Moving along. Antisocial I would sincerely like to hear your take on this:
"The historical record also makes clear that even when states are comfortable enough with each other to allow high levels of economic interdependence to emerge, the resulting ties are no guarantor of lasting harmony. International communities knit together by their intergrated economies can unravel with surprising speed. Consider Europe during the decade prior to World War I. Trade and investment inside Europe were, in relation to the size of national economies, greater one hundred years ago than they are today.
Germant was Britain's second-most-important trading partner (after the United States), and Britain was the top market for German exports. Lloyds of London was a leading insurer of the German ships that the Royal Navy would seek to sink if the two countries were to find themselves at war. Borders in the early 1900s were permeable. Europeans moved freely from country to country, without passports and without having to bother with border controls.
Such intense levels of interdependence, however, did not avert Europe's rapid descent into World War I.
Germany's bid for primacy and the geopolitical competition that followed had little trouble overwhelming the mutual interests resulting from economic integration. If economic interdependence could not save Europe from war in 1914, there is no compelling reason to be confident that globalization would do any better at preserving a stable peace today.
--Charles Kupchan, The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-first Century
So in other words, the situation we're seeing now in Europe is not new. If anything, it's a back to the future situation.
According to your argument, the only real significant difference now is that the EU has a common currency, parliament, language supposedly(English). Do you really think that will all matter?