It is commonly agreed that, besides taxes, there are few certainties in politics. However, I would like to add another: so long as there is an issue of great importance, Paddy Ashdown will likely have something eloquent to contribute to the matter. Armed with his rhetorical magnificence at the Cambridge Union Monday evening, I only then realised how lucky I was to briefly chat earlier that afternoon.

Sitting languidly in one of those dated chintz chairs the Union is so fond of, Lord Ashdown impressed upon me the seriousness of the discussion at hand. It was no less than a debate “between isolationism and internationalism” he said, admonishing the media for portraying the debate as simply “between one wing of the Tory Party and one wing of the Labour Party”. Incisively, he condemns the ‘tribalism’ of British politics that has gripped the nation’s interest throughout the Brexit campaign, a tribalism that had turned a momentous question into a “gladiatorial contest between Boris and David Cameron.”

With his light smile and gently creased temples, there is a feeling of the happy warrior about him, though when in his presence he exudes a statesmanlike seriousness. And what is there not be serious about, reminding me of the “isolationism and nationalism growing in Western countries”. This is not simply a man fighting for some dry policy proposal, but a politician enervated by the profound questions of self-perception and purpose that lie behind Britain’s search for identity.

As a former intelligence officer and prolific member of the House of Lords, Ashdown (or as he asked me to call him, Paddy), spoke authoritatively about the challenges facing a modern Britain: “Environment – how can you have a clean environment without Europe, how can you have sovereignty unless you pool your sovereignty to give you protection against global factors”, he asks, knowing full well the obviousness of the answer. When Lord Ashdown speaks, his voice exudes a quiet purpose and analytical mind that has clearly spent far more time than me dissecting answers to his own questions.

It was clear that throughout the interview, and indeed in the debate, that the issue of Europe is and has been a prime motivation throughout Lord Ashdown’s career. It is also very clear that he holds a certain degree of contempt for those who would trivialise the decision on June 23rd. He lets fly some hard words, condemning the current political process as “far too tribal” and admonishes the media “who couldn’t help themselves” when it comes to reporting the tawdry internal squabbles of the various campaigns. Like any good Lib Dem, he impresses upon me the failure of the media in covering Liberal Democrats on the issue of Europe. He reminds me out of the gate “we are the one party that is united…we have passionate and strong speakers” – although I get the distinct impression that he is referring to himself in the latter half of the quote. Tim Farron isn’t exactly someone I would describe as ‘passionate’.

Despite his qualms with the media, he holds his real thrashing for the “little Churchills who want to fight them [immigrants]”. He attributes this to a “real nastiness growing out of the Out Campaign” a nastiness that is in league with the hated forces of isolationism. He attributes this little England attitude to the reception of the President of the United States, a reception that he says demonstrated “bad manners”. He levels a particularly barbed attack at Boris Johnson, accusing him of “not so subtle racism…dogwhistle politics of the most damaging sort”. It is clear that not only does he find such words from London’s Mayor about Obama’s part-Kenyan ancestry not only outrageous, but utterly divorced from the issues at hand.

In light of Ashdown’s passion about Europe, this is the greatest crime of all. One would get a fuller sense of this upon hearing his magisterial defence of the EU, delivered in dulcet tones at the Cambridge Union this Monday evening. He reminded us that this is “a crucial moment for our generation”, and by leaving Europe “we are separating ourselves from the great issues of our time”. A great statesman must not only convince his listeners, but convince his listeners that what they are discussing is worth arguing about. With sweeping delivery and an eye to the big picture, that recognises that the “Arab world is in flames, while we face the most aggressive Russian President in decades”; so focused was his delivery, so earnest his tone, that one could not help but face the awesomeness of the choice on 23rd June, and the vital necessity of remaining in the European Union.

Unsurprisingly, his colleagues were effusive in their praise. Charles Clarke called it “very powerful, very moving”, Charlotte Vere said simply “when he gets to his feet he is very, very good…he is a statesman”. To be in the room when Lord Ashdown spoke, was to see a true moment of statesmanship. The United Kingdom is lucky to have him.