And the argument you brought up about the diplomatic relations is very interesting, as there are many voices we should head towards a unified European diplomacy. While I personally hated Ashton I have to give her credit for making European diplomacy much more important than it was before.
The problem of doubling the relations (do I talk to EU or UK) is the reason (as well as the possibility of France and England losing it's position in the Security Council) why EU wasn't granted the special status in UN it wanted in 2010 (or 2009?).

I mean like i said a unified europe is more stable and efficient than seperate national states, and the EU is well on its way to getting there. I just don't recognize it as a state as of now. Of course I also didn't define Europe's ability to have a unified military as dependent on the EU's statehood. I think a unified European army needs the following:
- Unilateral control of all European military forces. (To maintain unit cohesion and ensure mission completion)
- Mutual defense mandate that promises the definite defense of any member states home or territorial interests (i.e if one of the Netherlands Caribbean holdings was attacked by Cuba or Venezuela then the European armed forces would be required to defend that location)
-Mandatory contribution to the unified military of both forces and funds. (as so no country can inherently benefit without contributing)

benefits of such a force would include (for both europe and the US)
-Stronger more efficient NATO
- Stronger defense not as dependent on the US and Russia
- More dependable mission control with a greater reach and more global power.
- Provide an example for the African Union, and other regional unions to form similar groups which would only help stabilize global politics and work to make war even less likely.

What I would really love to see though (of course that's more like a century away than a decade) is an army so unified you don't have countries supplying manpower or military equipment but rather armed forces created from scratch, all from the central budget, under a single, European command... That would be effective af and so amazingly cool...

Is this leading to a trend in more and more grouped authority? For instance, will we possibly see a South American League? Or a North American Confederation? Is the inevitable trend of society to become more and more unified?

@KC it makes sense as we globalize we also inprove our ability to communicate. thats all you need for effetive governance is effective communication.

I wonder how that would look in a hundred years....

I think in 100 years we will see large regional groups and after that maybe in another 200 years a global government.

In my opinion countries working together is a great trend everywhere - whether it's EU, ASEAN, African Union or even the fucking CIS. First of all, it promotes international cooperation, trust and stability, which is at least a little bit decreasing the risk of future conflicts. Secondly, and this is what I like about EU especially is how it projects it's values on other countries. Look at the Balkans for example, where the potential candidates for couple of years have imposed many policies that at least to some degree normalize the political and economic environment there (still long way to go though - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20150309STO32486/html/Western-Balkans-measuring-progress-towards-European-integration )
Anyway, the "global government" part however is pure fantasy, especially in 200 years in my opinion (just like a unified Europe any time soon). Maaaaaybe as a result of some World War V or something, but I don't think in 200 years we'd be able to tame Russia or China enough to be able to create this level of cooperation.

Well barely 200 hundred years ago, the US wasn't a country, England ruled half the globe, and the other European powers ruled most of the rest....

Yes, but consider this - the furthest unification has gone on big scale (not considering the United Arab Republic) is Europe. And there is a reason to it. Practically all the political concepts needed for EU has originated in Europe, we have been living with them for centuries if not millennia. Let's be honest, for extremely long time Europe has been incredibly gifted, we had the geography, including flora and fauna that enabled creation of efficient civilizations, we had competing civilizations that competed against each others sparking further development in both technology and political ideas, we had the perfect set of resources that enabled creating armies and fleets needed for conquering almost whole world (there are like 5 countries in the world that Europe has never ruled over or hasn't had in her SOI), and finally we further increased our chances of winning with just the right mixture of germs to kill millions, speeding our expansion in Americas for centuries. In the end we pulled ourselves together, said "enough is enough", gave (reluctantly) independence for most of the colonies, but now expect some tribes in Africa to not only live according to our standards of equality but actually leave in democratic societies (something we cannot even fully enforce in Europe) and we're surprised when they failed to. For the same reasons I think that the only way we would have a unified, global government in the next couple of centuries is only through conquest.

BTW, don't you guys hate how South Yemen is went north of North Yemen much further than south? It's so fucking annoying, especially given that this destroys my theory that from the eurocentric point of view every "South..." is the "good" state out of the two - South Korea, South Vietnam, South Sudan. I would love to call Taiwan "South China". And what gives about Yemen? I'm angry.

yassem, concerning your earlier remarks to me, I'm not sure you really understand what I wrote, or perhaps you need to read more carefully.
I never denied the EU has some characteristics of a state. Nor did I claim the EU will never become a state in the future. However, sharing some characteristics does not make two things equal.
Sovereignty is of fundamental importance. You can use different words or definitions, that doesn't matter. In the end it boils down to what the EU can do, and can't do, and why they can do, or can't do, certain things.

Yes, the EU has some powers, yes, the EU can propose legislation, yes, the EU can issue fines. However, those powers are given to the EU by all member states, voluntarily, not because of demands from the EU. What the EU can do is limited, limited not by their own choice, but limited by the agreements and treaties made by all member states, to which the EU is not a party. The EU can not regulate, nor reorganize itself, nor do anything which is not agreed upon by all member states.

Concerning your example on CO2 emissions, Poland voluntarily joined the EU. When you join a club, you have to accept the rules; you can't cherry-pick only what suits you. Perhaps Poland didn't appreciate the European emissions policy; nevertheless, it fully subscribed it, promised to abide by the rules, and pay the stipulated fines if it failed to do what was agreed upon. Apparently Poland didn't meet the targets, and as a consequence now has to pay fines. Is Poland fined because the EU decided so? No. Is Poland fined because Poland wants that? No. Poland is fined because of an agreement Poland made itself; to be fined is Poland's own decision.
Poland can still refuse to pay the fine. However, if Poland does refuse, Poland risks to get excluded of other EU policies. Taking everything together, the Polish consider the complete EU package, as a whole, including the emission fines, as beneficial. Therefore the national government and parliament of Poland decide to stay in the EU, comply with the rules, and pay the fine.

Another example of the EU's limited powers is the location of the European Parliament. Right now the European Parliament is in Brussels, their Secretariate is located in Luxembourg, and the whole Parliament has to travel to Strassbourg once per month. Many people don't like this. The European Parliament has voted on this several times, and every time the vast majority prefers a single location. A majority of the European Commission is in favour of one location, as are most members of the Council of Europe. Then why is it not changed? Because the EU, nor any of its institutions, does not have the power to decide to change this. All member states decided together that the European Parliament should have these three locations. The European Parliament, and the EU, can only accept and obey. The decision to change this requires the approval of all 28 national parliaments, at least one of them is opposed to it, therefore it doesn't change.
National parliaments, local councils, and individual citizens can decide themselves when and where to meet, talk, and make decisions; the EU can't (nor can NATO, nor the UN); yet you claim the EU has complete sovereignty?

Comparing leaving the EU with declaring independence is nice, but not completely correct. For instance, have a look at Spain. Spain is a member of the UN, the NATO, the EU, the Eurozone, and several other international organizations. Spain can unilaterally quit any of those at any moment Spain chooses to, whether those organizations like it or not. Inside Spain the Galicians, Basques, and Catalonians all want to be independent, or at least claim so. None of them is independent, because the Spanish government refuses to allow that; Spain allows them some limited autonomy, not more than that. They have revolted quite a few times against the Spanish in the past centuries, but in the end they're still part of Spain, and this is unlikely to change, whether they like it or not.
Spain can easily prevent any of its regions gaining independence; the EU can not at all prevent Spain from leaving the Union. Spain clearly has sovereignty here.

X3n0n, what do you intend to prove?

CommanderByron, large continental or regional states, and ultimately a single global government have been predicted many times before in the past centuries. They never became reality.
A global government in two or three hundred years, as you suggested, is wishful thinking at best.