Eurosceptics have seized the red meat, Nigel Farage is back to braying from the sidelines, and Cameron has demonstrated that he is a man of the people by offering the country a plebiscite on that brooding, meddling octopus, the European Union (EUSSR).

The right-leaning national press has cheered him to the rafters, with The Times rustling up a coterie of B-list business leaders representing companies that don’t even bother trading internationally, including a pub chain, Betfair and UCI Cinemas.

The problem is, Britain has never really understood Europe, and that’s why it’s never accepted the EU as a solution to centuries of strife. The Prime Minister alluded to this issue in his speech: “We have the character of an island nation – independent, forthright, passionate in defence of our sovereignty.”

To that I would add ‘ignorant’ and ‘exceptionalist’, both characteristics of the island mentality. How typical it was that the original date of Cameron’s great address was planned on the 60th anniversary of the Elysée Treaty between Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer.

Those familiar with The Thick of It can imagine how this omnishambles played out in Whitehall as they deliberated whether the continental knees-up really mattered that much – after all, aren’t the French needlessly emotional about absolutely everything?

De Gaulle blocked British entry into the European Economic Community, the forerunner of the EU, on two occasions (1963 and 1967) because of Britain’s different trading relations, employment attitudes and agricultural policies. “England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her exchanges, her markets, her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries. She has in all her doings very marked and very original habits and traditions.” 

Alas, his efforts were to no avail; les rosbifs simply waited until he died to slip in and join the party, swiftly securing its first series of optouts in 1973, negotiated by Harold Wilson and put to the people.

But while the nation state has worked quite well for Britain over the last few centuries, the Peace of Westphalia, agreed in 1648 to recognise national sovereignty, did not stop wars and empires as means and ends to a political consensus in an ethnically diverse continent. The European Union has delivered 60 years of peace and was rightly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of this. It is neither perfect nor complete, as the Euro crisis shows, and Cameron is right to raise concerns about its democratic deficit.

But it is equally salient to point out that the peoples of Spain, Italy and Greece are still vehemently supportive of the EU, despite being ravaged by economic depression. They all have recent histories of brutal dictatorships offering a far worse way of life.

The reason why alarm is being expressed in European capitals and from Washington is that Cameron may have set in train the unravelling of the EU from 2017. If he gets a suitable renegotiation and keeps Britain in then he will pioneer a new EU based on Peter Mandelson’s cafeteria service, where all member states feel entitled to go à la carte on European policy, leading inevitably to disbandment.

If he wins the election but fails with the renegotiation and takes Britain out, then the EU has lost a very influential partner on defence, trade and liberal policy. The balance of power will shift in the remaining bloc and might entice other countries to seek an exit too. He will fail because he underestimates the extent to which the values of compromise and solidarity matter to the other member states.

In a continent with a shrinking demography and declining influence in the world, a fragmentation back to the model of querulous Westphalian states would surely be the death knell of European prosperity in the post-imperial age, in which sovereignty is moving to regional spaces and enacted by international organisations and corporations.

Many things can happen between now and 2018, and it would be useless to predict any- thing except the continuation of an increasingly unstable world operating in turbulent times. Since reform is happening already in the EU, and since active British involvement can help resolve the issues surrounding democratic accountability and the like, it seems self- defeating even to be contemplating the idea of leaving an institution that has delivered so much and promises to deliver so much more.

Britain’s stance on the EU is like the attitude of the sheriff in Blazing Saddles. At one point he says: “If you don’t do what I want, I’ll blow my brains out.” The problem for Cameron and the whole country comes when the rest of the EU says, “OK, go ahead.”

Five years ago, Guardian journalist and ex-Mertonian Tanya Gold wrote a piece entitled “Oxford is hellish”. The article resurfaced, courtesy of Twitter, last year and was met with the inevitable excoriation it de- serves from current Oxford students. Much of what Gold said about Oxford as a “bitter, lonely rather boring place” was surely wrong, but one of her phrases stuck with me. She argued that despite Oxford priding itself on intellectual rigour and academic excellence, in reality, “no- body was learning. We were cramming”.

Now, as a second-year student with four Ox- ford terms behind me, I find myself actually agreeing with Gold – however annoying that might be. When I was at school, teachers would passionately extol the virtues of the Oxford education and its famed tutorial system: the opportunity for deep intellectual thought and stimulation. In short, I would really be made to “think”. It was certainly a challenge I looked forward to when I got my offer.

But now I question whether I really have been able to seriously “think” through essays and tutorials. In reality, and most will surely attest to this, essays have been nothing more than a product of desperately skimming bulky volumes, furiously typing up unimaginative arguments and copying out ridiculous rafts of information in an almighty attempt to hit the dreaded upcoming deadline.

Concomitantly, once the tutorial is over, we heave a great sigh of relief, thank God it’s over and forget all the information we hurriedly stuffed our brains with the night before. In short, we are not really learning but cramming, thanks to a never-ending succession of essay titles and deadlines. Even if we wanted to really engage with our essay subjects, there simply isn’t enough time to do so.

Is this really why we came to Oxford? Speaking to friends at other universities, it surprises me how superior their grasp of similar subject matter is compared to my own. Now, the answer isn’t (I hope) that they are more intelligent than me. More likely it is the longer-term times and fewer outlandish deadlines that they are faced with. It allows, if they are so inclined, to actually absorb information, understand and engage with it.

Many say they like the intensity of Oxford and pride themselves on surviving an academically more rigorous experience. But intensity for intensity’s sake does little for learning. If the university were to implement longer terms and spread deadlines further apart, then an environment more susceptible to actual learning could surely grow. Students would have more time to prepare for tutorials and would pro- duce essays that don’t just read like botched all-nighter products. I am not saying university is just about learning: Oxford with its bops, balls, punting and halls is, of course, so much more. But if we want to call our city one of the world’s great centres for academia, surely we must focus on teaching academia properly.