Oh tragedy.

But Lagarde, Europe is a museum? #1020250 All we have is "professional soccer and nursing homes; centuries-old architecture and over-regulated, tourist-infested beaches."

(OK, maybe we have one thing... in Helsinki, Sept 25-26; get your tix, browskis #1531888)

hope springs eternal. And some of the fraternal hopes of the Revolution resurfaced in a new guise after the end of the Cold War, as the former European Economic Community was being transformed into the European Union. Despite some early setbacks (particularly in the Balkans), the luster of the European project was bright in those days.

and

...At the outset of the 21^st century—fifteen years after the initial Schengen Agreement and eight after the Maastricht Treaty—the Continent seemed to have a certain vitality to it. Whatever one thought of the actual texts of these accords, they represented directional change for Europe and were greeted enthusiastically in many if not all EU member states. [...]
theorists of the European future believed they could overtake the United States, which dominated the 20^th century. Sure, America may have been the arsenal of democracy (as well as the guys mostly firing the arsenal after 1945). But it remained wedded to nationalism and militarism—vestiges of more primitive times. 

Seemed kind of reasonable at one point...

"alongside idealistic visions of superior governance, the EU’s boosters trumpeted its latent economic capacity. By the mid-aughts, its collective GDP was on par with the United States’. Without the burden of war, it seemed likely that Europe would continue its relative growth.""alongside idealistic visions of superior governance, the EU’s boosters trumpeted its latent economic capacity. By the mid-aughts, its collective GDP was on par with the United States’. Without the burden of war, it seemed likely that Europe would continue its relative growth."

Reality didn't turn out that way. Shocking really: It's almost like prosperity isn't legislated by committee...?

today, the Continent lags well behind the United States economically. Through the intervening period, there was no shortage of conventions, summits, diplomatic delegations, concordats, and other flashy meetings and statements. However, while the club has taken in new members, there have been no real milestones of further integration since the mid-90s—and the fundamental issues of borders and common monetary systems were replaced by mundane matters like the allowable circumference of artichokes.
Instead of a European 21st century, we got Europooreans, surveillance states, collapsing populations, anemic economic growth, an invasive welfare state too heavy to carry.... SHOULD I KEEP GOING?! (So why don't we leave? Well, it's pretty... #1508570... and moving is hard)

Even Mark Leonard, the guy who literally wrote the book Why Europe Will Run the 21^st Century twenty years ago, recently recanted... NOPE, he confessed; Europe is actually doomed.

Enter the Canadian disasterEnter the Canadian disaster

So when Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently declared that the “new world order” would be built from Europe, it felt like a curious throwback. [...] after years of anemic growth and a demographic crisis that threatens to become a political crisis, the appeal is lost.

Out of touch, eh??

"It’s easy to blame feckless leaders for the problems facing Europe, but two structural tensions have been unavoidable. One is vertical and the other horizontal.""It’s easy to blame feckless leaders for the problems facing Europe, but two structural tensions have been unavoidable. One is vertical and the other horizontal."

Vertical: centralized project, Brussels-oriented "that concentrates decision-making at a greater remove from ordinary citizens than most state governments do."
Horizontal: pretenses to universality: "overrides the traditional boundaries of its constituent countries."

"Going back to Monnet and Schuman in the 1950s, the European project was predicated upon its promise to better preserve the underlying nations than conventional state structures.""Going back to Monnet and Schuman in the 1950s, the European project was predicated upon its promise to better preserve the underlying nations than conventional state structures."

TL;DR: immigration broke it. Can't have non-Europeans build Europe if Europe is such an amazing place destined to rule.

progress is not the source of Europe’s appeal. The Continent is also the site of the most beautiful buildings, the best culinary traditions, and a more refined way of life inherited from generations of overlapping aristocracies. By embracing progress, the EU threatened to efface much of what originally made the European way seem valuable and worth securing.

I told yah at the top, no? #1020250