What do you mean "that will never happen? It is happeneing. You now have one currency, open borders not requiring passport checks (unlike 10 years ago) or even WORK VISAS for Euro citizens within Europe!! You have a European government and a close to having a single foreign policy if Chirac and Schroeder have their way. You also have the Euopean court that supercedes national high courts.

So which of these are not indicative of the move towards one country?

Are you a student of history Johnny? Have you perhaps heard of a thing called the GERMAN UNIFICATION? Saxony, Prussia, Bavaria, Silesia, Pommerania and Austria etc. all were pretty much totally independent states, albeit loosely tied under the political entity "Holy Roman Empire" (Hapsburg Empire) for a time. There were similar discussions about federational unity that have striking similarity to the European federation discussion. Austria continued to be a naysayer and ended up being left out. A situation Britain could end up facing. And/or Norway.

So when you say "that will never happen" make sure there are no precedents to contradict you.

I think it's a fair question to ask, "Why should one country have 12-16 votes in the United nations?" </font>[/QUOTE]One currency? If it were in my nature I would snort ;) While yes, Europe will be joined under the Euro, I hope you realise each country has a different insignia on the coins? Is this not an attempt to show off each country's uniqueness? It's happening? Hardly. To unify Europe would be to let the rifts become greater. Once Europe joins together, boundries will be more clear than ever. If you have visited Europe, you'd get the idea. There is no way Europe will become 'one nation'. It will always be just a continent, no matter the name you give it.

We have state quarters. :D

Actually you can define culturally different geographic regions in the US same as Canada. It would not be 50 states however as most would be clumped together with one or more. The only 3 states that could be singled out as culturally different geographic regions would possibly be Texas, Alaska and Hawaii. The rest would be clumps and I am not the one to define them but I would use the Midwest as an example as culturally different geographic regions composed of many states.

If you were going to use culturally different geographic regions as a means of governing votes in the UN the states would probably get 6 to 8 votes in the UN, Canada would get 6 (obviously that will not work as Canada as a population of only about 30 million).

There, there Vask *pats Vaskez's head* Timber was just being cheeky and so were we! :D

But to say that the US is not geographically diverse is a misconception. That is why I listed the States that I did. Granted, the culture shock is not as intense by going from say NJ to PA as it is from France to Germany. But, go from NJ to Louisianna and there's a BIG difference!

I hope Vask wasn't upset by me. :( I gotta start watching it -- I'm really pissin people off lately without even knowing it. [img]graemlins/awcrap.gif[/img]

Actually, I agree with you Vaskez -- there is no argument that the US is *as* culturally diverse as Europe, even considering all the immigrants, and even considering AK, HI, and PR.

However, I see the best argument for equality of votes between the US and the EU being a FAIRNESS concern, as I said. So, diversity isn't at issue as far as I'm concerned. Besides, the EU could use the boost in US votes on MOST issues, as normally we see the G8 or JUSCANZ sitting opposed to the G77 -- which is a very poor but very large voting block of countries.

Yeah Yorick, i don't need you to teach me history lessons, especially not when it comes to Europe.

And we don't have one government, they may be trying to do that, but each and every country still makes their own decisions. The EU is more something to improve trade, not to become one big state. Like i said, it won't happen. Who should be the leader ? A Frenchman ? The others will never accept that. A German perhaps ? Once again... the others won't have it.

We are still different nations, with our own identity's, and that will never change. That's why one vote for europe is not acceptable, period.

Hmmm.... that sounds familiar.
"The American way of life is not negotiable." - G. Bush
"There can be no compromise." - A. Hitler

Hmmmmmmm.....

I'm fine with one vote for each Euro-nation. Just so long as Illinois, KY, MO, VT, CA, DE, etc all get their one vote. ;) Especially since on an individual basis our states are usually bigger and/or more populated that your typical EU nation. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Bullshit.... you have just one government. We already had seperate governments when people in America still lived in tipi's. :D

Actually johnny, we have 51 governments ..... one Fed and 50 State. Each state has it's own sepparate Constitution.

So you're not ONE nation under God, with one flag, etc....

Come on dude, you know what i mean. You can't compare Europe with the US like that.

And, we have a Supreme Court whose one biggest hallmark has been the "federalism" trend -- that is, taking power from the federal government and giving it back to the states. Each state does have its own constitution and laws. Criminal laws vary widely. I am an attorney in NY and IL, and it is illegal for me to enter a courtroom as an attorney elsewhere unless I get admitted generally or for that case.

Now, I won't argue the EU is anywhere near the US yet in terms of normalized law (though "normalization" is a big concept in the EU Treaty). The last time we all had this discussion some of you EU folks were kind enough to educate me on just how very limited the EU government still is.