Basically Murdoch hints at exploiting the changes in the world, in the nature, role and position of Nation States and companies.
What is interesting is that in bringing countries together, creating a Supra-national framework one "unites to conquer". While this might seem contrary to the wisdom of "divide and rule", it does not when you alter your perspective.
Zoom out a little.
You started with fairly cohesive Nation States who tend to defend themselves against each other but also unite with others in an ad-hoc fashion when an external or common internal threat appears. Those who do not wish to get involved often, though not always - ask Holland and Belgium - can stand aside. This did at least enable a minority to get to work if the majority of Nations did not care or could not act for whatever reason. It meant that the Tyranny of the Majority did not operate at the Supra-National level. People could also flee a country, even though the necessity was an outrage.
By uniting Nation States or binding them via Supra-National bodies and agreements - ok, let's not beat around the bush, transferring Sovereignty to Supra-National bodies - you divide "the people" who were once united, because what constitutes "the people" has now changed. If you look at it in terms of the new scale of things, the Supra-National scale, all the people become subject to the Tyranny of the Majority across all the Nations involved. Where Spain might have said No, they will be forced a Yes if a Majority say so. The entire Iberian Peninsular could reject a proposal and still they would have to comply because the scale has changed and the country is no more, the Sovereignty is no more and the ability to reject, resist or go a separate path is no more.
Just as corruption and waste occurs far more in State contracts where the consumers are forced by legislation* to pay for and consume the output and the producer only has to win over the "representatives"**, so will this happen on an even greater scale in a Supra-National setting where only the Arbiters in those bodies need to be "convinced" instead of each and every Individual making their own choice to accept or reject.
My gut feel is that it will be exponentially greater. The rewards for Corporations will be significantly bigger enabling a commensurate level of bribery to occur. The ability for individuals to move and bypass the problem will be greatly curtailed and the regional existence of rejection will not be immediately apparent, no example of a Country that takes a different path. No little boy in the audience to shout out as the Emperor walks by.
* as always, I do not consider such "law".
** in the broadest sense of the term - I very much doubt that Supra-National decision makers will be accountable and removable by universal mandate.