The notion of any political union "needing to exist" is curious in the extreme. Political unions, speaking historically, come into existence to fill an actual or perceived political void, or to unite assorted peoples against a common threat, the latter reason being perhaps more common historically, or to attempt to bring some amount of order to a chaotic political and/or economic situation.
I would suggest that the formation of the EU was a response to the third condition above, with a chunk of the second condition thrown in; post-WW II Europe was nothing if not chaotic, both economically and politically, and the first response was the Franco-German Iron and Steel pact of the 1950s. The common enemy bit was, of course, the Warsaw Pact, but the Europeans had the luxury of the US having their back (and front, and sides), and so were quite leisurely in their response to the political threat.
Naturally, the political class being the political class, a simple commercial pact evolved over time into something considerably more grotesque. No, I'm not referring to EU, I'm referring to ERM, the infamous and thoroughly bungled European Rate Mechanism, which was torpedoed by the perceived self-interest of, of ALL peoples, the Germans.
Having failed outright in this piece of madness, the pointy-heads simply couldn't resist having another go, to wit, Maastricht. The reasons, absent the by-then-deceased Warsaw Pact, were the very same as in the 1950s, although made more complex by the addition of more players.
You should take a look at the European "Constitution" sometime. It is arguably the most self-important, prolix, intrusive and incompetent set of organisational "principles" ever set to paper. Anything you care to name is wrong with this screwy document.
However, that said, it can be fixed to the point where it would be acceptable to (almost) all the EU members. All that is necessary is for the political class -- ideally, with guns to their respective heads -- to remove the 70-odd percent of the document that is overreaching, antidemocratic, disrespective of personal liberties and blatantly contralogical.
Will the political class do this, will they (pardon my metaphor previously) take their collective and collectivist thumbs off the scales? Probably not. If not, then we're agreed: Wonderland is in for another great war, or at minimum a couple of decades of upheavals. If, however, they would, the EU can exist for an indefinite time.
The monetary system, EMU, is toast no matter how it is sliced. Milton Friedman said as much, pointedly, in 1995 and 1997, and he was absolutely spot on. Reading his essays on the subject will repay you or anyone very handsomely, the more so in that he was an excellent and very clear writer.
FReegards!
>>As previously noted, we shall have to agree to disagree.<<
And I appreciate that. You have a perspective, which you clarified very well.
I am not sure you are making your point more than mine, but we might be discussing it from a different angle.
My take: the EU will crumble. Not in historical epoch speed but in the next few years.
My understanding of your take: It will hang in there for the long haul, despite its problems. You just add the Monetary system will dissolve.
From the latter, I propose my former. In the absence of a singular monetary model, the political model cannot stand.
I need to add that lately on FR, many discussions leave the issues and enter the personal. I appreciate your excellent analysis and respect for mine.
We can (and should?) debate the points of our respective perspectives of the EU (and, by extension the EMU). It is gratifying to see someone as erudite and informed as you.
I ain’t changing my prediction — I am acknowledging that you provide significant food for thought :)