Parliament decided that a referendum was costly and unnecessary. Let me explain why.

Historically, referendums have only been held where new constitutional arrangements have been proposed - most notably when Britain renegotiated its accession to the EEC in 1975. Joining the Euro would also meet this test. Referenda were also held for devolution to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly because they changed the distribution of power.

In the present debate I believe there could be two reasons for holding a referendum: (a) if the Treaty represented major constitutional change or (b) if the Treaty was significantly the same as the 2004 Constitution (upon which the Government promised a referendum).

On both points the answer is a clear NO. The UK has negotiated a series of specific exceptions and clauses, our 'Red Lines', that mean this Treaty is different from the 2004 Constitution and does not represent a transfer of power.

What are the 'Red Lines'? On Foreign and Security Policy, European Security and Defence Policy and Tax and Social Security Policy the UK has demanded unanimous decision making. This means we have a veto and if it is not felt a policy is to our advantage it will not pass.

We have secured an 'opt-out' from the Charter of Fundamental Rights because it was felt it could have undermined the competitiveness of UK businesses. The Charter is legally binding to all member states except the UK.

The Justice and Home Affairs section of the Treaty is potentially highly sensitive – affecting areas such as the role of our courts and immigration. Given our unique position as an island Nation it is vital we retain total controls on these issues and another 'opt-out' was duly negotiated.

These 'Red Lines' are the defining differences. Many critics have pointed to comments from other European leaders stating that the Treaty is "90% the same as the Constitution". In their case it may well be true – their version of the document does not include the 'Red Lines', they have not negotiated the crucial exemptions and opt-outs secured by the UK.

Now let's look at some of the claims made by critics:
Give EU new powers to tax citizens - False
Allow the EU to replace the UK seat on the Security Council - False
Provide basis for an EU Army and EU military alliances - False
Allow police from other Member States to operate on British soil - False
Open the door to changes in our social security system - False
Prevent UK from supplying oil to a non EU Nato member at a time of crisis - False

Most of the Treaty addresses issues of institutional reform such as replacing the rotating Presidency of the EU with a nominated President of the European Council, reducing the number of Commissioners so they can become a more coherent group, increasing the power of national parliaments and merging posts and representatives on foreign policy.

None of these measures give the EU more power over the UK. Indeed if anything the reverse is true as we have upped our proportion of votes in the Council of Ministers.

The sole purpose of this Treaty is to improve how the EU does the job demanded of it by national Governments like the UK: more effective decision making and improved cooperation on important international issues such as crime, human trafficking and peacekeeping.

I would also like to point out two unique and crucial elements of the Treaty. Firstly it confirms for the first time the EU as an association of sovereign nation states – countering the argument that the Treaty will lead to some kind of United States of Europe. And secondly this Treaty, again for the first time, includes an explicit exit clause that ensures the UK can leave the EU as and when it chooses.

This Treaty is good for the UK, good for Europe and does not meet any of the measures that would trigger a referendum.

I acknowledge that there are those who would prefer not to be in the EU. UKIP for example are uncompromising in that view. I think they are wrong but it is an honest view. The Tories and Lib Dems, however, claim to support EU membership but (particularly in the case of the Tories) marginalise themselves from the decision making process undermining the true interest of our nation.

Either we are 'in' or 'out' and if we are 'in' we must be a 'big player' not a 'bit part player'.