To make money.

Deincentivising some kinds of war might have been a unexpected benefit, but it wasn't the motive.

Actually, it's original purpose was literally to prevent war between France and Germany.

> 'make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun...

Yes I am sure the European Coal and Steel Community had peace as their primary motivator in their creation of a globalist market for their product.

Peace absolutely was their primary motivation because it's impossible to have any sort of prosperity when neighboring states are waging a brutal war every generation. The rivalry of France and Germany has existed since long before German unification and was long considered to be unavoidable. Which is why the primary goal of the ECSC to prevent either nation from independently producing weapons of war.

> Deincentivising some kinds of war might have been a unexpected benefit, but it wasn't the motive.

That's complete ahistorical nonsense.

No, free trade did that. The EU does not have a patent on free trade. In fact, they are pretty horrible at it.

> No, free trade did that.

No, free trade did not do that, the seeds of the EU were sown at the Hague Congress for the express purpose of European integration as an antidote to nationalistic extremes. The Economic integration started being added with the Treaty of Rome.

Yes, because prior to the Hague Congress the countries that now inhabit the EU were shining examples of free trade. With the exception of Ludwig Erhard in Germany (which despite losing the war, had the strongest economic recovery), protectionism and regressive economic policy crippled the region. The EU initially healed some of those wounds, but what it was going to become was inevitable and predictable.

> The EU initially healed some of those wounds, but what it was going to become was inevitable and predictable.

Of course free trade was an inevitable consequence of european integration, I never claimed otherwise.

Clearly, free trade can and did exist before 1992, 1957, and 1942. My point was that the initial idea behind the union (in it's various forms) was to ease the pain felt by the existing regressive protectionism of the region. All in all, considering the relatively small size of the world (economically), this was a great idea. However, over time the union has taken on even more restrictive forms of protectionism except now the border is different. The results, predictably, are the same.

> Clearly, free trade can and did exist before 1992, 1957, and 1942.

Trade did exist. Free trade less so, and a durable expectation of free trade on predictable terms (free or otherwise) even less so.

Not sure how I'm failing to make my point. I said post WW Europe had regressive protectionism. The initial unions did alleviate some of that. However, over time it turned into a larger version of the initial problem.

Only for those outside of the union... inside it was much better and getting better.