The facts about the Lisbon treaty are relatively simple, but the implications are deeply disturbing. In May 2005, the Labour Party won a general election on a manifesto that included a commitment to hold a referendum on the European constitutional treaty.

There were similar commitments in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos. Referendums were actually held, and the treaty defeated, in France and the Netherlands, but no referendum was ever held in Britain, on the ground that the treaty was dead.

It was not dead, it had merely gone underground.

The constitutional treaty was subsequently reconstructed and became the Lisbon treaty, which contains more than 95 per cent of the same material. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, a former President of France, described the process: “Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly . . . all the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.” That is what actually was done.

The Government soon recognised that this process had not succeeded in deceiving public opinion. Opinion polls showed that a referendum on the Lisbon treaty would be defeated. The Government therefore decided to break the referendum commitment that had helped it to win the election.

It used an argument, which very few people believed, that the Lisbon treaty was different from the constitutional treaty and did not therefore need a referendum. In the debate in the House of Commons last Wednesday Kenneth Clarke, the leading Conservative Europhile, cut this down to size.

He intervened in David Miliband’s lightweight justification of the Government’s breach of promise. “Will he stop all this nonsense about [the treaty] being different from the constitution when it is plainly the same in substance?” The Government cannot afford to admit that the two treaties are substantially the same, because it would then have no excuse for breaking its commitment. It has to lie about the two treaties because that is the fig leaf to cover a deeper deceit.

Earlier last week the results of an independent mini-referendum were published. There have been votes in ten marginal seats, eight of which are held by Labour and two by Liberal Democrats. The results supported the findings of recent opinion polls but were based on a much larger number of responses. In all, 152,520 people returned the ballots, a 36 per cent turnout that compares favourably with many local government elections.

Two questions were asked: should there be a referendum? Should we approve the Lisbon treaty? In total 87.9 per cent of voters wanted a referendum and 88.8 per cent would vote “no” to the treaty. The results in different constituencies were surprisingly similar, though Hammersmith fell outside the pattern. We had a referendum in Somerset and Frome. The turnout was identical with the average at 36.2 per cent, while 87.9 per cent would vote “no” to Lisbon. Different regions produced similar results.

There can be no real doubt about public opinion; British voters are increasingly critical of the EU. In the House of Commons the argument was used that the public could not be expected to understand the complexities of the Lisbon treaty. If that were so, the Labour Party should not have promised a referendum in the first place.

In any case, these are the traditional arguments against trial by jury, which the British trust. Juries know the difference between guilt and innocence; voters understand their own concerns.

The debate contained several very good speeches, as well as some poor ones. Prime ministers tend to make better speeches after they have retired. The same is true of party leaders. They can be more frank once they are no longer in pursuit of power.

Iain Duncan Smith, a former leader of the Conservatives, has blossomed since he lost the leadership. He gave an insider’s account of the course of events leading up to Lisbon.

“I do not know why we dance around as though this were a silly game. The truth is that the heads of state and governments of all the countries that negotiated the constitutional treaty have said to each other, ‘We have got in a rea mess over this. We allowed the public and politicians who are not responsible members of the government to play a part.’ European bureaucrats have known for years that the way to get things done is never to ask the public . . . because the answer will inevitably be no.”

That may largely be true. Yet it would take a retired leader to acknowledge it, because of its consequences. The British public are not unusual in wanting democracy, open government and truthful government. If the EU can be run only on the basis of secrecy and manipulation, then it has no hope of winning public confidence, least of all in Britain.

The Commons voted against a referendum by 311 to 247. There were some Labour rebels and a handful of Tories voted with the Government. The Lib Dems adopted that cringing device, a three-line whip, to abstain. They also had rebels. The result is a direct conflict between the public and the parliamentarians, a conflict made worse by more than 300 Members of Parliament breaking their election commitments. How can we trust such people?

This is bad for Parliament, but worse for the future of Europe. Most Eurosceptics want Europe to be reformed, not destroyed. How ever much it may annoy the Eurofanatics, they are the “good Europeans” who have Europe’s long-term interest at heart. No political society survives without trust. British voters believe that they have been deceived about the Lisbon treaty, a promise has been broken, and the breach justified by lies. If the EU cannot trust the people, the people cannot trust the EU.

Times Recommends

• Fragility always gets my sympathy vote
• Double it and you get the real jobless total
• Has al-Megrahi paid his council tax?