flexible. I disagree with this statement, according to me. It is more likely to affect things in a negative way.
In this paragraph, we discuss that every country has its own language. Here we start; I live in India. As you know, India has many different cultures, and every culture has its own languages. For example, in Gujarat, most people speak Gujarati, whereas in the south, people mostly speak Tamil and Kannada. So, as I say, every state has its own culture, and every culture is identified by its own languages. According to that statement, we cannot accept any one language as a universal language because not everyone is able to accept a new language instantly, and it is also hard for people to live in society for that reason; replacing it with a universal language is not a good idea.
Secondly, it is also questionable whether a universal language should be accepted by all countries, or else not everyone will be able to speak better or communicate with other people. They would have to learn a new language to communicate with society.
Furthermore, older people have grown up with their mother tongues, and if they suddenly have to accept a new language as a universal language, it will be difficult for them. They cannot communicate with people and society. For that purpose, I think we cannot accept a universal language.
To conclude, accepting a universal language is good for growing businesses and country constitutions; but normal people will have trouble communicating with other people, and also our cultures will completely disappear.