There was nothing wrong with the EEC's idea but
those who would create a federal europe just couldn't be content with that.
That's the period where De Gaulle, no friend of the US, did everything he could to prevent a federal Europe, to deny the UK, that "perfidious Albion" and vassal of the US, access to the EU.
It's also the period that the US foreign policy was meddling everywhere in foreign domestic poltics at a scale and with means, much bigger than Russia interfering now.
Realpolitik of the cold war and a new global empire, the US. Nothing spectactular as well. Even in unimportant small countries, like NL, the US foreign affairs was quite active, from legal to confdidential to illegal.
But just as Steve Bannon has found out with trying to ally with populist parties for the coming EU elections, Europe is like the Balkan, many countries happy with aid, but to proud to really accept real foreign interference.
I do not think there is currently or within the next decades a real support for a federal Europe in the EU. Not from the majority of the people, not from the majority of the political elites and civil society.
Free movement of citizens, from raised here, educated there, living where you choose to live and work, commuting cross-border without all kinds of misfits of regulations, taxes, benefits.... that's what people want. But that does not need a federal EU government.
There are people
happy to merge
now into a federal Europe. Fine for me. It helps the European dream.
There are also politicians and movements vocal and visionary about a federal Europe. Despite a marginal support !
And my question to them is why ? and why NOW ?
Macron is one. Varoufakis another.
If they want for example a federal Europe to get better equality between the countries of the EU... let them say that openly !
Let them argument why more country equality on the shorter term is necessary and how that would be realised in a federal EU. That allows other people to share the issue and come with their solutions. Have the full discussion.
And not force the structure first and then force the unspoken consequences. That's an authoritarian recipe that will not work and will have a counter productive effect.
And I come back on my Europe of Regions (of 10-20 Mio each) and away from federal..
If we have no good understanding and no effective policies to handle Regional inequality within countries, why would improving Regional equality work better in a federal structure of states the size of the former countries ?
And if we have some understanding of the issue and the solution... and are not able within the cohesion of a country to have a more public discussion about it !!!
Why would that discussion suddenly go better when we shifted the hot potato issue upward to Brussels ???
One think I initially hated as a gamer in the game Europa Universalis but later came to appreciate very much for its realism, was the inverse relation between size on one hand and stability and capacity for investing on progress on the other. Because even though it hampers that nice empire-building that a player tends to go for, it's realistic: small states are more efficient in addressing their needs
"Small is beautiful", the old hippie slogan.
We have in NL 17 million people, in 12 provinces, in 355 municipalities (of in average 48,000 people). The provinces have a
coordinating role for topics that affect several municipalities (infra structure etc) and a scale role for specialist functions too big for municipalities (universities, specialist hospitals, etc). Around 50,000 people a nice size. If you a are politician, you should be able to know everything and be accessable for everyone.
The basic principle of governing here in NL is: pump everything possible "down" from the central government to the municipalities, unless the economy of scale effects start hurting too much. In that program, we had to increase the scale size of municipalities, and that process is still going on. In Amsterdam (850,000 pop) we experimented with splitting in 16 parts first, but we merged back to 7 parts.
That pumping down is a continuous process reacting to new techs needing smaller economies of scale to be efficient enough. Continuous, not only because such changes need to be executed slowly to prevent disruptions, but also because you have to adapt, to utilise the changing techs available. Just like with home office working made possible by electronical communication, there is a lessening need for civil servants sitting together in one big building in a capital. Government departments software programs being used at municipality level allow enough auditing control on broad general policies from the central government => enabling local political control within that freedom to adapt better to local needs.
Note: pumping taxes down is a bad idea. When you do that the equality between municipalities will go down rapidly.
In my vision pumping down "too much" to get a better happiness from smaller scale self-determination, at the expense of some efficiency of money, is the way to go.
Local self determination is good.
Recognising what interactions you need horizontally and what tasks & responsibilities have how much scale size effects, is fundamentally important for allocating your functions.
The measure sticks money & happiness. The Top measure stick sustainable happiness.
As you see I like the bottom up approach, the from internal goals to external consequences in beneficial needs and obligations back. The current EU fits very well.
The point you mention as weak, the resistance against a growing global, corporate and financial power, is not unrelated, but imo also not caused by the EU, or made weaker by the EU. The national political parties dominate the scene for national interests. Those national interests are imo bigger breaches in the wall than the top-level Brussels players. Enough unity to be less outplayed an improvement. A federal Europe would make us more vulnerable.