Unfortunately, the upcoming referendum will not be the promised choice between Brexit and a reformed European Union because the EU is, as this last ditch effort has confirmed, unreformable. In the crucial area of the economy, all the renegotiation yielded were the same promises to cut red tape which the EU has been giving for years, and a statement on Eurozone integration of which Boris quite reasonably asked “is it a concession by them or us?”. The deal does not address analysis by Civitas, suggesting that only a third of EU free trade deals have benefitted us – largely because most do not include services, which constitute three-quarters of our economy. The EU’s collective negotiating power may be great, but that power is still only 1/28th ours. And it is dwindling: the EU’s 28 countries today have less than half the share of global GDP which the nine countries had when we joined.

On immigration, Cameron did nothing to end the privileging of EU citizens over those from the rest of the world. Instead, only small tweaks to the benefits to which new migrants will be entitled. Aside from the obvious point that people don’t come here to claim benefits, the government’s own analysis shows that the changes will be more than offset by the minimum wage increase. The strength of our economy will still draw EU citizens at a faster rate than our public services can expand, and we will thus continue to be able to take disproportionately fewer people from elsewhere – imposing grossly unfair restrictions. In terms of democracy, Cameron is now touting his ‘red card’ for national Parliaments to come together to block a law. However, as William Hague noted in 2008, with a chortling Cameron beside him, “even if the European Commission were to propose the slaughter of the first born it would be difficult to achieve such a remarkable conjunction of Parliamentary votes.” In any case, we already have the possibility to vote against legislation in the Council of Ministers, but since May 2010 we have tried to block 55 laws, and have been defeated all 55 times.

Notably, the role of the European Parliament has not been enhanced. Its legislation will still be handed down by the unelected Commissioners, whom MEPs are only able to hire or fire as a collective. Cameron may produce a ‘rabbit out of the hat’ that we can refuse to implement EU laws, but Germany has this already and its Constitutional Court has never used it, as disobedience would make remaining in the EU impossible. Whether it’s removing tax on tampons or renationalising the railways, we will still be thwarted. If this is the best we can get with such a strong hand – the imminent possibility of voting to leave – just think how we’ll be treated if we commit to remain; this referendum has been 41 years coming, and we shouldn’t expect another any time soon. Nor should we make the mistake of believing that the EU is the democratic institution we might wish it to be – and, with its lack of democratic mechanism for change, will never become.

We should not be cowed into staying in: the scare stories about job losses are based on the assumption that we would get no free trade deal with the EU, but in reality we would be their biggest export market (accounting for 21 per cent of their exports) and leaders would not sacrifice that just to spite us. We are worth £16 billion each year to German car companies alone; would Chancellor Merkel really allow that to be put at risk?

And then there’s the latest line: on national security. Cameron’s suggestion that leaving the EU would mean France opening the border met sharp rebukes both from France and Channel 4 Fact Check. Indeed, he even claimed that our intelligence agencies wouldn’t be able to work together to stop terrorism – because if in doubt, why stop at making people fear for their livelihoods when you can make them fear for their lives too? Of course, security in no way requires political union, and the suggestion that Europol would refuse to work with us, when it works with the US, Australia, and others day to day, is absurd. The entire ‘Remain’ campaign argument is predicated on doing Britain down: the idea that our economy is too weak; that the British people cannot be trusted to fund universities and scientific research of their own volition; that we would strike down any beneficial law the EU has made; and that we, as a nation, are so narrow-minded that if given back control of our borders we would shut the world out and retreat into jingoism. Our decision will come down to this: do we consign ourselves to an inward-looking, protectionist clique, in the pocket of big business and the establishment politicians they bankroll? Or do we embrace democracy; decide who can come here on merit and need, not nationality; and make our own free trade deals across the world? I’ll be making the case for a bright, global future – and I would love it if you did too.