Could the European Union model be on the verge of going global? Gideon Rachman suggests three reasons why it might:

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Sounds like the death knell of proper conservatism. But is it true? As Rachman concludes, “The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.”

Yes. But, that said, with so much fear in people’s hearts–climate, money, terrorism–citizens might not remain stubbornly local for long. The state grows fat on dread–especially the fear of poverty.

And yet, are not the best solutions to these pressing problems–climate, money, terrorism–found in the localist, conservative instinct, the very opposite of globosocialism? Conserve your environment, live within your means, don’t get entangled in foreign affairs, hold yourself responsible. Or am I being sentimental and naïve?

Big questions. And small questions. And who knows, anyway?