matters matters!

Why is it an issue? Because if the world cannot agree on a common set of trade conditions, which involves making decisions that are compromises that benefit all, how will it ever agree on a world government or a world currency? If countries are refusing to lower trade barriers and protection because of their local interests, what makes you think everyone will ever hold hands and sing kumbaya in Geneva as they announce a world government and currency?

You seem to think that having an EU work is the same as having regional arrangements and eventually world arrangements. The European Union is a group of incredibly similar countries with shared history working together. It is way different once you start to trying to blend countries that are radically different together. I think we’ll see peace in the Middle East (which is exceedingly unlikely) before we’ll see a functioning world government.

Because if the world cannot agree on a common set of trade conditions

then they won’t be like an EU, will they? But after a few decades of country-by-country recruitment through the already existing momentum towards a larger EU, African Union, South American Union, Central Asian Union, etc… maybe these bigger players will eventually amalgamate.

If countries are refusing to lower trade barriers and protection because of their local interests, what makes you think everyone will ever hold hands and sing kumbaya in Geneva as they announce a world government and currency?

Ridiculous word games will get you no where mate. This is precisely what I debunked in the last post. I’m talking about country-by-country amalgamation into various Unions around the world. The goals are already drawn up, the leaders are already meeting… there are schedules to keep.

You seem to think that having an EU work is the same as having regional arrangements and eventually world arrangements.

Ummmm, the EU is a region, one of the most important on the planet. This is the powerhouse that, for good or ill, exploded out to settle the world in the 16th and 17th Centuries, the region that led to the Industrial Revolution, and last century threw us into 2 world wars because THIS REGION couldn’t “get along”.

You want to play semantic games by pretending it is not a significant region? Mate, the EU is not the ‘same as’ a “regional arrangement”... IT IS THE REGIONAL ARRANGEMENT. It is not only the rise of another USA in one generation, but is better than that. The USA is only one country, the EU is a Federal model that could easily include all countries!

The European Union is a group of incredibly similar countries with shared history working together.

Ha ha ha ha! Oh mate, you said that with a serious face too? Come on, you had to smirk. A shared history of working together? Tell that to Poland on 1st September 1939. Or to the Jews.

(Scream the following out while goose-stepping around the lounge room…)
“We have a shared history of working together!”

Anyway, the point you conveniently keep overlooking is that the regional amalgamations that ARE already in process already share some commonalities, if only the shared experience of a post-colonial Africa, or the shared experience of being dominated by richer neighbours to the north if you live in South America. These commonalities are creating the pressure for a dream of regional unity that you can’t deny. The leader’s meet, the timetables are drawn up, mini-regional economies are already forming in Africa as stepping stones to larger mergers…. it’s all good.

“A shared history of working together….” Part 2.

“We are all working together!” Part 3

Interestingly, the Pope is behind the idea of stronger world authorities.

Caritas in Veritate’
The papal encyclical ‘Caritas in Veritate’ (“Love in Truth’) includes a call for an establishment of an effective global authority “to manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result.” This follows the earlier call of Pope John XXIII in his 1963 encyclical ‘Pacem in Terris’ (Peace on Earth), which called for a ‘supranational organization’ to promote ‘the universal common good’. The text in detail:

“In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making.
This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.
Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.
Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations.
The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.” 

The World Citizen’s Australia PDF continues… on EU again.

The Lisbon Treaty
Agreed upon by EU leaders in Portugal’s capital in December 2007, but only completely ratified this past October – is a tremendous step for European unity and harmony, and marks a historic, dramatic shift in European and global dynamics. The treaty created the positions of European President (that is, President of the European Council, replacing the rotating presidency) and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, both meant to present a united EU position. The treaty also increases the use of majority voting in the Council of Ministers, and increases involvement of the democratically-elected European Parliament in the legislative process.
The new permanent EU President, currently former Belgian Prime Minister Herman van Rompuy, is appointed by the European Council for two and a half years, with maximum two terms. The first High Representative is Baroness Catherine Ashton of the UK. The High Representative will also be supported by the European External Action Service (EEAS), the EU’s collective diplomatic service.
The treaty also increases areas of “co-decision” in which the directly-elected European Parliament has an equal say with the Council of Ministers, and the Parliament will be consulted on budgetary matters and international agreements. Meanwhile the national parliaments will be able to give input at the earliest stages of the legislative procedure. The treaty also introduces “citizens’ initiatives,” by which citizens will be able to suggest policies to the Commission.
In the Council of Ministers, the treaty also increases areas of qualified majority voting, which will now be the main method of decision making there, reducing the Vol 6, 1 6
areas requiring unanimity. Unanimity will still be necessary in areas considered crucial to member states’ interests, however, such as taxes, foreign policy, defense, and social welfare.
For implementation of the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy, members agree In the treaty to provide civilian and military resources, which nevertheless remain under their control, so their use will require member states’ approval.
As noted, the treaty also makes the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, creating an extensive set of common rights for all EU citizens. 

Oh wow Dave, you discovered WWII. So I was a bit imprecise when I said working together but if you look at European history as a whole, there wouldn’t be too many countries that haven’t been allied at one point or another. 3 centuries ago you would have never seen England and France allied but last century they did.

And yes, they have a shared history simply because of the wars and alliances as well as a shared history and common ancestry (ie the Roman and Greek Empires).

Yes, regional arrangements in Africa and South America might work for the same sorts of reasons, of common ethnicity and shared history, though the thorough undemocratic governments that have ruled and continue to rule in those areas will undermine any truly democratic aspirations. But going from that to a world federation is a huge step. Europe and Africa and South America don’t shared common history or ethnicity. As is the EU is facing major dilemmas over who to include with Turkey, who isn’t like everyone else.

Look, we clearly disagree. I have no interest in your pie in the sky nonsense and you clearly think the same sort of thing about my views. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

“I have no interest in your pie in the sky nonsense..”

But which one’s Dave ?