Well I'm not.

>>If you are suggesting this has to happen overnight it is a fantasy of your own construction.<<

So it isn't.

>>The 'soft power' of the EU is demonstrated by the sheer number of 'non-Western' countries that have ALREADY, IN HISTORY, DEMONSTRABLY rushed to join it and changed their political and economic systems to do so!<<

The converse of that position is, of course, that the more (less well off) countries that join, the more diluted becomes their power. Think Greece and Ireland from the economic standpoint. And Turkey from the political.

It is the difference, really, between evaluating the concept - as you and the podcasts do - and the end result. Which doesn't bear a great deal of resemblance to the picture on the packet.

>>Slowly, bit by agonising bit, the pieces are falling into place<<

Not really. There are a lot of people making their living from mouthing these vacuous platitudes, that I will grant you. A quick glance at the massive bureaucracy that supports the present gravy-train mentality of the EU is evidence enough.

But in terms of realistic progress towards a common goal? Nothing.

When you have a moment to take off those rose-coloured specs of yours, take a look at the attitude of the various nationalities within their homeland towards the EU. Typically, you find a pattern of hope and enthusiasm, followed by disillusionment and rejection.

Don't take my word for it. Have a look for yourself

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/standard_en.htm

The "trust" factor is interesting. Even Germany's is disappearing fast.

>>You also never addressed whether you like dirty diplomatic deals done behind closed doors. Interesting<<

You never asked. As a rule I deplore them.

What's your point?

What could be wrong with the following?

http://www.wfm-igp.org/site/wfm-home

"Our planet is in crisis, suffering grave problems unable to be managed by nations acting unilaterally in a chaotic world. There is an urgent need for the world’s people and governments to join in achieving a new level of global cooperation that can only be sustained by a commitment to the planet as a genuine community.

WFM is a global movement dedicated to the realization of global justice, peace and sustainable prosperity through the development of democratic international institutions and the global application of international law. WFM believes that federalism applied on an international level, inspired by the experiences of the federal political systems worldwide that represent 40% of the world’s citizens, is the best way to accomplish these goals. Our vision is of a world where people have a sense of citizenship beyond national borders, to include their region and the global community.

World federalism is based on the principle of subsidiarity, which confers power to the most appropriate and local levels of government possible. This allows the preservation of national and local identities as well as legitimate sovereign rights, while promoting collective action on regional or global issues such as the prevention of war, the eradication of poverty and the preservation of the environment. WFM’s vision of federalism also includes a vibrant civil society, active throughout all layers of government."

Looks like a classic feel-good gravy-train to me, EclipseNow.

>>What could be wrong with the following? http://www.wfm-igp.org/site/wfm-home<<

Set up a web site, employ a scriptwriter, get him/her to write a long series of motherhood statements that play on the insecurity that haunts your average affluent left-leaning latte-sipper, and wait for the money to roll in.

Mind you, this particular one is just an offshoot of the United Nations, that home-from-home for all gravy-trainers.

I just wish I had thought of it first. Lots of opportunities to speak at conferences around the world, flying first class and staying in top hotels, mouthing uncontradictable platitudes and demanding that other people do stuff.

"...an international citizen's movement working for justice, peace, and sustainable prosperity. We call for an end to the rule of force, through a world governed by law, based on strengthened and democratized world institutions"

Who can argue with "justice, peace, and sustainable prosperity"?

And of course, the cry, that "someone has to do something, dammit".

Perfect.

Personally, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

But that's just me.

Incidentally, I couldn't find a single word on their web site on how they account for the expenditure of their funds.

Any thoughts?

You obviously love the status quo. Dirty deals done behind closed doors. Enough said.

I actually enjoy democracy, and think it is the best way we have of keeping human corruptibility in check. I'd love to see it applied at the global level, and I can see plenty of crisis coming our way that may just trigger the need for stronger regional unions (Africa, South American, Asian, etc) that will form. Then instead of being a "G20" agreement it will become a meeting of the 5 or 6 big "Unions". Once we're at that level, we'll all *have* to push hard for a global parliament or an uber-council might be established that none of us can vote for. A global 'coup' of authority could easily occur, with some huge multi-national or other interest group taking over without our consent.

At least with a global parliament and global Federal constitution, we might have the opportunity for a referendum on Constitutional reform to occur every decade.

And you prefer idealism, Eclipse Now.

>>You obviously love the status quo. Dirty deals done behind closed doors. Enough said.<<

Just how does your idealistic vision prevent "dirty deals" being done "behind closed doors", by the way?

>>I actually enjoy democracy, and think it is the best way we have of keeping human corruptibility in check. I'd love to see it applied at the global level<<

And just how does "democracy" per se keep human corruptibility in check, pray tell? Perhaps you could provide examples of a country that operates on democratic principles that is free of this particular vice...

>> Then instead of being a "G20" agreement it will become a meeting of the 5 or 6 big "Unions".<<

In what way would this constitute an improvement? I can certainly imagine how inherently more productive a grouping of five might be over a group of twenty. But would they simply not become increasingly polarized in their views, as the number of groups gets smaller?

Orwell described this situation in "Nineteen Eighty-four".

"Three perpetually warring totalitarian super-states, control the world: Oceania (ideology: English Socialism), Eurasia (ideology: Neo-Bolshevism), and Eastasia (ideology: Obliteration of the Self)" Wikipedia (edited).

If we managed to survive that, would we not inevitably reach the situation envisaged by Huxley in Brave New World"?

"The vast majority of the population is unified under The World State, an eternally peaceful, stable global society in which goods and resources are plentiful (because the population is permanently limited to no more than two billion people) and everyone is happy." Wikipedia.

And we all know how that turned out, don't we.

It might just be, that the world would achieve a longer-lasting "balance" by having as many different States and entities as possible.

Pericles said:
"It might just be, that the world would achieve a longer-lasting "balance" by having as many different States and entities as possible."

Einstein said:
“In my opinion the only salvation for civilization and the human race lies in the creation of a world government, with security of nations founded upon law. As long as sovereign states continue to have separate armaments and armament secrets, new world wars will be inevitable.”

Enough said.