An Ambassador for dessert

At the height of renewed controversy over the role of Britain in Europe, a well-known, influential and well-to-do publicist - and convinced opponent of Britain's participation in the further integration of Europe - invited me to dinner. I had met him at a reception and had found myself, almost before we had been introduced, in a vigourous discussion on Europe, the euro and the role of Britain. Evidently this encounter had whetted his appetite.

At his elegant house in north-west London, I found a small and select gathering, including one of the three greatest newspaper proprietors, a well-known younger cabinet minister and an MP, all friends of the host or politically close to him. It was clear that my companions were not about to sing the European anthem. The host, known for his sharp tongue, was charming, his wines were exquisite, and the dinner could not have been more pleasant. Then came the moment when the gentlemen withdrew to the smoking-room. Pleasurably the host lit up his trademark fat cigar. And when we all had our drinks: „"What's the nonsense Kohl's come out with again - European unification or war?" he asked provocatively. „"We Britons are good Europeans, but we want to be ruled by Britons. That Brussels is just a giant bureaucracy. No democratic control...etc."

A colossal misunderstanding! I did my best. Quoted the original text, questioned some arguments, put the case, tried to correct prejudices. I was in good training. In 1996, this kind of debate was my bread and butter. But in this case, the numbers were against me: 5-1: We argued freely. After an hour, it was finally time to rejoin the ladies. I did not have the feeling I had won over either my host or my fellow-guests, but I at least hoped I had perhaps sown or nourished one or two doubts. In such company, it would have been a success. At any rate that little party had not succeeded in making me into an extra dessert, although they obviously would have liked to.

A few years later, to my surprise, I found in my host's diaries, which were published posthumously, the following entry on the dinner: „"After the women had gone into the drawing room, I put the German Ambassador rather through the hoop. I asked him why Kohl had made this extraordinary remark about having to have a federal state and a single currency in order to prevent a war breaking out internally in the European Union. - The German Ambassador, Dr. Jürgen Oesterhelt, is a very good arguer - I liked his staunch defence of his country. He kept saying, 'You can't do without us. You have to be in this great union to protect yourselves from the forces roaming the world economically and militarily.' I said, 'I want to be in an ordinary free trade area - and to join NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Area: USA, Canada, Mexico).'"

I was pleased to read this. The summary was accurate and honest. But above all it demonstrated to me once again, just as did so many other discussions before and after, at business luncheons and dinners, after lectures and at other events, a specific trait of the British character - of British culture - which I greatly valued. They were hard debaters and negotiators, even merciless opponents, but they had respect for their adversary and observed the rules of the game, recognised the good arguments and discussed with calm, courtesy, objectivity and precision. Setting traps was allowed, but bad humour was not. Such were the rules which the British had already learned at school, and which they naturally obey all the way up to Parliament. It always seemed to me that it is no accident that modern sport evolved in this great country. It really is a little like sport when - whether in London or elsewhere - you engage in a proper and serious discussion. You size each other up, test your strength, fight hard but fair and leave the field with a friendly parting, as a civilised human being.

I enjoyed being the advocate of a cause in which I firmly believed in this country in difficult times.