RIGHT then – In or Out? As you decide – which is not to say to help you decide - it might be worth noting that even as David Cameron trumpeted as a triumph the deal that will soon bring us to the fateful choice, the EU’s law-making machine ground on regardless.

Amid the prolonged bags-under-the-eyes-inducing bargaining, which might, or might not, have been, as Lithuania’s president asserted, choreographed to make David Cameron’s reforms seem hard won, the EU strengthened its “all-together” structure, which Mr Cameron’s efforts were designed to loosen.

It announced a new “solidarity principle.” An early application could deny energy to British businesses. How, and why? Because all EU countries would be required to give priority to households, healthcare and security services, not only in their own country but throughout the EU. As the EU's Energy Commisioner himself explained: “This means member states will have to give priority to protected consumers in neighbouring countries over non-protected customers [which means industry and businesses] at home.”

Britain is opposing the measure, but of course it wasn’t part of David Cameron’s negotiations – a forerunner of countless more, as yet unknown, to come. But hey, there’s another on hand. Despite pledging to halt the growth of on-shore windfarms, our Government wants more to be built on the Scottish islands. But the subsidy it can offer is limited by the EU. So we’re asking the EU for permission to spend more – of our own money, on a purely domestic issue.

Michael Gove, a leading Cabinet ‘outer’, is expected to spill devastating beans on just how much the EU sprags Government policy. He says: “It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers’ ability to do the things they were elected to do.”

Meanwhile, it’s clear that the case for remaining in the EU is founded on fear. “A leap in the dark” is the leitmotif. Yet, contradictory, Mr Cameron himself dare not claim that Britain, the world’s fifth largest economy, couldn’t succeed on its own.

There are other contradictions. “Safer” within the EU insists Mr Cameron, even as he announces that Britain will not contribute to a European Army, presumably regarded by the EU as a key to its safety and security.

Then there’s the “influence” that Mr Cameron sees us exerting “at the heart” of the (reformed) EU. If we have so many opt outs will we be quite at heart of the EU, especially as its goal of “ever-closer union” is not altered? All that has been achieved to safeguard our sovereignty is a recognition that we don’t want to lose it – and can be excused the commitment to give it up.

That’s for now, of course. But the creation of an EU superstate is a long game. If we’re on the field we’re in it. And, it has to be said, the purpose has been clear from the beginning. In 1962, 13 years before we voted on what was successfully presented as a trading block, the then Labour leader, Hugh Gaitskell, warned: “It does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. It means the end of a thousand years of history.”

It’s in your hands, and mine, whether that happens.