Well I was being a little tongue in cheek. He actually said
"Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? I would never be so rash to make that assumption."
Completely ignoring the very basic fact that if a leave vote was the choice of the british people that in and of itself shouldn't mean that europe stopped security collaboration with us. After all, we have been told for over 40 years that the EEC/EU was only a trading block - no plans for statehood, no plans for political union. Not to mention that it has been NATO that has actually done the peacekeeping post WW2 and we weren't voting to leave Nato. We were just voting to leave a trading block.
The 'Remainer whopper' that I have highlighted in your post and which has been repeatedly stated by Remainers for many years was fully exposed by the document that
@Saddleworth2 linked the other day.
Strangely - likely because it laid bare a number inconvenient truths - no other credible Remainers have actually been able to face up to the content. It speaks volumes to me about the paucity of their understanding of the EU's - either, past current or future intentions and frailities.
The document explains clearly that not only is Political Union intended - it is absolutely essential if there is to be any prospect of the salvation of the Euro and the EU project - but even then, it would be only a delaying of the implosion.
Without that integration there is absolutely no prospect of survival.
It is a long read - but well worth it - but the commentary of economic journalists and the conclusion from about page 49 for 8-10 pages provides a reasonable summary, including providing the answers to 4 questions that were posed:
• No, the Eurozone is not an Optimal Currency Area. This is because it does not satisfy the conditions for monetary union. These conditions can only be satisfied if the Eurozone adopts fiscal and political union by becoming a federal state.
• The euro can therefore survive only so long as Germany, in particular, continues – albeit reluctantly – to finance the balance of payments deficits of other Eurozone members, in particular, Italy and Spain. This requires it both to recycle its trade surpluses back to countries with trade deficits and to be the main recipient of capital flight from Eurozone states with weak and weakening banking systems.
• Target2, the apparently innocuous Eurozone payments system, is critical to facilitating the payment flows between surplus and deficit countries. The Target2 credits of countries such as Germany almost exactly match the balance of payments deficits of countries such as Italy and Spain. Since these deficits can never be repaid, the euro can only survive if Germany, in particular, agrees to mutualise Eurozone debts so that the Eurozone becomes a transfer union.
• Political union together with a common fiscal as well as monetary policy is the only realistic way of saving the euro in the long term and avoid further failed rescue packages. This is, of course, what Europe’s political establishment wants and has been preparing for since the days of Jean Monnet, but it is not obvious that this is what the people of Europe want. However, given the size of the Target2 imbalances, it is also conceivable that the Eurozone will not survive and will eventually break up; this becomes more likely if political support for the euro project, particularly in Germany, begins to wane.