NEVER say that Tony Blair doesn’t have a sense of history. While the treaty that establishes a new constitution for Europe was being signed, the Prime Minister’s spin-doctors were pointing out that this deal had been concluded on the 189th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. The implication was supposed to be clear. Tony Blair was a latter-day Wellington, once again beating off the French on Belgian soil, and thereby safeguarding British independence. In the words of Abba’s own anthem commemorating that battle, “the history book on the shelf / is always repeating itself”.

Over the weekend the line repeatedly went out that the French-led plan to build a more federal Europe had been defeated and a more “Anglo-Saxon” vision of Europe had triumphed. The one-way transfer of powers away from nation states towards European institutions had been countered, and a looser model of Europe had prevailed in which national parliaments and national electorates had more power.

The truth, however, is quite the opposite. The new European constitution marks another step in the surrender of powers from accountable national parliaments to unaccountable EU institutions. Like the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties, the EU constitution strips nation states of powers and pushes them further away from the reach of national voters. Each of those treaties was presented as either a brake on the federal process or even a reversal. Douglas Hurd called the Maastricht treaty “the high tide of federalism”. But it led to Britain losing the right to govern itself in 30 areas, while Amsterdam meant the surrender of another 20 areas of self-government and Nice more than 40. Every time a British government concludes an EU treaty we’re told that Europe is, at last, “going our way” and our independence has been safeguarded. But in every case the truth is the exact opposite of what the Government says. The history book on the shelf really is always repeating itself.

The new constitution for Europe goes further than ever before in stripping the British people of the right to govern themselves. Britain loses the right to veto in 43 new areas, and 36 other articles would result in ceding legislative power to the European Parliament. One of the most worrying areas where Britain loses its veto is immigration. If the constitution is ratified then Britain could be outvoted on asylum policy and its own legislation could be struck down by foreign judges.

Not only does the constitution take away Britain’s veto in a swath of areas, it also diminishes Britain’s weight in the voting balance of Europe. When Britain joined the EU we had 56 per cent of the votes required to block those measures that became law under the system of qualified majority voting. As it stands we now have only 39 per cent of the votes required. If the constitution is passed that will drop again. The constitution, therefore, directly reduces British weight, and influence, in Europe.

On top of that a whole range of powers are now to be “shared” between national parliaments and the EU, but nation states will be free to act only when the EU chooses not to. Powers will be “shared” in the same way as tax money is “shared” by Gordon Brown — we’ll only get to keep whatever the central authority lets us.

The Government nevertheless claims that in vital areas its “red lines” preserve national independence. When it comes to social security as well as civil and criminal legal harmonisation, the Government believes we still have an effective veto through a new mechanism called “the emergency brake”. But the brake can only slow federalising measures, not reverse them. It allows Britain to register an objection to any new law inimical to our interests but the objectionable measure is then only put in abeyance for a short period, before it is referred to a quarterly meeting of the European Council, where qualified majority voting can be invoked and Britain enjoys no guaranteed veto.

The European Council is the EU’s supreme decision-making body. It will continue to meet in secret, but under circumstances where nation states will matter less than ever. Its president will not be the elected head of a state government but a new bureaucrat answerable to no electorate. He will have his own foreign minister and diplomatic service who will help to frame a pan-European foreign policy which member states are supposed to “actively and unreservedly support”.

One would have thought, given how much power is being transferred to the unaccountable, transnational, realm of European institutions that some powers might be devolved back down to national parliaments. After all, wasn’t that the point of “subsidiarity”, something we thought we agreed back in 1991?

But the constitution doesn’t return a single power to legislate back to national parliaments. The direction of EU political development is all one way — away from the people.

The constitution does give national parliaments the chance to register their concern about EU legislation. But they can do no more than lodge an empty complaint. If one third of all EU parliaments object, within a fixed six-month period, to a single law then the EU promises to take note of their concerns. Then, having taken note, those manning the EU institutions can press ahead regardless.

Mr Blair may consider this treaty a victory for the British way of doing things, but it is, in truth, melancholy confirmation of his tendency to be swept along with the integrationist flow while protesting that he has somehow turned the tide. Perhaps when Blair’s people talked about this deal recalling Waterloo they really were telling the truth. Because Mr Blair’s negotiating style in Europe is pure Abba. Faced with any treaty he joins the chorus: “How could I ever refuse? / I feel like I win when I lose . . .”

Join the Debate at comment@thetimes.co.uk