It’s like saying the US started as a colony and that explains the lack of its progressive democracy and having a static constitution.
Just because something started as X doesn’t mean that evolution didn’t happen. The reasons for the bureaucracy are a lot and different but come down to power sharing between the stakeholders.
You are simply confirming the parent's counter-take that the US starting as a colony was such a big influence that despite hundreds of years and 2 revolutions the US still lacks progressive democracy.
I mean, the fact that part of the country was started as a resource extraction colony, and another part was started as an experiment in puritanical religious extremism seems in retrospect to have been a bad sign.
Of course, lots of things seem portentous in retrospect, if we look back on the path we took, of course it turns out we passed lots of signposts pointing in our current direction.
While this is true, the idea behind this was not merely to collaborate on coal and steel production. The intention from the very beginning was that such tight economic coupling would make war impossible.
Germany has the idea of "Wandel durch Handel" (change through trade)[1], which is essentially that you can prevent and make war non-viable and eventually even change countries to follow democratic norms. The EU is the most extreme version of this.
"By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and other member countries, this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of peace."
The ECSC (Treaty of Paris, 1951) started as one of the first projects for cooperation in post-WW2 Europe. The more important step towards as single market then was the EEC (-> Treaty of Rome, 1957).
