Why is everybody so certain that the EU is the reason for this?
Many other things changed in the same time England, France, Germany were no longer the powers they were before. The US and Russia dominated. There were nuclear weapons. The internal politics of many of these nations changed quite a bit as well. Idiotically changes of the people and even the political elites changed.
Also the EU has not always been the EU it has now. There were many iterations and those that are against the EU might not be against the general idea of a more united EU but rather against a specific iteration of these contracts.
These other visions of the EU might also have prevented war (and they might have in the time they were active).
EU was built on the ECSC which has been created with preventing war as one of its primary goals:
> The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible" which was to be achieved by regional integration, of which the ECSC was the first step. The Treaty would create a common market for coal and steel among its member states which served to neutralise competition between European nations over natural resources, particularly in the Ruhr.
Because one thing the EU established and maintained is the principle that countries should compete for resources and economic position in the market place and not the battlefield.
It's the one constant about the EU from 1957 to today.
There are indeed other visions of the EU that might also have worked, and we might need to switch to one of them in the future. But they would still have that one central element.
It depends. The questions is about institutional reform and how possible it is. I do not think the current EU will evolve in a good direction. I prefer countries to leave and establish new bilateral treaties along the same lines.
Maybe after the EU has failed we can have a new attempted that people will actually get on board with.
While I think that the EU should not (and if they try they won't be able to) try and become a "super country" and the bureaucracy can be excessive (but some of it is needed) it's a good idea in principle
> I prefer countries to leave and establish new bilateral treaties along the same lines
So that they have all the obligations of a member but no say on the discussions?
Bilateral treaties between n countries would mean a total of n*(n-1)/2 deals
If you have more than 3 countries, it's useful to have a common set of rules instead of just bilateralizing all deals
(Which doesn't mean all rules really need to be centralized, not all EU countries adopt the Euro, for example
However, when you sign a BT with the EU, your power on the decisions is diminished, but you still have to pay to be an "associated member" (that's what I meant above)
Many other things changed in the same time England, France, Germany were no longer the powers they were before. The US and Russia dominated. There were nuclear weapons. The internal politics of many of these nations changed quite a bit as well. Idiotically changes of the people and even the political elites changed.
Also the EU has not always been the EU it has now. There were many iterations and those that are against the EU might not be against the general idea of a more united EU but rather against a specific iteration of these contracts.
These other visions of the EU might also have prevented war (and they might have in the time they were active).