Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

For the seriously uninformed, a supranational union is an organization of independent states under a single overarching system. This is not dissimilar to a federal system of government in a single state, except that supranational unions usually lack that level of power over their members. They are for the most part markedly stronger than simple treaties, requiring this separate definition.

The European Union is probably the best example of what a supranational union can accomplish, but there others out there.

And there are more limited examples than a full on supranational union that still show promise. The North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, constitutes the largest trade bloc in the world, in terms of combined GDP.

The question I am posing to you is: Will a trend of union or unification movements between nations be a meaningful force in the next century? And on a scale of "one" to "!!FEMADEATHCAMPS!!", how badly are the conspiracy theorists going to freak out about it?

[Frumple]

I wouldn't exactly be surprised if they started having (even more) political/economic power, I don't think. It's a good way for smaller powers to hit in the big leagues without actually having to give up national identity. It's not even too terribly difficult to implement for areas that are already fairly homogeneous on major issues.

I've heard pretty strong suggestion that one's going to pop up in south america in the relatively near future, I think, often associated with the emergence of a EU level superpower down there.

The subject in general is probably way too complicated for someone without better grounding in polisci than myself, though.

[Loud Whispers]

I don't think the EU is a very good comparison as of right now...

[MaximumZero]

Terran Federation. That is all.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't think the EU is a very good comparison as of right now...

It's having problems at the moment, but I'm sure as hell not going to nominate the African Union for "Best Supranational Union 2012".

[Criptfeind]

I would assume that these things will pop up more and more as the US global power wanes. Faster if there is more stability.

[Montague]

I believe the trend is going toward balkanisation. There are lots of independence/ secessionist movements in Europe especially. I'd say the trend toward balkanisation is still compatible with a supranational union, although a very loose, decentralized one.

There are not too many good arguments for secessionist movements unless it's clear they can survive independently and being part of a continuous union probably makes that easier for them, so they could very well be part of the same trend. Having a nation fracture into pieces is less disastrous if the individual pieces are still extremely friendly and cooperative with each other and don't even have border controls in place. Although, that doesn't say much for the purpose of succession in the first place, because more control in that country is held by organizations outside their national borders and whatever cultural or ethnic identity their nation is defined from.

So it's nationalism combined with confederation-ism. See how that pans out for them.

[mainiac]

The EU has been a very big success except for the glaring failure of it's monetary/central bank union.  No more wars in the EU, great labor market mobility compared to before.  Unfortunately that is a pretty massive qualifier.

I'd say that the lessons of the EU will prevent any further monetary unions without fiscal integration.  But I would have expected that the failures of the great depression would have taught us the need for monetary stimulus at the least and fiscal stimulus if at all possible.

So I guess I'll just settle for saying that it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think the EU as it is doesn't have much of a future. TBH I think the British were the ones that did the smart thing by retaining control of their currency.

[FearfulJesuit]

I think the lesson to learn from the EU is that supranational unions work, but including currency integration doesn't. Also, the EU should have been a lot more careful from the beginning about who it wanted to let in.

[Deadmeat1471]

The EU has been a very big success except for the glaring failure of it's monetary/central bank union.  No more wars in the EU, great labor market mobility compared to before.  Unfortunately that is a pretty massive qualifier.

I'd say that the lessons of the EU will prevent any further monetary unions without fiscal integration.  But I would have expected that the failures of the great depression would have taught us the need for monetary stimulus at the least and fiscal stimulus if at all possible.

So I guess I'll just settle for saying that it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

However much I wanted the EU to work, I have to agree here. It just hasn't worked and us Brits keeping the Pound was probably the best thing we could have done. As for the rest of the EU, it should have been better but the delegates keep fucking it up with stupid proposals/scandles and such.
The EU could have been the future of Europe, but it has become a massive fuckup IMHO. I can only see countrys seeking to distance themselves from it and its effects from now on. At least from a British perspective.

[Muz]

Does the USA or Holy Roman Empire count as successful ones in the past?

The problem with these things is that they're an administrative mess, but with modern IT, it's not as bad.

[Criptfeind]

Does the USA or Holy Roman Empire count as successful ones in the past?

That's a fairly good question. But I dunno. I would think that the USA did not count, but the Holy Roman Empire seems like it might have.

[Deadmeat1471]

Does the USA or Holy Roman Empire count as successful ones in the past?

That's a fairly good question. But I dunno. I would think that the USA did not count, but the Holy Roman Empire seems like it might have.

I think the HRE would count, USA definitely would not, I did think about the Confederacy when this was mentioned. But I feel even the Confederacy would have too much centralisation to be considered such a loose organisation.

[Montague]

The USA probably counted in it's very early incarnation under the Articles of the Confederation. It was also a massive failure in many respects.

Not so much after 1787, when the US Constitution was adopted.