Americans: If you could vote to join an EU-style organization

[Crumpets]

And why or why not? I say yes. Even though the EU is terribly flawed, I think it has absorbed a lot of the animosity that would usually be directed at more vulnerable groups and prevented a good deal of inter-group and inter-state conflict as a result.

[Goldwater]

Yes (supports globalization)

[Santander]

The EU can only exist because of the geographic and political realities of Europe. Who would the US form an EU-type of organization with? Canada? That would basically be annexation. Mexico? Good luck finding political support for that...

[Crumpets]

The EU can only exist because of the geographic and political realities of Europe. Who would the US form an EU-type of organization with? Canada? That would basically be annexation. Mexico? Good luck finding political support for that...

Maybe NATO?

[Green Line]

I would be ok with it under certain circumstances.  It couldn't have the US equal among other nations, we would need to be leading it.

[Classic Conservative]

No never.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

What do you have in mind? Some kind of freedom of movement through the anglosphere? An organisation of the Americas?

[Mr. Reactionary]

You mean a union of sorts where a bunch of existing governments transfer some of their governmental powers to a central government, which then comes up with common policies on things like migration, monetary policy, trade, human rights protections and collective defense which then apply equally to all of the member states? I believe that is called the Constitution, although the last time someone attempted a Brexit the EU burned down England to keep them from staying Brexited. Which places are you proposing as the 51st and so on States?

[dax00]

Not ever.

At the state level, the individual states should be able to make deals with other states (and other countries) as they please.

[Intell]

Hell No.

[Miles]

No never.

[Frodo]

The United States is so huge and dominant, that an EU-style organization in which one dominant state (Germany) could be counter-balanced within by other states (France, Britain, Italy) is essentially impossible here.  Mexico and Brazil cannot compare.  It won't be an American Union, it would more likely be an American Empire.    

[Kingpoleon]

No. I'd support a common monetary source like the dollar or a more international version, a defense pact like NATO, and a guarantee of no protectionism, but not the Brussels Bureacracy.

[TJ in Oregon]

No way. I don't understand this obsession with moving toward a world government. I'm all for cooperation between countries, and frankly the US needs to show more respect to our Latin American neighbors than we do, but concentrating the government's power further from the people will only make it less responsive to their needs.

[Clark Kent]

Yes (supports globalization)

[VPH]

Absolutely not. I would not tolerate such an incursion on US sovereignty. We're not like small European nations-we are large enough to be much more self sufficient.

[Vosem]

I suppose it would depend on "with who" -- I'd be concerned about such a union with Latin American countries, considering they're both much poorer than America (so America would be unambiguously subsidizing them) and many of them tend towards a sort of authoritarian leftism that I have a lot of distaste for, but a union with the other Anglosphere countries (or, hell, even just negotiating a couple exceptions for our currency and some cultural things and joining the existing EU) I would definitely be in favor of (supports globalization/normal Anglophone 18-year-old).

[OSR stands with Israel]

No

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

No way. We like national sovereignty and self determination. I do support mutually beneficial trade deals but a supranational governing body which can use an administrative state to interpose on internal affairs of a nation reeks of the coming global government. The Brits telling the EU #ByeFelicia delays that government happening and gives the church more time to proclaim the good news to all people groups.

[DavidB.]

No way. We like national sovereignty and self determination. I do support mutually beneficial trade deals but a supranational governing body which can use an administrative state to interpose on internal affairs of a nation reeks of the coming global government. The Brits telling the EU #ByeFelicia delays that government happening and gives the church more time to proclaim the good news to all people groups.

..................................

[RINO Tom]

I support aspects of globalization (especially economically), but I'm certainly sympathetic to those who oppose cultural globalization (does that term mean anything?) ... It'd be a tough decision.  Lean no, just because we AREN'T in a Europe-type situation, and frankly we don't need anything like that whatsoever.

[Associate Justice PiT]

No way. I don't understand this obsession with moving toward a world government. I'm all for cooperation between countries, and frankly the US needs to show more respect to our Latin American neighbors than we do, but concentrating the government's power further from the people will only make it less responsive to their needs.

     This is where I'm coming from as well. As a supporter of democracy, it is evident to me that moving governmental power away from the people will only serve to silence their voices. If such an organization consisted of economic cooperation and nothing more, then I could accept it. When it starts adopting the trappings of a nation itself, then it must be aggressively opposed.

[Virginiá]

No way. I don't understand this obsession with moving toward a world government. I'm all for cooperation between countries, and frankly the US needs to show more respect to our Latin American neighbors than we do, but concentrating the government's power further from the people will only make it less responsive to their needs.

I've always enjoyed the thought of humans in the future as a space-faring civilization that effectively functions as one country, possibly a federal republic. I think the further we want to advance as a species is dependent on how closely we can work together, instead of constantly fighting and competing with each other.

Though as it stands right now, given the current state of some of our neighbors south of the border, I have little interest in an "American Union".

[Associate Justice PiT]

No way. I don't understand this obsession with moving toward a world government. I'm all for cooperation between countries, and frankly the US needs to show more respect to our Latin American neighbors than we do, but concentrating the government's power further from the people will only make it less responsive to their needs.

I've always enjoyed the thought of humans in the future as a space-faring civilization that effectively functions as one country, possibly a federal republic. I think the further we want to advance as a species is dependent on how closely we can work together, instead of constantly fighting and competing with each other.

Though as it stands right now, given the current state of some of our neighbors south of the border, I have little interest in an "American Union".

     So Star Trek? If we are going to become spacefaring in any real sense then, at minimum, a stronger UN with diplomatic and military powers is probably necessary. If we encounter hostile alien species, then not being able to present a united front might be the end of us.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is no equivalent to the US for what the EU is to the UK, because the US already has the EU's demographic and economic size and scope.

The best possible comparison would be if the US was still under the Articles of Confederation, and Texas had voted to secede.