Well, yes and no. What actually happened was that a united Europe was the desired outcome, with some discussion about the degree of unity. But they realised back in the 1950s that it would take some time, and they started doing it by steps, starting with the industry. So in that sense it was both. But that’s not what people mean when they moan about the EU being a perversion of the EEC which was supposed to be purely economic. It is usually followed by how the evil EU duped them and stole their sovereignty. It was not. The economic policies were tools to achieve a political goal.
> but the original impetus was not federalism
The original impetus was a political union to avoid war and an “ever-closer union”. While federalists were never the majority, the target was clearly integration. Again, this is in the preamble of the Rome treaty establishing the EEC.
> Hence the need for political union.
Again, this is backwards. Political union required economic union as a first step.
The votes in the 70s / 80s, which were the basis of what we have now were about trade, not peace via trade.
you are referring to 'they' without qualifying 'they'.
Political union was never on a ballot paper in most countries. In the cases it was (Maastricht referendums) then it was not conclusive .
the original impetus being to use trade to solve a political problem, but the original impetus was not federalism, although I imagine there were federalists around at the time.
at some point it became about free trade. and then there was a realisation that free trade between unequal economies was not sustainable. And similarly that consumer rights in a world where infrastructure and technology barriers had been removed, were also not sustainable via the protectionism that public ownership and state control provided.
There was then a need to control the excesses of free markets and the four freedoms in general, and the need to liberalise sectors that were not in the private space.
Hence the need for political union.