Dennis MacShane, the former British Minister for Europe was quoted in ‘The Independent’ newspaper some days ago commenting on the situation in France. The most powerful statement in his article was also the least noticeable; it went something like, “all those of us who love France…” This Minister established a reputation for being an ardent European (perhaps the reason he was replaced after the recent election?). His seemingly innocent phrase is, for me, the main argument that the Eurosceptics fail to understand, and which will, I believe ultimately prove them wrong in a social, if not political sense. It is also the reason why the outcome of the Referenda will matter less than some think. Most of the discussion has been about the political and technical implications of the Constitution – and indeed of its rejection. It may well be true that there will be political turmoil in Europe for some time to come. It may even be that the ‘cause’ of Europe will be put back by some years – by which the doom-mongers still narrowly mean just one thing – the POLITICAL cause. They fail to see that it is largely their own tunnel vision that has brought us to this impasse in the first place. But it will not be the end of a gradually-uniting Europe. I do not envy the French and Dutch having to vote on the Constitution at this time because it is a terrible decision to have to make. I would probably vote Yes because pragmatically I can see that there are some very necessary reforms included in the Constitution, such as making the European Council vote in public, but I share the disappointment in the document as a whole. My only sympathy for the politicians comes from observing public awareness polls about E.U. issues. To say that the general public is ignorant and prejudiced is a huge understatement. My concern is that people all over Europe do not know the first thing about what they are supposed to be voting on. There is undoubtedly an element of the population that has taken the trouble to identify the real issue, but the vast majority of ‘No’ coverage I have read has been about anything BUT an accurate discussion of the actual document in question. For example, the French seem to dislike Section 3, but not to realise that this is almost totally lifted from earlier treaties under which they have lived, apparently happily, for decades. I suppose you could say that this failure to see the real issue is the fault of the politicians too, for the reason that I outlined earlier. There have been several recent contributors to this strand asking ‘What is the E.U. for?’ in the sense of “why bother?” The obvious answer to this is “why NOT bother?” I don’t subscribe to the ‘there is no choice’ approach, but even in a narrowly political sense, what do they envisage instead? A Europe of competing nation-states with all the tensions that this has engendered in the past? (Remember, you have to go back at least to the 1930’s to observe a non conflict-ridden, non-E.U. version of that…) How else do they see the small, but populous and powerful political units in our crowded part of this planet resolving their differences and common problems in today’s world? I am not saying that a Europe of nation states could never work - after a fashion - but it would be hugely inefficient and disjointed. There would have to be some interaction in any case – how else would issues such as trans-border atmospheric or river pollution be resolved, let alone the tensions caused by immigration or the divide-and-rule inclinations of the trans-nationals? The fact that intra-E.U. backbiting still exists only indicates how much worse it would be with no supranational co-ordination, and only national diplomacy to fall back on. However, even this is not the real ‘reason for Europe’. As Dennis MacShane inadvertently illustrated, too many Europeans now have what might best be described as a ‘love’ for their continent and its constituent nations, for us ever to separate fully again. Even many who claim Eurosceptic credentials are in fact avid Europeans: they do often ‘love’ those countries and peoples that they have come to know in recent decades. They regularly visit without visas and God-knows-what; they buy homes or even emigrate to those countries; they bring back unlimited quantities of purchases made in those countries and they have lasting friendships there. Even the insular British were captivated by the (admittedly romanticised) Europe of Peter Mayle and his imitators, and the recipients do acknowledge the revitalisation of their declining villages that resulted. We are all increasingly aware of what is going on in each other’s countries thanks to the Internet – and ironically, even the blasted referenda have resulted in intense media coverage of each other’s countries – even here in Europhobic Britain. Even if the politicians are ignorant of it, a successful social Europe is slowly, hesitantly being built around them. Many dissent or are ignorant, but this is no different from their outlook towards their own domestic affairs. Conservatives will always be inward-looking nationalists, but I for one am not about to let them, nor any failed Constitution deprive me of the life-enhancing links I have with France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany and others. Disagreements and misunderstandings between individuals will naturally abound, but they are being worked through in forums like this one, and gradually accommodations are being found. Jan Freijser’s eloquent explanation of his thinking over the Vote is a case in point. There is persuasive evidence that each new generation contains a growing number who see themselves as European, and when the generation that was prejudiced by the War finally dies out, this will take a leap forward. The technocrats and politicos may miss the point; they may carry on their narcissistic obsessing about the political niceties, but it is nonetheless MacShane’s simple but humane ‘love’ of his fellow Europeans, their countries and their cultures that is the real driver behind this process; I, for one knew instantly what he meant. This has a long course to run – probably generations – but no inward-looking sceptic nor political referendum defeat can even come near the depth of instinctive feeling in that part of the population receptive to a basic communal human desire to ‘comprehend’ and share culture with our nearest and in some senses, long-lost neighbours. That, not cynical politicking, is how to build a real European Union.