Bombing is minor stuff? I remember the Troubles. I remember machine gun fires and constant police checks in Belfast. I remember bombings and frequent bomb alerts in London. It wasn't just confined to NI. It spread to the whole of the UK and had a massive impact of social and political life in the country. Nobody who has experienced that wants to go back to those days.
To deny the EU's role in post-war peace and stability is part of Brexit propaganda for denigrating the EU. The UK hasn't left, but we already see numerous conflicts between the UK and the rest of Europe. Conflicts that are normally dealt with within the framework of EU cooperation now come into the open with all the jingoistic fervor national media can muster. That cements and aggravates conflicts. In today's world, the European empires of the 19th century no longer exist. Individual European nations have no means to defend their interests against today's imperialist powers on their own. Thus, Europe isn't going to plunge the world into another world war; however, that doesn't exclude regional conflicts of the kind we see all around the EU.
I had admitted in the OP that being an American I have little knowledge about the cultures of Europe. I'll extend this to include the Troubles.
However, I still claim that compared to war, the Troubles were 'minor'. Like compared to the Blitz in London it was minor.
I'm also ignorant on the issue of just how being in the EU keeps the situation in NI quite. Maybe you can explain the link to me.
. . . Maybe the people on NI are now of a new mindset. Maybe they like it safe and quite. Maybe they would not support the terrorists and would turn them in every chance they got. Maybe there will not be a return to the Troubles, just a few more terrorist attacks that fizzle out over a short time, because none of the people see any benefit from them for themselves.
. . . America has a current problem with right-wing terrorists who shoot up stores, nightclubs, and concerts, etc. I contend that this is minor. Gun deaths in America are far less than the deaths from traffic accidents and a lot of other causes, especially if we take out suicide by gun deaths.
On the question of how many die per year from lack of sufficient, timely medical care from the NHS, the UK Gov. does not provide any statistics for how many die per year from lack of sufficient, timely medical care, of course it doesn't. So, it is just conjecture.
Even a study would not convince those who fear a return of the Troubles. So, this is just my gut feeling by an admittedly ignorant American. Therefore, YMMV.
. . . However, if we extend the damage to all looking at all of the EU then I'm positive that the yearly damage from the totally unnecessary* austerity is more than 10 times the yearly damage from the Troubles. I include deaths (incl. additional suicides), great hardship, and ruined lives in the damage here. HTOH, it is all together possible the some problems like the Troubles could start up in other places in Europe.
. . . And like someone said, NATO will still be there and NATO might keep its members from attacking each other.
. . . Also, the current Yellow Vest troubles are *now* being caused by the austerity that the EU & eurozone rules require, and so are causing people feel put upon by the situation they live in. I claim that the EU rules are directly *causing* the Yellow Vest troubles.
. * . I claim that this is "totally unnecessary" based on my understanding of economics. I understand that most people disagree with my understanding of economist. I claim that most people are wrong here. My main evidence for this is the period I lived through in America from the end of WWII until 1973, or so. That is, "the good life" happened then so it isn't necessary to *not* have the good life now. Additional evidence is contained in MMT's writings.
. . . In this period things were going just fine for most people. There was some inflation near the end of that time, but wages kept up with it and borrowers paid back their loans with cheaper dollars. Then came to oil price shock brought on by OPEC and a war in the Middle East. Oil is in the cost/price of everything. so everything cost more, OPEC reacted to this by increasing the price of oil more, and so on for a while. This caused high ongoing inflation that allowed the Neo-liberals to take over the US Gov. and they ruined the good times. There were other solutions** to the inflation. The solution we got has let to the economic inequality we now have in US & EU. Where some few are stinking filthy rich and 25% of the people live in grinding poverty. And this is in a period where the stuff people need is abundant, there is no shortage of food and stuff, instead there is a shortage of money to buy the stuff.
. . . Modern Monetary Theory explains all this quite nicely. Your everyday experience does NOT lead you to understanding this. EU govs. are like families, they must find euros before they can spend them. The US and most other Govs. are *not* like this, they can deficit spend and then borrow what they just spent back (after the fact so to speak) so they can cover the deficit. OTOH, no nation ever needs to "payoff its debt", ever. All nations can keep borrowing to roll its debt over forever. Any nation today that tries to run a surplus sufficient to payoff its debt will destroy the nation's economy. It is as simple as that. Therefore, all nations *must* keep rolling over its debts, forever. They have no choice. They are trapped, if you want to look at it that way. [The only way to "payoff the national debt" is to pay it with newly created dollars which may be inflationary. But, inflation is far better than endless Great Depression Squared.]
. . . The nations in the eurozone do have a problem with this. They may have to pay too high an interest rate to be able to sell their bonds. This is part of the reason that the EU must be reformed. Other nations like the US & Canada can just spend dollars and not ever sell bonds to cover the deficit if the interest rates are too high. They can always pay their bills because they can create dollars.
. . . In fact it is now realized by a growing number of economists that nations must create new currency in some way, with deficits or just spending it. This is because people and comp. want to save and when they save this cuts the income of someone else (income they would have got if that money had been spent instead of being saved) and that then cuts the incomes of others, etc. For a while this drop in income can be offset by income from people spending money they borrowed from a bank, but at some point they will have to stop borrowing because they can't afford the payments on all those loans. This then will cause a Recession. And, the only way to end a Recesso is with deicit spending (starting a war was just a way to justify deficit spending, so better to just deficit spend on infrastructure, education, healthcare and other stuff that are investments).
.** Another possible solution would have been, for example, for the US Gov. to pay every comp. that made an investment an amount each year equal to the rate of inflation (minus some fixed X%, maybe 1% or 2%, with a minimum of 0%) times the amount of the investment. If this had been done then comp. would not have to worry that inflation would eat up all the profits from the investment. The Gov. gets the money to pay this by just creating it. Since it must create money anyway it would simply deduct this amount from the total amount it should be creating for other reasons. This money is then in the economy and will let people or comp. save or be spent to add to the GDP and therefore some people's incomes which lets them buy stuff. [You must remember that after 1971 the US had the ability to create any amount of dollars and give them to someone, because it went off the gold standard.]
. . OTHO, *soon*, we will have to find a way to learn to live with much less economic growth. The environment can't supply raw materials in unlimited amounts and it can't take an unlimited amount of pollution either. And ACC is happening. It seems to me, that economic growth will have to be limited (in some way, some how) to an amount equal to the increase in our (worldwide) ability to do things with less damage to the environment and/or with less input of raw materials.