[Royal Assassin3]

I like the idea of a european super state and I think it is inevitable.

I like the idea of super states for many reasons:
1. Fewer larger states can result in more efficient international trade and interaction. It's a lot easier to conform a product to the regulations of 5 superstates than 180 ministates.
2. Governmental cooperation is more likely if there were fewer states. It's easier to coordinate the efforts of 5 than 180.
3. The consequences of war are greater amongst superstates thus leading to an increase in world peace.
4. Larger states formed around a declaration of common principles are likely to be more moderate than ministates that may be formed on ethnic lines, the strength of a dictator, or cultural xenophobia.

I also think it is inevitable because:
1. As the world become more and more interconnected by the internet and fast travel geopolitical boundaries seem less important.
2. There are many benefits and few drawbacks to superstates particularly under a federalist system.
3. A growing sense of global identity.

I think within 400 years we will see most of the world in superstates and within a thousand we will have a single global superstate.

[Spectre19]

Quote:

1. Fewer larger states can result in more efficient international trade and interaction. It's a lot easier to conform a product to the regulations of 5 superstates than 180 ministates.
2. Governmental cooperation is more likely if there were fewer states. It's easier to coordinate the efforts of 5 than 180.

two good points

Quote:

3. The consequences of war are greater amongst superstates thus leading to an increase in world peace.

...potentially. The other possibility is, the world gets caught up in an arms race, and finally erupts in catastrophic war (it's happened before )

Quote:

4. Larger states formed around a declaration of common principles are likely to be more moderate than ministates that may be formed on ethnic lines, the strength of a dictator, or cultural xenophobia.

On the other hand, superstates may put at risk the diversity of cultures... I for one would be disappointed to see that. It's not likely though for that to happen in Europe, so I think it's pretty moot

Quote:

1. As the world become more and more interconnected by the internet and fast travel geopolitical boundaries seem less important.
2. There are many benefits and few drawbacks to superstates particularly under a federalist system.

good points again

Quote:

3. A growing sense of global identity

what do you mean by this?

Quote:

I think within 400 years we will see most of the world in superstates and within a thousand we will have a single global superstate.

For the reasons Caelis stated, the idea of a global state is frightening. I personally would start to be concerned if the world consisted of less than 20 countries. I don't think the assurance of absolutely free trade and global cooperation is worth the risk of a global Orwellian dystopia.

[Downwithgravity]

Quote:

...potentially. The other possibility is, the world gets caught up in an arms race, and finally erupts in catastrophic war (it's happened before )

No.
The arms race might happen but it's result will be the economically less efficient side going bankrupt(see the Cold War).

As for catastrophic war, unless it's accidental somehow, i don't see it happening either. No one in their right mind will start a war knowing nothing will exist afterwards.

A superstate is inevitable, tho i wouldn't call it a superstate, i prefer the term union. There's a pattern in history:
Pack -> Mob -> Nomadic Tribe -> Village -> Town -> State -> (Superstate)

Clusters of packs formed mobs. Clusters of mobs formed tribes. And so on. There's only one thing that can come out of clusters of states. History repeats itself and it will not stop to do so just because we don't want to 'lose our cultural identity' or 'be controlled by evil corporations'.

It will take hundrends of years under normal circumstances. However, in the face of a common threat, it will take less than a decade.

A united Europe is an important step towards the future superstate. Whether it proves to benefit it's people or not, it will happen.

[O s i r i s]

History may repeat itself but that has nothing to do with a european superstate as it has never exsisted. unless you mean one country will try to take over europe by force because that has happend many times before and never worked

[Spectre19]

Quote:

No.
The arms race might happen but it's result will be the economically less efficient side going bankrupt(see the Cold War).

again, potentially... the Cold War ended that way, so could a future arms race... or it could end like World War One except bigger and worse... and you can't just say nobody is stupid enough to... there are some pretty fucking stupid people in the world, and they have often fucked up BIG TIME

Quote:

Clusters of packs formed mobs. Clusters of mobs formed tribes. And so on. There's only one thing that can come out of clusters of states. History repeats itself and it will not stop to do so just because we don't want to 'lose our cultural identity' or 'be controlled by evil corporations'.

Just because we can't stop it happening doesn't mean we should necessarily think it should happen =\

[Royal Assassin3]

Originally Posted by Spectre19:

again, potentially... the Cold War ended that way, so could a future arms race... or it could end like World War One except bigger and worse... and you can't just say nobody is stupid enough to... there are some pretty fucking stupid people in the world, and they have often fucked up BIG TIME

If there's to be another major world war a la world war 1 it would be due to obligations to some smaller state and ambiguities of response. For example China invading Taiwan expecting that the U.S. would decide it isn't worth going to war for. Assuming China indeed misjudged, the war would then escalate until the two big powers were fighting in open conflict.

However, if all the states were big states there is no ambiguity of response. For example, the "Eastern Block" couldn't expect to take Hawaii without sparking a major war.

[Bernel]

Originally Posted by Royal Assassin3:

However, if all the states were big states there is no ambiguity of response. For example, the "Eastern Block" couldn't expect to take Hawaii without sparking a major war.

What about fishing rights or any other rights concerning Antarctica or International waters? One state claiming exclusive rights over a larger area, another disputing it. Some terrorist attack that is, correctly or not, blamed on another country. There are always reasons wars can break out. It doesn't have to be one state deciding on a suicidal nuclear attack, it might start as a gradual escalation where both sides assume the other will back down.

[rsyhdtyjffdtyj]

Why would we want a superstate here in Europe?
The older members have a great standard of living, the newer former communist states are fast catching up. And it is improving (albeit slowely) even moreso cannot generally complain about that.

No one has a reason to invade Europe as it would leave no one to buy oil from Russia and everything else from China, so financially they have no need to attack. So I do not see military unification as a reason.
Another reason for now seeing unification as a reason: we are too small to invade another country (maybe Germany, France or Uk could invade like Iceland at best , so government cannot drag us into Iraq like wars, which I think is good

Also look at belgium, that's a mess, wealth of the nation keeps it together.


But the most fundamental reason: remember the last time Europe was the worlds most powerfull? Why would anyone want that?
When Europeans dominated the world:
-Slave trade started at the least.
-Apartheid in South-Africa founded.
-Killing of native peoples everywhere we colonized.
-All African conflicts due to borders Europeans put on maps pretty much at random.
-Current sectarian violence in Iraq, once more Europeans just put some lines on map and said let's make this a nation.
-Any idea who ruled the earth (US still busy in own back yard) when the Israël/palestinian mess started?

Let's face it, Europeans, my ancestors, throughout history have been prone to war. It was a right bloody mess until some nations became stronger than us. US and USSR agressive? Better not to disturb this sleeping dog .
I think it is safer to let China, US and Russia sort things out and just let us, the real warmongerers, worry about reducing polution, goofing aroudn with our treaty's and keep our city's tidy for tourists.

[rsyhdtyjffdtyj]

Originally Posted by Royal Assassin3:

I think within 400 years we will see most of the world in superstates and within a thousand we will have a single global superstate.

Also I would not want this. What if that one state would prove to be a bad one? Where am I supposed to go then? Cubans can flea to the US. Zimbabwans can flea to South Africa, Sudanese can flea to Chad, Etheopia. But where the heck am I supposed to go if all the world is one big state?

[asjdajsdjajdsj]

I'm fed up with Europe. In Britain we have massive immigration from the other European states and while I do not condone other fellow Europeans coming in and taking jobs the problem I have is them coming in taking jobs below minimum wage and stinging of the British people when it comes the National Health Care. Its one of the reasons why British Health Care is so overstretched (there are other reasons of course).

Apart from that I like Britain as an independent state I prefer our parliament as its exciting and I find the Brussels bureaucracy a terrible waste of money and terribly inefficient. Our highest court can't extradite a terrorist to the Us anymore he gets another chance at the EU courts something is wrong when Britain can't make decisions and some outsider in Europe can.

If Britain ever got a vote on the EU it would be a big no and therefore I don't intend to see a European superstate with Britain in it. Neither do I foresee one in the future every country wants some sort of power and when its eroded people feel like they are getting a bad deal. So I voted NO.

[Syke]

Yeah, I think that's the trend and I think it's a positive one. I think that a European cooperative would be a good step in bolstering the UN and moving towards creating a more global friendly system of checks and balances on individual states.

Oh, and I'm not European.

[Black Oranje]

A European superstate is necessary more than ever in my opinion. Russia has proven that it is not scared to use aggressive politics, for example they use Gazprom to cut off gas pipes to neighboring countries, and even military intervention in Georgia. One of the reasons for this, is testing Europe. They know Europe is more powerfull than them, but they also know it will be impossible for them to make swift decisions, something the Kremlin can do much quicker than the beaurocratic European collection of national governments and the comission (and I can remember the time we said the USSR was bureaucratic). The world is rapidly changing. We're in the middle of welcoming China and India to the international stage. Also, we can put our hands together for Russia being back on the stage. If the EU continues to be a divided de-centralized union, it will not be able to effectively defend diplomatically against intimidations from Russia, nor will it have a big say in international conflicts (it will, instead, most likely follow the USA into their wars, much as they do know).

The EU needs a big fist. The EU needs to unite. The Georgia crisis revealed the weakness of the west: warn, but incapable of really intimidating a powerfull state like Russia. Sure the west is able to tackle regimes like Saddam's Iraq and the Taliban (and even that with great effort), but Russia ain't impressed. Neither is China.

[VaX]

I believe that one day as a species we will become one entity. Instead of hundreds of countries I see us joining one large power. Whether this is in a hundred years or a hundred thousand years I think it will happen.

And so I do believe Europe should become just one power. I think all of the countries should form together with their own continent until one day when those too can join together.

[Lunor]

Yes, I would want a European Superstate (as a European). That's the first step to a Global Superstate, which I believe would end wars, hunger and all that bad stuff.

If we put our powers together instead of quarreling, I think we can achieve *so* much as a world.
One step (and it's a big one) towards that would be a European Superstate, so I am all for it. We have to start somewhere.

[marli]

Im not to worried about the superstate.
im worried about the growth, i think that we should have let in poland then delayed the rest 2-3 years, the truth is the poor states will leech of the rich states which isnt too bad but if the difference is too big ,which i beleive it will be if we take hungeray or turkey in the next 5 year, the flow will be TOO fast.

the reason that you see so many easten europeans in the uk is that thier goverment cant spent the money they get FAST enough.

[Black Oranje]

Originally Posted by marli:

Im not to worried about the superstate.
im worried about the growth, i think that we should have let in poland then delayed the rest 2-3 years, the truth is the poor states will leech of the rich states which isnt too bad but if the difference is too big ,which i beleive it will be if we take hungeray or turkey in the next 5 year, the flow will be TOO fast.

the reason that you see so many easten europeans in the uk is that thier goverment cant spent the money they get FAST enough.

Agreed to some extend. I think the big move in eastern europe was ok, but right now we'll need to wait untill the countries that are currently still receive a lot of money develop further so they become net payers. Only then will it be financially responsible to expand.

[Michael1]

Originally Posted by Lunor:

That's the first step to a Global Superstate, which I believe would end wars, hunger and all that bad stuff.

If we put our powers together instead of quarreling, I think we can achieve *so* much as a world.
One step (and it's a big one) towards that would be a European Superstate, so I am all for it. We have to start somewhere.

Aren't you worried in the least bit about what will happen once Senator Palpatine begins to consolidate his power?

[DHoffryn]

Quote:

im worried about the growth, i think that we should have let in poland then delayed the rest 2-3 years, the truth is the poor states will leech of the rich states which isnt too bad but if the difference is too big ,which i beleive it will be if we take hungeray or turkey in the next 5 year, the flow will be TOO fast

I think the EU made quite a big mistake when they moved East and i am from the East. I think taking in Turkey not just in the near future but ever would be a giant mistake

Quote:

Aren't you worried in the least bit about what will happen once Senator Palpatine begins to consolidate his power?

No since he will be probably be Microsoft's little bitch.. The future belongs to the gigantic companies sadly.

[DuffMan1]

Now I know this place is hardcore atheist, but a European superstate is one of the final signs of the Apocalypse. So mine vote would be a no...

[Spectre19]

Originally Posted by DuffMan1:

Now I know this place is hardcore atheist, but a European superstate is one of the final signs of the Apocalypse. So mine vote would be a no...

What? Does it say that in the bible somewhere, or do yuo mean oyu just think it would likely lead tot he end of the world?