Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times thinks the time may be ripe for world government. His article is practically a case study in unintentional irony and unwitting self-fisking (a sample: "The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.")
Gideon Rachman then hears from some folks who don't much care for the idea; you know the sort: "the gun-toting, bible-bashing, nationalistic bit of the United States" (does he really mean "bible-bashing", by the way? Surely he means "bible-thumping").
Anybody here think the Brits - particularly this Brit - should lead the way?* Personally, I would say that the notion of world government is simply not on; certainly I'm not buying it based on the mere affidavit of a fellow who looks like my idea of Wodehouse's Stanley F. Ukridge.
*H/T: Dog fight at Bankstown