Funny as you mention it, I recently went to a conference here (KR) and spoke with the British and Greek Ambassador and they too said an absolute merge, which is desired by many, would be very much impossible given distinct differences...can provide names to you or proof of said conference via PM if you want.
Suuuure. The only difference is my idea is backed by nearly every person with any relevance to the academic fields of political science, economy and international relations, whilst yours is backed by the drunk guy down at the pub and my racist grandma. I think the odds are in my favor.
What are you trying to say? The world is indeed not a playground, that is why experiments such as the creation of a political / monetary European union is also very dangerous. There's too many different cultural, linguistic,historical and even economic / financial differences and barriers for it to effectively work beyond a trade union. But likewise, I too firmly believe I can later tell you ''I told you so'' in case this forum still exists a few years from now on.
The world is not a playground or a game. There are no quick saves or resets; just "relaxing" is not an option. There is a very real chance many of the choices western nations are making at the moment will backfire spectacularly. If nothing else, I'll want to be able to say "I told you so" when my generation of civil servants have to pick up the pieces.
We're not talking about an absolute merge at this very moment. I know that wouldn't work either. The EU needs massive reform and cross-country integration needs to be improved immensely before a complete merge would be even close to viable. It's not going to be possible for at least 3 or 4 decades, and that's being optimistic.
We're talking about keeping the EU and reforming it, or destroying it/reverting it to simply a trade union. For Europe to have any chance at geopolitical relevance, we need to overcome them, not trash the whole project and waste 60 years of diplomatic and political progress.
That's where we're going to disagree. We could sit here all day and talk about all the things wrong with the EU, and I'd probably agree with most of your criticisms. I'm not blind to them. Pretty much any criticism directed at the EU which isn't sovereignty-based, I'll probably agree with. It's too slow. Having a monetary union makes absolutely no sense without a fiscal union. The EU has grown too quickly. The EU is terrible at informing the populace of what it's doing; whoever is in charge of marketing should honestly get lynched. The move to Strasbourg is idiotic. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
All that doesn't change the good things the EU has brought to Europe. Peace. Stability. Prosperity. If you ask those same ambassadors whether or not being in the EU is a good thing overall, they'll tell you it's much better than the alternative.