A fascinating column in the Economist on the use and abuse of history by Europe’s politicians and “Eurocrats” in advancing the EU project. But different uses of history seem to coming into conflict as the EU expands.

 Just as pioneering Eurocrats toiled to create single European markets in widgets or wheat, their political masters crafted something approaching an approved single European history (challenged only in awkward-squad Britain, where the war was a matter of national pride). This history portrayed a smooth moral progression from nationalism and conflict (bad) to the sunny uplands of compromise, dialogue and border-free brotherhood (good).

Enlargement is now challenging all this—especially the recent expansion to 27 countries, including ten former communist ones. The clumsy reactions of old EU members are partly to do with ignorance. Enlargement has introduced lots of alien grievances, sending old Brussels hands scurrying to their encyclopedias to mug up on the 1920 Treaty of Trianon (hated in Hungary) and Carinthian plebiscite (it makes Slovenes fume). But less forgivably, some of the insensitivity of older club members carries a whiff of moral superiority, a sense that it is un-European (not to mention uncouth) to bear historical grudges.

European politicians have always been quick to use post-war reconciliation as a cudgel to pre-empt further debate. This can get pretty shameless. Josep Borrell, then president of the European Parliament, once dismissed campaigners against the parliament’s nonsensical monthly trek from Brussels to Strasbourg, because they were Swedish: how could Swedes understand that Strasbourg, a much fought-over border city, symbolised Franco-German reconciliation, he asked. This “historic dimension” was lost on a country that “did not participate” in the second world war (though nor did Mr Borrell’s—he is from Spain).

 As they say, read the whole thing. Fascinating stuff…