Let's start with the semi-obligatory history lesson. Ever since William of Normandy crossed the channel and won the Kingdom of England on a grassy hill in Sussex, Europe and the British Isles have been intertwined. Initially, England looked to make territorial gains on the continent; after that plan failed, England confined herself to open trading and to making the area quiet for everyone to live in. We've given ourselves up to prevent the continent being dominated by any one religion, power, or ideology.
After the last failed attempt to impose one ideology on a whole continent, the countries of mainland Europe came to an enlightened conclusion. The second world war had been a ghastly mistake, and had been brought about by the very existence of nation states. If there was no Germany, there could be no German supremacists to cut their cloth from prejudices and distrust. Nationalism, thought the survivors in the 1950s, would inevitably lead to war, so remove the nationist instinct, and bingo! War is gone!
It's a tribute to the likes of Adenauer and Schuman that their prognosis has been proven correct. Build a body that is bigger than the nation state, and the military option becomes unthinkable. Seriously, can anyone imagine the French and Germans going to war again over anything? Britain, as ever, had avoided conquest by the Germans. Unusually for Europe, she still saw national pride as a strength and a source of pride, not a weakness. She averred from the European Community in 1958, and only signed up fifteen years later.
Closer ties to Europe raise questions about Britain's fundamental sovereignty and nationhood. As well they might; during the fifteen years before accession, Britain lost an empire, but never really thought about what this meant on the world stage. Successive politicial leaders have baulked at inciting the national debate, fearing - perhaps correctly - that it would not be a short-term vote winner.
After the 1945 peace settlement, there was a second fly in the ointment: Stalin's strange interpretation of Marxism, which seemed to involve lots and lots of troops and tanks, and a regime of fear. Nothing that Karl Marx would recognise, really. That distortion of political thought led to the occupation of Eastern Europe, and to holding back half the continent for nothing more than the vanity of a few men. Now, the spectre of Stalinism has been laid to rest, and we can finally get on with building a healthy, prosperous Europe.
Fifteen years ago this autumn, my school ran its annual "Inequality Day" for the fifth form. We were encouraged to debate and talk about world poverty, human rights abuses, famine, and so on. The same speakers were invited back every year. No one - not one person - mentioned the dramatic changes we were seeing each night on the news. Poland's government was Solidarity, not communist. Hungary had opened her borders. We heard reports every Monday night of civil disobedience in Leipzig. The Stalinists were beyond criticism for one very simple reason: everyone could see their days were numbered, we didn't know how few those numbers were.
Thanks to European co-operation, eight of those countries - only two of them existing back then - have gained economic, political, and social strength, and are now secure democracies. Contrast that against the mess that Russia's become. Countries that were poor beyond measure have improved their standards of living immensely.
The choice cannot be Britain or Europe. The EU has 400 million people and growing; Britain 58 million and falling. Britain's influence as an ally of the US, or in advocating some justice for the poorer nations of the world, will be reduced if she spurns the rest of Europe. "Why should we listen when you say how the world should run; if you don't like it, you'll just retreat behind your island drawbridge."
Britain can't afford to stay out. On her own, she can do little. With friends, she can do a lot. On the world scene, the European Union is more, much more, than the mere sum of its parts.
In due course, I shall examine the proposed European Constitution, but any analysis at present would be self-defeating. The constitution is only a draft, and pinning down that document is akin to chasing after shadows. Make no mistake: my main criticism is almost certain to be that the document is far too weak and doesn't go far enough.