Peter Sutherland, always an excellent speaker, used this quotation in a speech he gave at a Jesuit-organised conference on the future of Europe earlier this week: "There is no European people, no European ethnicity, no European demos . . . As a consequence the EU is notoriously incapable of generating popular enthusiasm on any major scale. This, of course, is one of its most attractive features."
Sutherland granted that the comment by Danish intellectual Toger Seidenfaden went a little far for his taste, but he could "see what he meant." Sutherland also quoted President Mitterrand: "Le nationalisme, c'est la guerre." Nationalism leads to war.
One can see why Sutherland is so committed to the EU. For him, the EU provides an antidote to the excesses of nationalism, and its inability to inspire our enthusiasm is a protective factor rather than a disadvantage.
Like other commentators, Sutherland located the reasons for the French and Dutch failure to endorse the EU constitution at national level. The French and Dutch rejected the constitution for complex reasons, this argument runs, that had little or nothing to do with the constitutional treaty itself.
Surely that indicates that there was no allegiance to something supranational like the EU that was strong enough to trump national concerns? If such allegiance existed, people would be willing to put aside merely national concerns.
The fact that this "popular enthusiasm" does not exist suggests, contrary to Toger Seidenfaden's belief, that for many Europeans, the European project has progressed too far, too fast, and it is time to have a real debate.
I should declare an interest. The conference was organised by the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, and I am a member of the editorial board of Studies, which has published the papers. The quality of the papers is very high, including one by Noel Coughlan that was not presented at the conference.
Before the conference there had been some criticism of the choice of speakers, because there were no eurosceptics in the lineup. It was certainly a weakness. After all, if Pope Benedict can meet amicably with Hans Küng, can the Jesuits not facilitate europhiles and eurosceptics in breaking bread together? While the conference was a very worthwhile exercise, it would have been better with greater diversity of opinions.
All the speakers largely agreed that the EU is a positive development. For example, there were arguments about the kind of social model in the EU, and the degree of influence that neoliberalism should have, but there was no one on the platform who was suggesting the EU was a top-heavy monstrosity out of touch with the various electorates.
There were fine contributions from the floor, as from John Gormley, who pointed out that there was a depressing lack of democracy in the negotiations which he had been part of leading up to the proposed treaty. While he could not be described as eurosceptic, it would have been better to see someone like him on the platform.
Interestingly, although he disagreed in many ways with John Gormley, Proinsías de Rossa also sounded a note of warning from the floor, that it cannot be "business as usual", that there is a real crisis due to the rejection of the constitutional treaty.
One of the gaps between the rhetoric of inclusion in the EU, and how member states actually behave, was raised by Alan Dukes, who spoke on immigration.
He pointed out that Ireland had done the decent thing by opening its labour markets to the 10 accession countries, and then ruined it by denying them access to social welfare provision. They are not entitled to social welfare until they can prove that they have been in the country for two years, the so-called habitual residence condition. He pointed out that if we had an integration policy, rather than a labour-market-led policy, to deny such people social welfare would be unthinkable. We have a new poor in Ireland.
Poles, Lithuanians and others who have come to Ireland with high hopes for a new life are ending up homeless and destitute.
Later in the week I spoke to John Mark McCafferty of the Society of St Vincent de Paul. Members from Kerry to Donegal are coming into regular contact with people from the accession countries. For example, their Drogheda office is meeting eight to 10 families a week who are in difficulties, not least because they are so ill informed about the high cost of living.
A family may arrive with €500. They rapidly run out of money when it is harder to get a job than they expected. They have no idea that they will not be paid for a month even if they get a job, and that deposits on accommodation are so high.
The SVP would like to respond adequately to these people in crisis, but their hostels, for example, have evolved to meet the needs of marginalised Irish people, who are often long-term homeless. They are completely unsuitable for families, many of whom have little or no English. The only State help available is from the Reception and Integration agency, which will help people to repatriate.
It is almost Kafkaesque that the Reception and Integration agency will only help them leave the country. These immigrants have no safety net. It has been stated this week that the Government may make changes to allow people access social welfare, but more is needed. As John Mark McCafferty says, the Government, and private companies who are encouraging people to come to fill gaps in the labour market have a moral obligation to first inform people of the realities of life in this country.
The appalling situation of these immigrants, forced to turn to NGOs for help that should be available to them as EU members, is just another illustration of the gap between rhetoric and reality that leads voters to turn off the EU. If politicians wish us to believe that the EU is a wonderful development, with values worth promoting, they cannot afford to wait until they are shamed into treating citizens from other EU states fairly.