Not necessarily. As organisations mature they move from the visionary dreams of their founders to the pragmatic actions of bureaucrats furthering their organisational self interests. Problems arise when the institutional architecture takes insufficient account of underlying conflicts of interest or new threats in the external environment. The same happens in companies when they grow out of the initial entrepreneurial phase and become entrenched bureaucracies which stifle innovation or the ability to respond to new challenges.

The very fact that we are now talking about a banking Union with common regulatory and resolution frameworks is a positive step. It may not be a vision to inspire a new generation of Euro enthusiasts, but it shows that incremental evolution is still possible.

The lack of empathy with Greek suffering is, of course alarming. Merkel doesn't have the vision to formulate a Marshall plan, or even the vision of her mentor, Helmut Kohl, who initiated a massive transfer Union between West and East Germany (perhaps without fully realising that that was what he was doing).

Certainly the politics and rhetoric have changed in a was that seems entirely anti-humanitarian. Where now the talk of cohesion, structural and regional funds to help less developed regions? It's like dogs fighting over scraps at the moment.

So I don't disagree with your sentiment: I just think that, with better leadership, there is still a lot of potential in what the EU could achieve. It's just an incredibly slow, opaque, and frustrating process; but I'm not a Eurosceptic yet.

Index of Frank's Diaries