NationStates Jolt Archive

In this forum I have often heard Americans talking of the rise of the EU. I would like to take the opurtunity to point out that if metaphorically becoming a superpower is like climbing a mountain, the EU wouldn't be able to find its own fly-buttons at base camp. But it need not be this way.

To increase the power of Europe the government needs to be more centralised to cut down on Bureauocracy not an oversized free-trade pact. I believe Europe could be one country or an alliance. The EU at the moment is neither and as a conquence is ineffective. It could be however a large empire (for lack of a better word) created without a single drop of blood. The EU could be formed into somthing greater then it is, however I also believe that it could become even greater then a united states of Europe.

Picture this, an anglophone aliance between the UK, the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Austrialia. The alliance would aim towards a federation like Europe with Britain being a member of both. Then the Anglophone and Europian alliance's would merge together, with the barriers of language taken away, the same laws, the same currency (eventually) and trade tariffs. The Western Aliance would automatically dominate three continents on Earth. Without the rest of the western world America dominates the world; together we could rule it.

In this forum I have often heard Americans talking of the rise of the EU. I would like to take the opurtunity to point out that if metaphorically becoming a superpower is like climbing a mountain, the EU wouldn't be able to find its own fly-buttons at base camp. But it need not be this way.

To increase the power of Europe the government needs to be more centralised to cut down on Bureauocracy not an oversized free-trade pact. I believe Europe could be one country or an alliance. The EU at the moment is neither and as a conquence is rather rubbish. It could be however a large empire (for lack of a better word) created without a single drop of blood. The EU could be formed into somthing greater then it is, however I also believe that it could become even greater then a united states of Europe.

Picture this, an anglophone aliance between the UK, the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Austrialia. The alliance would aim towards a federation like Europe with Britain being a member of both. Then the Anglophone and Europian alliance's would merge together, with the barriers of language taken away, the same laws, the same currency (eventually) and trade tariffs. The Western Aliance would automatically dominate three continents on Earth. Without the rest of the western world America dominates the world; together we could rule it.
You haven't written a little coloured book that exaplins all this have you?

I wanted it to be blue but you know what printers are like...

I wanted it to be blue but you know what printers are like...
As long as you don't go for puce, I'm using that! ;)

I'm serious, can't you imagine how much good an alliance like that would be for the world?

Would you rather have the Chinese Communist Party as the world's superpower?

The revolution(corporate take-over) is at hand brothers(fellow shareholders)! Any dissenters will be sent to a labour camp(holiday resort) where they will use a pickaxe to mine salt(enjoy the fitness centres of the afore-mentioned resort). Rise up!

so many people in Britain are loathe enough to loose any shred of national sovereignity to Europe as it is... a larger alliance would probably meet yet more opposition from these nutcases :rolleyes:

however i do agree the EU should move out of limbo and either go back to the bare basics (boo!) or move forwards to being a fully-fledged federal country in its own right (hooray!)

I think Britain has some great instiutions but I don't think they need to be lost like many people think. Also a lot of people would be afraid of Britain being Bullied by other Europian nations. Thats why I think a larger union could work in the advantage of Britain. The addition of other Anglophone nations would mean the "Anglophone" instituions and in particular Anglo-Saxon capitalism would would be less diluted.

Anybody else?

In this forum I have often heard Americans talking of the rise of the EU. I would like to take the opurtunity to point out that if metaphorically becoming a superpower is like climbing a mountain, the EU wouldn't be able to find its own fly-buttons at base camp. But it need not be this way.

To increase the power of Europe the government needs to be more centralised to cut down on Bureauocracy not an oversized free-trade pact. I believe Europe could be one country or an alliance. The EU at the moment is neither and as a conquence is rather rubbish. It could be however a large empire (for lack of a better word) created without a single drop of blood. The EU could be formed into somthing greater then it is, however I also believe that it could become even greater then a united states of Europe.

Picture this, an anglophone aliance between the UK, the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Austrialia. The alliance would aim towards a federation like Europe with Britain being a member of both. Then the Anglophone and Europian alliance's would merge together, with the barriers of language taken away, the same laws, the same currency (eventually) and trade tariffs. The Western Aliance would automatically dominate three continents on Earth. Without the rest of the western world America dominates the world; together we could rule it.

While an undeclared Anglophonic alliance exists - it includes India and Kenya, and Nigeria is moving towards it, while South Africa is moving away from it and America erroniously perceives itself as the leader, any formal move in such a direction would be politically untennable. Most of the English speaking world's population is in Africa and is most disinclined to see the Empire revisited in any significant way - see the weakness of the commonwealth in comparison to its French and Portugese equivilants. To leave the African Countries out would lead to defening calls of racism, to include them would be self defeating. Further a move towards a greater Anglo Saxon identity would lead not to closer links with Europe as you advocate but a chilling of relations, especially in the Elyse palace and Bunderstaag. Such an allance would also promote what may already be happening, a move by the autocratic, theocratic and facist and populist anti American states towards forming their own Great alliance - note China, Iran, Cuba, Chavez's country that I can't spell, my own Zimbabwe, Sudan and Equitorial Gunie to move closer together - and those are just the countries I know who have signed joint military and economic pacts in the last year or so. Lastly, there is no proof that India, Canada, Ireland, Kenya or New Zealand would be inclined to make such an alliance anything more than a preferetial trading venture, while Australia, Britain and the US have quite close ties already.

A more thoroughly intergrated Europe is needed desperately, with more European an outlook and administrative ethos, Britain will have to put up and shut up if it wants to be part of that body, and if not it can scurry off into economic isolation and ultimately poverty.

I was using "Anglophone" as a word to descirbe a shared cultural and political heritage not the actual practice of speaking English, I should really have made that clearer. I admit also I did not think of African Nations when I posted the thread. I also admit that I do not know enough about African nations to comment effectively.
I still stick to the principle however that a bond across the atlantic would be a force for good in world affairs. While you are right it probably would fuel anti-Americanism I don't think that that is a good enough reseason to disregard the idea. IF the countries were to form a strong political union nothing short of a world war could destroy it and I doubt even china could come out victorious. IT would also be a far more effective force for combating terrorism and othe interational matters, trade would inprove with the loss of barriers and a united currency would be dominant for generations. By Anglo-saxon captialism I was refering to a version of cpatialism with low state interference as opposed to the more interventionist and protectionist Rheinish captialist economy.

Yes you are also right that a move towards Anglo-saxon capitalism would probably not go down well in France and Germany. But seeing as their economy is rather poorly at the moment while Britain (touch wood) is growing I don't think it will be Britain that will end up changing. IT was toward an economic system not racial identity that I was refering to. To quote the oxford dictionary of politics...

A system of capitalism characterized by extensive market coodination by economic actors....Anglo-saxon capitalism is associated with the UK and US but also characterises Canada, Austrialia, New Zealand and Ireland... Political research on Anglo-saxon capitalism draws on liberal political theory and neoclassical economic thought

Anybody else?
Sounds good to me as long as we get enough regional autonomy so that each nation's culture and society isn't changed.

It would probably be federal in structure like the US or Canada perhaps

In this forum I have often heard Americans talking of the rise of the EU. I would like to take the opurtunity to point out that if metaphorically becoming a superpower is like climbing a mountain, the EU wouldn't be able to find its own fly-buttons at base camp. But it need not be this way.

To increase the power of Europe the government needs to be more centralised to cut down on Bureauocracy not an oversized free-trade pact. I believe Europe could be one country or an alliance. The EU at the moment is neither and as a conquence is ineffective. It could be however a large empire (for lack of a better word) created without a single drop of blood. The EU could be formed into somthing greater then it is, however I also believe that it could become even greater then a united states of Europe.

Picture this, an anglophone aliance between the UK, the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Austrialia. The alliance would aim towards a federation like Europe with Britain being a member of both. Then the Anglophone and Europian alliance's would merge together, with the barriers of language taken away, the same laws, the same currency (eventually) and trade tariffs. The Western Aliance would automatically dominate three continents on Earth. Without the rest of the western world America dominates the world; together we could rule it.

So that'd be the US, UK and its little colonies and Hobbit Land then? The UK will never join mwahahahahaha...the EU rocks!! WOO HOO :p

Sounds good to me as long as we get enough regional autonomy so that each nation's culture and society isn't changed.


Sorry I hate to say this, but the idea is silly bloody nonsense, dangerous nonsense at that. Possibly even racist nonsense - I'm not calling anyone racist, just the idea.

As an english speaking African, granted and anglo saxon one, let me tell you that most of english speaking Africa is quite close culturally to Britain, even (possibly especially) when we would rather not be. The realy problem with this idea is not what the grouping is called, who is in it or how centralised it may be, but who is not in it, why and what their reaction to that would be.

So that'd be the US, UK and its little colonies and Hobbit Land then? The UK will never join mwahahahahaha...the EU rocks!! WOO HOO :p

I don't think Aussies and Candians like their countries being refered to colonies and secondly the UK will never join what? the EU?

I don't think this is very likely. People hate to give up their autonomy, or even agree to anything that sounds remotely like giving up autonomy. People occasionally suggest that Australia and New Zealand should become one country, or share a currency, but even a relatively small proposal like this is strongly opposed by most people. A global alliance/federation would be really unpopular, and probably inefficient anyway.

I'm not saying it would be easy but I'm asked if it did happen would it life in the world be better? I don't agree that one large state would be less efficent. In fact it would be more effficent as each country would not have to maintain its own civil service and armed forces. Would the USA be more efficient if each of the states were independent? I'm not abolishing capitalism or anyhing, merely creating a climate where trade can flourish

The realy problem with this idea is not what the grouping is called, who is in it or how centralised it may be, but who is not in it, why and what their reaction to that would be.

You're right if the union was designed for countries of European heritage only it would be racist and cause an international out cry. THat is not however the point of the union. The union would be their to make a large nation that could better deal with international problems that individuel nationstates can't. A much larger country could better deal with terrorism or AIDS or flu-emidemics. It could deal with rogue nations more efficently. IT would also have the possiblilty of growth. It could incorporate non-western nations into it. IF African Nations want to join the union and woould fit in economically then of course they could join. Why would the union turn down an oppurnity for greater international influence?

It could better coordinate conservation of the environment as well.

It could better coordinate conservation of the environment as well.

I agree with this, individual nations are often really bad at environmental policy. Many environmental problems are international, so the democratic process often ends up with "screw this, we're not making any sacrifices unless everyone else does."

Thats just one example of how it could help in the world.

All antagonistic to Mother China! :mad:

Heh. ;)

I say all EU countries should give their armies to an EU high command, have the economies partially run by the EU (by giving up control of agriculture and major industries), but still give the countries the right to follow their own laws and elect their own leaders.

I hope that the EU is not based on Anglo-saxon Capitalisim and an endless search for a higher GDP!

the EU should be founded on quality of life. i bet you that an unemployed FRenchman has a better quality of life than a well-paid white-collar worker in Philadelphia.