There was a commentary in the German media in context of Brexit that I think really think sums the EU and her role in the world up nicely:

"Brexit shows what we have in the EU. She clears up issues among neighbors, grating them into rules and sometimes unsatisfactory compromises. But she grates them small, in a civilized and peaceful way. That's her big achievement." (rough translation by me, sorry)

https://twitter.com/tagesschau/status/1105932622000209921 (in German)

In Germany we say that the EU has replaced the battleground with the negotiation table. That's what it's got the Nobel peace prize for and I think it deserved it.

I don't think there was any prospect of war between the EU countries while the USSR was around, it seems folly to pin peace to an institution when it was a greater enemy that actually united us.

WW2 happened while the USSR was around.

Before they had a huge, modernized army that would easily win a land battle for Europe.

That's a bit misleading because the EU we know today wasn't actually around back when the USSR was still a thing.

It only became fully realized with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, which was shortly after the fall of the USSR in 1991.

Was it responsible for the 45 years of peace after WW2 or not?

The EU? It very likely did its fair share for making that a reality.

But I wouldn't go as far as claiming it's solely responsible for it because rarely anything is as simple as that.

IMHO the EU is a direct result of the two World Wars, not the Cold War (we're only starting to see the results of the Cold War now).

Yeah the League of Nations was the result of the first one and it failed. Given the sheer slaughter they needed a way to forge peace as it clearly was massively self destructive.

I am not sure how true it was but I heard a theory that Europe lost much of its intellectual prominence due to so many young men dying in the trenches in WW1 - now Europe does good intellectual work now but it is more "neat thing out of Europe" as opposed to "the hotspot". I am not well equipped to evaluate the merits but the idea is interesting at very least.

Yes, after two failed attempts to conquer Europe by military force, Germans finally realized they can achieve the same effect much easier with their economical power and then created EU :)

Worth remembering that a lot of people in the UK, possibly a majority by this point, are perfectly clear as to what we stand to lose if the UK leaves the EU. :-(

Pack your bags and come over here. ;-)

Oh agreed! And don’t forget the tea. Just skip the second referendum and let all the remain voters hang out over here, so we can have tea with baguette forever.

Let's not pretend it's not a mixed bag, e.g.: 'European multinationals are aggressively pursuing one of milk’s few growth markets, where locals say they can’t compete.'

https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-milk-scramble-for-africa...

That article is about European multinationals, not the EU

At the same time, the EU spends a lot of money on subsidies just so that farms (big and small) can keep their head above water. I wouldn't mind if that was changed somewhat, give smaller farms more survivability, but at the same time it's the market forces that should be changed so that farmers get fairer prices for their products.

And this also hurts Cane sugar producers - sugar beet is much more energy intensive

Weird, since there is already a milk quota in place in Europe.

I don't think it's related to the EU as institution

I just read the quoted headline, but it's not about quotas but EU based multinationals extending their business / exporting milk powder to Africa, tripling exports in 10 years (2006 - 2016) and competing with local farmers to the point they are put out of business. Not sure how the EU fits in there, other than that they provide an economic and legislative climate that allows milk prices to go low enough to make such a business viable.

Then the comment isn't related to the headline

It really is a mixed bag, but here in HN the EU gets very good publicity because it's always compared to the US. (Not that I'm pro-EU or anything)

naw. just a giant nationstate trying to control its own resources. theres nothing good about it. at best you could argue its neutral. Personally i see this as nothing more than the occasional revenue dipping. Big companies have to take it because of the market and the eu knows this. anytime theyre short on funds theyll fine facebook or google.

absolutely

Pretty naieve view to accept an effectively unaccountable body of such incredible size. Almost every policy is without a voter mandate.

You could say the same about your own country's government.

Do you get a vote over antitrust regulations enacted by your own government?

You usually vote a party which might (or not) have a high-level guidelines over a few select policies, but otherwise trust them to make the best decision based on how their political view matches with yours.

You elect EU parliament member the same way, and you are free to vote otherwise if you do not like their work (and yes, the actual effect of your individual vote is statistically irrelevant, just as the vote for your own government).

So you think scaling that up to a massive scale where a handful of interests, namely France and Germany, have near complete sway over the agenda makes sense?

France and Germany have the most members, but not nearly enough to take decision by themselves or have control of the agenda.

Besides, the point is moot, because parliament members tend to group themselves based on shared political views, rather than by country.

That countries with more population should have more representation and more weight in the decisions, to me makes sense.

I wonder if that’s why the policies are generally so sensible?

Except that is a fiction you have created because it meets some presupposed view you have. The EU, application of legislation regarding technology is almost entirely designed to attack those companies on the basis they don't recognize revenue in France, Germany.

And you think asking the public for their opinion would mitigate rather than aggravate that?!

You don't have to accept it to recognize that it can do good things.