Very pessimistic @TheEconomist editorial on #EU this issue. Fully agree with the failings/challenges identified but editorial distorts the Union’s history in two ways. 1. Says that EU has had a ‘sense of direction’ in the past & this time EU has lost its way. @BrigidLaffan
1. At the end of the 1970s following the two oil crises, EU had many common problems but no agreement on direction/solutions. Found that direction in SEA & single market. In fact @TheEconomist was also very concerned by EU capacity to govern. @BrigidLaffan
2. Treaty change which the editorial suggests was continuous was in fact episodic. First major treaty change post Rome took almost 30 years-treaty change not the EU norm for much of its history. We should expect treaty change to be episodic. @BrigidLaffan
3. Dominant portrayal of #EU in editorial is that of ‘muddling through’ -not accurate. Single market, currency, strengthening of EU’s global role, enlargement etc were step changes in integration & very strategic. @BrigidLaffan
4. #EU has in the 70 years since Schuman expanded membership & policy reach & become the dominant institutional framework for managing interdependence in this part of the world. A remarkable feature of EU has been its willingness to enlarge to more & poorer states. @BrigidLaffan
5. Those achievements could not have been secured based only on muddling through. Becoming a member state has transformed what it is to be a nation state in Europe & #Brexit is a poor advertisement for ‘taking back control’. @BrigidLaffan
6. As Mark Twain reputedly said ‘rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated’ & yes I acknowledge the serious challenges that EU faces -I give you @TheEconomist covers almost 40 years apart 
