Lol. Government.

Chuckle...

Snort.

Hitler came about as close to bringing in a unified world government as anyone is ever likely to get.

That should be a sobering thought to anyone.

if we keep a cool head and do not freak during the period of economic upheaval i firmly believe we will be stronger in the long run. I probably shouldn't quote V for Vendetta as it isnt appropriate, but i will anyway. England Prevails!
As for the dire predictions that during the long negotiations England will turn into some Mad Max economic wasteland one has to keep in mind that, despite the bluster, Germany and France want to sort things as quickly as possible for their own sake. It will likely be rough for a bit but we have had it rough before and we persevere. Pride in ones country has been co-opted and demonized bu it association with white supremacists, The NF and the rest but it shouldnt be so

I've always believed, at sort of a gut level, that the world is on its way to being a better place. Every once in awhile that instinct takes a little hit. What an awful move. If the UK can become this xenophobic at current refugee levels, imagine how bad things will get in a few decades when we're pushing 4C warming and global refugee pop has increased by an order of magnitude.

I am genuinely concerned about western civilization.

Already rumours flying about other countries leaving the EU.

We're never gonna have a single world governement are we?

We will eventually. This just set it back decades/centuries.

I am not convinced it will ever happen, or that it should happen.

We have the kinds of problems now that cannot be solved by individual countries. And they are multiplying.

What does a unifying government give you over individual cooperating countries other than the threat of force?

Like the sentiment but that flags sloppy work.

Enforcement is the threat of force. I'm not saying there aren't challenges with consequences so dire that the threat of force is an illegitimate option, but we have to be honest. The purpose of a unifying world government would be to threaten violence to make people do things against their will, and it would do that on a larger scale than has ever been seen before.

I think we should have another referendum......question.....if this guy ever decides to have children he must submit this request to the whole of the country and let us decide :-) I'm declaring an intent to vote no now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-referendum-man_uk_576cf8e4e4b08d2c5638ee29?edition=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

I'm also looking forward to two years from now when my brother, who I suspect voted out, is unable to buy his cheap bootleg cigarettes from Europe and has to start paying full price. I also suspect the people who ran the leave campaign will all be hiding out on holiday at their villas in the south of France when everyone then realises how much a proper English (no UK by then) taxed packet of ciggies cost.

What does a unifying government give you over individual cooperating countries other than the threat of force?

It would be the ultimate tyranny of the majority. Right now, in theory anyway, if someone doesn't like what their government does, they can leave. I could for example immigrate into Canada if things got bad enough here that I couldn't take it.But with one world government you remove the final option people have, and a simple majority get to decide the fate of everyone because there's no longer a different place you can go to.

We have issues today where we all sink or swim together. Giving people and corporations the right to just go be ***holes somewhere else on the planet just ensures that we will fail those tests.

A system of codified rights is a fairly solid bulwark against simple tyranny by the majority. It's worked for us fairly well for awhile.

Enforcement is the threat of force. I'm not saying there aren't challenges with consequences so dire that the threat of force is an illegitimate option, but we have to be honest. The purpose of a unifying world government would be to threaten violence to make people do things against their will, and it would do that on a larger scale than has ever been seen before.

I don't disagree that there some truly frightening downsides to a single governing body(or binding agreements so strong that it may as well be a single government). I am saying that the alternative is the end of modern civilization. And once we've burned all the accessible oil there will be no restarting the industrial revolution. It'll just be the end.

And we already use the threat of violence to stop a lot of people from harming others. That's a contract you sign when you are born.

Someone who doesn't like that their government won't let them keep slave laborers, burn oil or emit CFC's is a threat to everyone no matter where they do it.

And when that same person gets to be in control of the single world government there's nothing we could do to stop them.

But then again, the very concept of a single world government is height of elitism, it is based on the idea that a single entity has not only the ability but the duty to control everyone and force them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do because they're either too stupid or too greedy to do on their own.

Until we have a perfect person, then no one should have that much power.

Someone who doesn't like that their government won't let them keep slave laborers, burn oil or emit CFC's is a threat to everyone no matter where they do it.

And when that same person gets to be in control of the single world government there's nothing we could do to stop them.

But then again, the very concept of a single world government is height of elitism, it is based on the idea that a single entity has not only the ability but the duty to control everyone and force them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do because they're either too stupid or too greedy to do on their own.

Until we have a perfect person, then no one should have that much power.

Enforcement is the threat of force. I'm not saying there aren't challenges with consequences so dire that the threat of force is an illegitimate option, but we have to be honest. The purpose of a unifying world government would be to threaten violence to make people do things against their will, and it would do that on a larger scale than has ever been seen before.

The other option is here: http://m.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/too-hot-to-live-grim-longterm-prediction-20100510-uoqw.html

I don't disagree that there some truly frightening downsides to a single governing body(or binding agreements so strong that it may as well be a single government). I am saying that the alternative is the end of modern civilization. And once we've burned all the accessible oil there will be no restarting the industrial revolution. It'll just be the end.

I get the importance of managing climate change, really, but I'm not sure why it's a "unified world government is the only solution" situation. At least not yet. If any issues did necessitate it, the global environment and asteroid impact threat would pretty much be the ones.

Well, at least Trump loves Brexit.

Yea I wasn't suggesting a single person should be in charge of something.

But that's what would happen sooner or latter. That much power would simply be too tempting for it not to happen, then we end up with mass genocide of a race or other group and no one could stop it because all force is controlled by the person doing it.

We have the kinds of problems now that cannot be solved by individual countries. And they are multiplying.

Stupid people?

If you compare the population increase of locusts in Australia during a plague and the current rise in population of humans we can only conclude we are a plague.

Agent Smith, is that you?

Well, at least Trump loves Brexit.

Yea I wasn't suggesting a single person should be in charge of something.

But that's what would happen sooner or latter. That much power would simply be too tempting for it not to happen, then we end up with mass genocide of a race or other group and no one could stop it because all force is controlled by the person doing it.

Mass genocide is happening now, in many places.

**** this sour parochial little country and its ****ing sickeningly predictable embrace of the politics of division and ****ing resentment.Good news! At least that's the NHS getting an extra £350 million a week now, right? Right?For ****ing ****'s sake.

Hitler came about as close to bringing in a unified world government as anyone is ever likely to get.

That should be a sobering thought to anyone.

**** this sour parochial little country and its ****ing sickeningly predictable embrace of the politics of division and ****ing resentment.Good news! At least that's the NHS getting an extra £350 million a week now, right? Right?For ****ing ****'s sake.

Sorry I quote you again, but apparently a certain mr. Farrage has already stated that his slogan to use £350 million for the NHS is actually something that can't be done....

Yeah no kidding! They asked him: "You've won. What now?" and the guy just looked totaly bewildred for a second. "We're gonna have coffee first" That was his answer. And I'm like "You have no fukkin' clue what's to be done next, have you?"

And now Boris Johnson might be in line for becoming the PM? Dafuq?

**** this sour parochial little country and its ****ing sickeningly predictable embrace of the politics of division and ****ing resentment.Good news! At least that's the NHS getting an extra £350 million a week now, right? Right?For ****ing ****'s sake.

Sorry I quote you again, but apparently a certain mr. Farrage has already stated that his slogan to use £350 million for the NHS is actually something that can't be done....

shock

Enforcement is the threat of force. I'm not saying there aren't challenges with consequences so dire that the threat of force is an illegitimate option, but we have to be honest. The purpose of a unifying world government would be to threaten violence to make people do things against their will, and it would do that on a larger scale than has ever been seen before.

The other option is here: http://m.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/too-hot-to-live-grim-longterm-prediction-20100510-uoqw.html

I don't disagree that there some truly frightening downsides to a single governing body(or binding agreements so strong that it may as well be a single government). I am saying that the alternative is the end of modern civilization. And once we've burned all the accessible oil there will be no restarting the industrial revolution. It'll just be the end.

I get the importance of managing climate change, really, but I'm not sure why it's a "unified world government is the only solution" situation. At least not yet. If any issues did necessitate it, the global environment and asteroid impact threat would pretty much be the ones.

If we had a system of laws that forced the government to intervene in terrible situations many of them would be fixed before they ever became an issue.

Remember all those Muslims, atheists and homosexuals that Sally Kern had killed? Me neither. Without the Feds people like her would have more power to do what they want. Her counterparts in the third world are busily committing atrocities that she only dreams about.

Hitler came about as close to bringing in a unified world government as anyone is ever likely to get.

That should be a sobering thought to anyone.

The UN came a lot closer than Hitler.

I'd argue that Ghengis Khan did a much better job than Hitler as well. Adolf barely got out of Europe.

I hope there can be a future for a solidary strong Europe after this, but I am afraid. As someone who never who never had feelings like it the new power of nationalism scares me. Its a force that I don't understand that grows stronger all around as and begins to threaten the values I grew up with.