When will we Brits ever learn? The EU is made up of 27 member states, the majority of whom and indeed, sometimes the totality have to agree on anything it does. The EU is not made up of the UK and 26 supporting acts. Most people would regard that as a statement of the obvious. Yet, to listen to some British politicians speak you do wonder if they have grasped that point.

The latest to indulge in this brand of egomania is David Cameron. He is trying to get himself off the referendum hook he impaled himself on when he needed Tory right-wing support for his leadership bid. He now talks about treaty changes and the repatriation of powers blithely ignoring the fact that it takes 27 to tango. As the Tory Peer, Lord Willoughby de Broke put it so wonderfully in 2004: “Expecting to renegotiate the EU treaties on our terms is like going to McDonald’s and ordering lobster thermidor, it would be nice to have it but it is not on the menu”. That would be even truer today given how shell-shocked the member states are after years of treaty negotiations.

Of course, most of Cameron’s proposals are little more than window-dressing with no real significance. He intends to have a UK sovereignty bill making it clear that “ultimate authority stays in this country, in our parliament”. Well, yes… and that is true now. This sovereignty bill will not in any way alter the crucial fact that where member states have agreed to act, EU law takes precedence over domestic laws.

Cameron is particularly concerned about what he calls ratchet clauses which are more generally known as passerelle clauses. These are where on certain issues, particularly concerning justice and home affairs, it is possible to move from unanimous decision making to majority voting without a new treaty. He wants parliament to have control of these. Yet, the Government negotiated a “triple lock” requiring unanimity in council, majority approval of the European Parliament and the right of any national parliament to veto before any changes can be made. So, how is Cameron’s policy different? Equally he talks of greater protection of the UK’s criminal justice system, yet the Government has already secured the right to opt into criminal justice measures only if we think they are in our interest.

This act of creating paper dragons in order to slay them as a way of saving face reminded me of Harold Wilson’s renegotiation of British membership terms in 1974-75. I therefore re-read the relevant section of Hugo Young’s excellent book “This Blessed Plot” and immediately found a quote from our then Ambassador to the EU, Michael Palliser: “It soon became clear to me that the whole exercise was to keep Britain in, and get something that could be presented to the British as politically adequate”. This appears to be Cameron’s objective.

Member states are of course very familiar with the process of drawing up cosmetic political declarations to keep one country or another happy. So Cameron’s proposals could be dismissed as a harmless face saving exercise. Yet, that would be a mistake. In Wilson’s case it is clear from Young’s account that other member states shepherded by Helmut Schmidt were prepared to jump through any number of hoops to keep Britain on board. I doubt that is true today because 26 counties are harder to deal with than 8 and there is huge negotiation fatigue among member states. More importantly, I would argue that Britain no longer has the goodwill that it enjoyed in 1974. Other countries are irritated by our constant agonies of euro self-doubt and our demands for opt-outs. What is more, Cameron has deliberately antagonised his Conservative allies by withdrawing from the EPP and so it is difficult to see Angela Merkel playing the same role that Helmut Schmidt played.

Cosmetic declarations therefore would be fine, but treaty changes such as withdrawing from the Social Chapter would be a very different matter. So what happens if the other countries refuse to play ball? Are we then on the road to withdrawal?

Equally worrying, is the trap Cameron has set himself with his promise of referenda on any further transfer of sovereignty. The imminent accession of Croatia would self-evidently involve a dilution of sovereignty. Would Cameron want to have a referendum on this when he says he is in favour of enlargement? It would be a very dangerous game.

If he became Prime Minister Cameron would have a battle to keep his right-wing rabid anti-Europeans like Daniel Hannan under control. The danger for him is that Europe would dominate his premiership as it did the latter years of Margaret Thatcher and the whole of John Major’s term of office. The danger for Britain would be more fundamental. Cameron would be distracted from the real challenges ahead and his clever face saving formulas could lead us almost by default into withdrawal from the EU

It is not face saving formulas he would need, but sensible realistic policies. That is no evidence yet that he has such policies.