^ As I have said before we joined a 'common market'. A free trade market.^
It was made very clear in the run up to our joining the EEC that we were joining a political union as well as a trade market
This is a very long thread, but I suggest that you, and anyone who believes in the 'just a trade market' assertion, reads it. It sets out, with plenty of contemporary references, the intention for us to join a political, as well as a trading, union.
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1411762084782747649.html
In the aftermath of WW2 and with the perceived threat of the Soviet Union, European nations were keen to set up an institution that would not only bind the European nations in a way that would preclude any future intra European conflicts but also provide a defence and security bloc that would have sufficient 'clout' to counter the hegemony of the then world superpowers, the USA and the Soviet Union. It looks as though the founder European nations were worried about the USA withdrawing into its pre 20th C isolationist stance and abandoning Europe to incursion by the USSR and/or by the possibility of Europe being drawn into US foreign policy adventures with which they didn't agree.
That this in no way affected the UK's sovereignty in foreign policy can be evidenced by the fact that we still managed to be drawn by the USA into conflicts such as the Iraq war and Afghanistan in which the EU, as a bloc, was not involved.
While people have cited NATO as being sufficient to provide for Europe's security needs I would hesitate to place too much dependency on the USA in view of their record. (Thanks goodness we didn't get sucked into the Vietnam conflict, for example.) There is no saying that the USA might not have quite different objectives from those of Europe and could fail to support where the European signatories to the Alliance felt there was a need. Of course, one of the advantages of being in the EU for both the UK and the USA was that, because of our much vaunted 'special relationship with the US we were in a position to mediate between the US and the EU. That has now gone and the UK has lost influence and respect with its loss.
I've never seen any problem with strengthening the mutual defence capability of the EU member states and introducing such concepts as standardisation of equipment. As for an EU army, I think that was never a serious prospect. We have no problems with joint operations with other nations, such as in the UN Peacekeeping forces. This is not a 'UN Army'. Why should an intra-EU defence co-operation be any different?
As to the other aspects of 'political union', the EU has tried to ensure that applicants to join satisfy requirements for maintaining truly democratic practices (which is why there was never any serious prospect of Turkey joining the EU any time soon, they don't satisfy the 'democracy' conditions required). Perhaps the mainland member states wartime experience of loss of democracy has more resonance with them than it does with us.
And, as far as I can see, the 'Federal states of Europe' is a pipe dream. Member States have never shown much (or any) enthusiasm for the idea; they value their sovereignty too much.
Invoking our parents' 'fight for freedom' in WW2 is ridiculous. They were, along with their allies, fighting for freedom from domination by fascist and autocratic regimes with a desire to dominate Europe. They saw the fostering of European unity as a defence against it happening again. They are the generation that took us into 'Europe' and the few of them that remained by 2016 voted in the main to keep us there.
To turn the EU, in which we were a dominant voice and an instigator of many of its 'rules', into an Evil Empire bent on absorbing and destroying the UK is just ludicrous.
) and 36% think they are doing well. These numbers have been getting closer together since December.