This is worse than we expected. We had assumed that, in order to sustain their line that their new treaty was different from the constitution, British ministers would have to rewrite some parts of the draft.

In fact, the two texts are virtually identical. Titles have been altered, terminology tweaked, but there have been no substantive changes.

The EU will carry on agglomerating the attributes and trappings of statehood: a president, a foreign minister (now to be called the High Representative for Foreign Affairs), a legal system and, not least, the right to enter into relations with other states as a sovereign entity.

This is, to all intents and purposes, the same text that was rejected by 55 per cent of French voters and 62 per cent of Dutch voters two years ago - although you would not know this from listening to the BBC's gullible coverage. The changes are emendations, not amendments; decorative, not structural.

Indeed, in some regards, the new draft is worse than the old. When it was called a constitution, the paper had a certain legal finality: further alterations would have required a formal process of amendment.

Now, as we report today, the treaty contains a mechanism allowing the EU to extend its jurisdiction without having to summon new inter-governmental conferences. The Euro-ratchet, which has always existed de facto, will exist de jure, too.

But we are playing the Government's game, getting drawn into the technicalities.

The overall picture is, in fact, stark and simple. In 2004, the heads of government agreed a treaty which confirmed the powers that the EU had already annexed, and bestowed new ones on it. Many leaders promised their peoples referendums.

When France and the Netherlands voted "No", Eurocrats realised that they needed to find a way to circumvent public opinion. So they changed the constitution's name, swapped around a couple of clauses, and now propose to ram it through without further referendums (except in Ireland and Denmark, whose constitutions automatically trigger a vote).

To see how outrageous this is, ponder the following facts. First, in every single one of the 27 member states, by majorities of between 65 and 85 per cent, people want referendums.

Second, the French, Dutch and British governments were all elected on the basis that they would not bring back the constitution without a plebiscite.

Third, as Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell point out in our Think Local series today, 98.8 per cent of British MPs fought the last election on the basis of opposition to the constitution, or of a commitment to a referendum. That is the real outrage.

Don't be distracted by all the talk of double hatting, Ioannina compromises or justiciability. The plain fact is that we were promised a referendum. We want what we were promised.