A musty piece by Enrico Letta, previously an Italian Prime Minister, urges the EU to relaunch – or die.

Why so drastic? Let’s find out.

If the European Union does not undertake a concrete and effective relaunch within the next few months, it will begin an irreversible decline. There is little time to avoid it. The reaction must be rapid and courageous.

Already we see a worrying indication of EEAS – Excessive European Adjective Syndrome.

Brexit was a shock, but its aftermath is even more serious. The British decision — a consequence first and foremost of a British problem — has come to be seen as a widespread rejection of Europe, with all the unfair and extremely damaging side-effects that brings.

Does it bring those things? Does it bring only those things? And what does ‘Europe’ mean exactly in this context?

Continental Europeans reacted with divisiveness, followed by excessive passivity — as if a business-as-usual approach would be sufficient to manage an event of such historic importance.

That’s those Continental Europeans for you. Slippery lot.

On September 16, an EU summit will be held in Bratislava. We are moving toward it in the dark and with our headlights off, as though we could permit the meeting to end with the usual formulations: “The European Council welcomes …,” “The European leaders encourage …”

A vivid metaphor for August. And isn’t a top EU meeting ending with lame platitudes the safe way to bet?

The truth is that a profound revision of the process of European integration would have been necessary even if Britain had not voted for Brexit. The decision only offers more compelling reasons for the undertaking … But we must acknowledge that Brexit could help the EU recognize the impossibility of continuing to do business as usual.

Musty! True. My case for a Brexit vote in fact.

It is often said that you should never waste a crisis, and never has that been truer than now. Any reaction must make a clear distinction between divorce and a fresh start. For the remaining 27 countries of the EU — and especially the 19 members of the eurozone — the focus must be on the latter.

Musty! Fair point. Two big jobs. But the faster/happier the divorce, the easier it will be to tackle the ‘fresh start’.

The divorce will be complex, exhausting and unsatisfactory from almost every point of view, but it must not be allowed to condition the relaunch of the EU. It must be managed with professionalism and dispassion. It should, in short, be reduced to a legal question.

Double musty! Which legal question? We’re not told. And how do you reduce so complex a divorce in that way? We’re not told.

The fresh start, on the other hand, must be infused with the fullest possible political and emotional investment.

Musty! Do EU leaders and publics agree on where they want to go with the EU project, politically or emotionally?

The objective of Europe’s leaders must be to guarantee that the EU is better able to protect its citizens, economically and socially, as well as ensure their security.

Musty! Ah, our old friend comparative politics. The EU is ‘better able’ (sic) to protect its citizens.

The effort must start with the euro itself, whose full realization is the most important goal. Achieving this will improve prosperity and well-being across the eurozone. It will make the currency union more stable and prevent new crises.

Musty! What does ‘realizing’ the euro mean? Will that make the currency zone more (sic) stable?

The rupture that is dividing European society has its origins in the rift between globalization’s winners and losers.

A divisive rupture has its origins in a rift? Is an unemployed Italian who can look for opportunities via a mobile phone with stunning computer power a globalization winner or loser?

Before the financial crisis of 2008, the winners were in the majority, and this gave rise to the mistaken idea that the rest of the population — the losers — were just an unfortunate side-effect.

But who are these winners and losers? Over what timescale are they identified?

Fear prevailed, and the many who missed the boat on globalization found ways to express their desire for the “good old days.” They found parties that amplified their fears, and they expressed those fears in a progressively more vocal and determined manner. In Britain, they were able to take that most tumultuous of backward steps: Brexit.

Yet a core Brexit argument was all about opening the UK to wide new forms of trade relationship. Can a backward step be tumultuous? No.

For EU leaders, failing to heed the lessons of recent events would be the worst possible reaction. Europe cannot be only for globalization’s winners. It must protect all its citizens.

Musty! WHO ARE THOSE WINNERS? And how exactly do you plan to ‘protect’ citizens from globalization and its effects?

A relaunch of the EU must rekindle popular enthusiasm at a time when crisis and uncertainty have destroyed the perception of gradual but inevitable and universal progress.

Musty! Why only a ‘perception’? Wasn’t Europe’s progress over decades pretty impressive?

This offers us the opportunity to return to the origins of the European ideal that has, in recent years, lost its way and ended up in bureaucratization.

Why exactly has this tragedy happened? How to stop ‘bureaucratization’ in the modern world?

This is the moment for statecraft to replace bureaucracy. Our citizens are turning to their representatives because they are looking for certainty and asking for security and protection.

In fact they are turning away from their representatives because the latter seem unable to cope. Plus what a dismal serfish vision – citizens ‘asking’ their representatives to protect them from the world.

Our political system in Old Europe, crisis ridden though it is in other ways, has a unique and unrepeatable opportunity to regenerate itself. We must not permit ourselves to waste it.

Musty! Old Europe? That sounds exciting.

* * * * *

Isn’t this sort of empty weary waffle from a top European opinion-former just the sort of thing that makes any popular enthusiastic ’emotional’ relaunch of Europe impossible?