European Union = Next United States?

After checking out this Libson treaty, it seems like the EU is going to become one major country. Their form of government seems to be a bit similar to the American government. Probably not that close since our US government is fucking weird, but close enough.

Ireland just passed their support for the treaty. What does Europe becoming on country mean for the rest of the world?

It means they'll bicker even more than they do already, the federal government will be as corrupt as the UN, they'll employ protectionism to increase the profit of particular parts of the union...

It's just not a workable solution. Hell, the USA are barely holding together right now. Ditto for Canada.

>>2
I completely agree. It just doesn't work. And the US Federal Government and states were mainly suppose to work independently of each other in most cases. People have largely forgot the ideas from the Founding Fathers and now it's just one big mess.

Regardless of geographic location, local issues require government on a local level. The more you move away from that, the more things become problematic and inefficient.

>>3
I know the framers of the constitution (the founding fathers had no input on the government system) didn't think the national gov. would get to powerful, but thats just how it works. It just can't be balanced evenly, no matter how logically you think. The main government is always going to overrule the smaller one.

American government is only a mess because we break into only fucking two political parties. There are so many more in Europe so they have a better chance of being a total federal government than we do.

>>4

That's not quite a perfect solution, either.

Canada is currently stuck in what seems to be a never ending minority government.

Nothing gets done!

Have you read the 10th Amendment?

>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Seems to me they made it pretty fucking clear.

World government isn't inherantly evil. All these nationalists needs to start arguing "we just want to make sure it's done properly" instead of "HURF DURF CONSPIRACY".

>>6

A world government that wants to disarm all its "citizens" IS inherently evil, though.

Single State Europe will never happen.

There is too much grass roots opposition to it.  Apart form Ireland no other nation has dared give its electorate a referendum, they know we would all vote No.

>>8
People never thought a European Union would happen, yet here we are now. A Constitution for Europe was proposed, as well as the Lisbon treaty. There may be grass roots efforts, but Euroscepticism is dwindling amongst the majority of the population in Europe.

The individual countries of Europe are now starting to be looked upon as mere states or regions rather than sovereign nations. It's not anywhere near completion yet, however give time (maybe a decade or two, or even sooner) Europe will become a united nation of individual states.

also...

JEWS

I want the U.S. and Canada to become North American Union before EU is one.

>>11

The Union would also contain Mexico.

I, personally, want none of it. Canadians will gain little to nothing and lose our great natural resources.

>>12
Canadians will gain nothing...You are a fucktard.

And I would never want Mexico in that union. They will bring nothing to the table.

>>13

What would Canadians stand to gain?

And the union has been in the works for ages. Mexico would be in it. I didn't just pull that out of my ass.

>>14
Alaska, they have been eyeing it covetously like a rapist ever since their borders arrived at it.

All Canada would gain is a red white and blue dildo up their ass.

>>16
There wasn't one already?

>>14
The Canadians would gain being part of the American Empire. What the fuck did you expect?

>>6
Unless you have weaponry to fight back, you don't have a say in anything.

World government is inherently evil.  It would be a perpetual puppet show between 3 parties while the goldsmiths continue to charge interest on money that doesn't exist.

>>18
Canadians would gain

I get to be 7 Trillion dollars in debt too? Fuck that.  I don't like even being in the same country as Quebec.

>>19
Well support a world government that permits private banks to print their own currency then. Don't discard world government just because of some mischievous kikes.

>>20
Why would there even be a need for world government? Just have nations trade with other nations and be friends with other nations. If the United States started on this kind of foreign policy, the rest of the world would follow and realize that it would be a better way.

>>21
So in other words world government in all but name.

>>22
No, there wouldn't be any governance on a world wide scale. Just friendly trade and negotiations; and no outsourcing and/or other immoral globalization going on. I also support U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations, NATO, and other entangling alliances.

>>23

The UN is such bullshit. All they do is push their civil disarmament agenda while pretending to help third world countries.

The fact that my homeland, Canada, is now known as a "UN Peacekeeping force", drowning out all the military accomplishments before that, angers me more than a little. Fuck the UN and fuck the "liberal" part of Canada.

>>24
Sir, I wholeheartedly agree.

>>24

Party*

Blarg. Saying "part" makes it sound like I'm singling out provinces. While the concentration of "liberals" in the eastern provinces is greater, they are not without TRUE liberals.

The LPC is liberal in name only. Fucking statist bastards.

>>23
>Just friendly trade and negotiations
Like the government aids in negotiations between individuals? So essentially a world government.

>no outsourcing and/or other immoral globalization
What's your reasoning for this? Outsourcing provides jobs for impoverished 3rd worlders and means companies can provide their goods and services cheaper, why should everyone pay more just so the jobs go to those unwilling to compete? This is the equivalent of saying "we antarcticans don't want to lose our orange industry, it costs millions just to heat the giant greenhouses we have constructed and the end product costs $50 but it's better than losing our businesses to 5 cent oranges from South Africa".

The idea behind the EU was to create a Euro-negro-arab-turk-china race. And to "replace the diversity of culture and race with the diversity of individuals".
This is probaly why the EU today forces nations to accept nigger and middle-eastern "refugees".

"The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals."

- Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi, one of the most important people behind the european union.

>>29

Bullshit.

If you have 80% of the population being very similar, they'll become more susceptible to disease.

It's nothing but a pipe dream.

Genetic diversity is the key to evolution and survival itself.

>>27
Like the government aids in negotiations between individuals?
No. I actually would want government out of that picture completely. What I mean by "friendly trade" and "negotiations" is individuals from one nation do business and trade with individuals from another with no government intervention. The only reason I would see for governments to have talks with one another is to "undo the damage" from the uncertain hostility and atmosphere of current foreign policy.

I agree and advocate with what Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none".

What's your reasoning for this? Outsourcing provides jobs for impoverished 3rd worlders and means companies can provide their goods and services cheaper, why should everyone pay more just so the jobs go to those unwilling to compete?

That's a good question. See the issue is, people do want to compete. Competition drives prices down and it's always better for the people who buy. Research & Development brings new and wonderful technologies to the forefront. The problem is you have government; and way too much over regulation for the smaller companies that want to compete, and the big guys don't want to compete because they can go to the government and say they want another bailout check. Whereas had they not have had support, they would be forced to compete or sink. The wealth of the nation is being grinded down to a fine powder and what is left is then sprinkled tiny bits that the people that outsourcing supposedly helps, does more or less quite the opposite.

This also ties in with legislation and trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA and fractional reserve banking and devaluation of the dollar; that has a big effect on businesses and economics, but those are another topic altogether (especially fractional reserve banking).

As for helping impoverished third worlders, using China as a good example, those people who work at the assembly lines and factories making those goods that are later exported and sold get a very, very, little piece of the pie. Much of that revenue goes to the Chinese government and officials since the state still had very much control over commerce. China is not a 100% true communist country, but it still carries many features of communism; mostly socially, and some economically. So, yes these people are working and have jobs, but their labor actually supports their own oppression.

>>30
That's just not true, race mixing often leads to weaker immune systems.

>>32
You have something scientific to cite that support that claim?

>>33
Well, when widely seperate groups like that mix alot of very healthy reccessive genes burn.
Certain ethnic groups all have the same reccessive gene that are very often very healthy(northern europeans have natural resistance to aids for example), when then other groups mix into it they often successfully eradicate those genes.

>>34
So you have no sort of scientific data or a report or something similar to back up these claims. Just more ugly collectivist (racist) rhetoric.

Well, good day then.

>>35
That's not rhetoric you retard, it's a fact. Look it up yourself.

>>35
Just answer this question.
Why should ANYONE EVER recieve genes from people whose societies, neighbourhoods and countries are complete failures?

>>35
I learnt this shit in middle school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessive

You are a disgrace to the anti-racist movement, if you set out to disprove racism you have failed miserably and only reinforced the belief that you and everyone like you who knee-jerks uncontrollably and gets hysterical over the racism issue instead of thinking it through is an idiot.

>>36
It is when you have no scientific journal or study that is unbiased, peer-reviewed, and non-partisan. You're projecting your own opinion as fact.

it's a fact. Look it up yourself.

Burden of proof is on you. You're the one spouting off that your opinion is fact, without any supporting evidence.

(northern europeans[sic] have natural resistance to aids[sic] for example)

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

>>37
Even more rhetoric just like >>34 posted. Prove to me with an unbiased, peer-reviewed scientific study or journal that  these people and their societies are complete failures because of their genetics. And not something that someone like David Duke made over a boring weekend.

>>38
It's not hysteria, it's called common sense. That Wikipedia article doesn't say anything of the relation of race to the dominant and recessive genetic diseases in humans. And that's what >>34,36-37 are trying to "prove" and failing to do so.

The Federal government of the United States works for America because the majority of states joined after the union was formed. Almost all of our states were never independent countries before joining the union, and those that were, weren't for long.

Whereas it is very different in Europe. European sovereign nations have existed for a very very long time as sovereign nations with their very own languages and cultures. Many of them have hated each others' guts and warred with each other for hundreds of years.

The American union and the European Union are two very different animals.

The United States was born a union. The "United States of Europe" is barely managing to create a federal government just now and European countries have been sovereign for so long that they are VERY unwilling to turn over their sovereignty to a European federal government.

I don't think European Union will become a true unified federal government the way that the US is in the near future because each individual state has been sovereign for so long. It will take many years, even a hundred years before Europe gets to the point where they are willing to give up their sovereignty in the name of a federal Europe.