I am not quite sure how the nuclear deterrent would have prevented two non-nuclear countries within a EEC/EU free Europe entering into conflict between the years 1955 and 2016 so perhaps you could explain?

NATO cannot prevent conflict between its members as has been proven with Greece v Turkey and Iceland v UK.

The EEC/Common Market/EU has, however, a 100% clean record and not one bullet in 65 years has been fired amongst its members.

Churchill's main support for Europe coming together and to pursue common economic interests was to prevent future conflict and, so far, he has been totally correct and his vision on that score nothing less than perfect.

NATO was formed to confront a perceived Soviet threat toward Western Europe and the States and not to harmonise peace.

NATO cannot prevent conflict between its members as has been proven with Greece v Turkey and Iceland v UK.

The EEC/Common Market/EU has, however, a 100% clean record and not one bullet in 65 years has been fired amongst its members.

Churchill's main support for Europe coming together and to pursue common economic interests was to prevent future conflict and, so far, he has been totally correct and his vision on that score nothing less than perfect.

NATO was formed to confront a perceived Soviet threat toward Western Europe and the States and not to harmonise peace.

You can't reply to my question so you deliberately deflect as per. But by doing that you have only undermined your supposition so 'ta'.

It's a fair question.
Since 1945 which European countries were likely to be in conflict?

The peace process in Northern Ireland has absolutely nothing to do with the EU. It is largely the result of the efforts of Blair.

Just as it is fair to object to the EU claiming all the credit for "peace in our times" I think to dismiss it as having no contribution to the longest period of peace is also spurious.

One tangible benefit was working with Ireland within the EU having shared interests and working together within the Union to achieve common aims contributed to the building of trust and much improved relationships and this contributed to the success of the peace process taking hold. Is it the only contributing factor? Of course not but it was a key part of that success.

Did the Irish government put pressure on the IRA? I don't know - would make a change from them turning a blind eye though. Even if they did, why is that necessarily because they were in the EU?

Nato article 8:

Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

[Link]

kind of says that no member of NATO shall attack another member.

Furthermore, Article 5 is very clear on matters:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Is there something in the EU charter which overrides this, Michael?