I RECALL that when the referendum on the Common Market took place in 1975 my parents were abroad because my father had been posted to Afghanistan.

They wondered who to nominate as their proxy, and vote on their behalf. I was keen to do it. In the event, another more responsible adult was selected because, knowing my enthusiasm for the “No” campaign and my own intention to vote for withdrawal, they did not trust me to vote for staying in, which was their preference.

Like so many others who voted that way, however, they have now changed their minds. They complain bitterly that they were told that it was all just about free trade, that they had no idea we would end up taking orders from “Johnny foreigner”

and that they were deceived.

Actually, I recall politicians of left and right stomping the country telling us just exactly how it would all turn out – Enoch Powell, Michael Foot and Peter Shore all spring to mind.

Why did people ignore what they were telling us? I am not sure that they did ignore it (although they do appear to have forgotten it) because the opinion polls were giving the “No”

campaign a two-to-one lead. So, why did they vote so differently when they got into the polling booths?

I think it was because, however much they resented compromising our national sovereignty, they feared that our jobs and prosperity depended upon it. In the event it was the economic arguments that carried the day.

Many constituents and some colleagues have been telling me they want a referendum now. The Prime Minister has promised one in 2017, if he wins the election in 2015. Voters, once burned and twice shy, recall that they were promised a referendum at the 2005 election which was never delivered.

They say that we should demonstrate our good faith about a 2017 referendum by enacting the legislation for it in this parliament. The difficulty is that there is no majority in this parliament with which to do it. Hence the amendment tabled regretting that the Queen’s speech did not contain a referendum bill. Of course I regret it, but I cannot do anything about it because my party does not have the majority it needs to do it.

The Prime Minister’s belief that we are better served by delaying our referendum until 2017 is based on the premise that the eurozone crisis has put the EU into a state of flux and will, given a majority in parliament in 2015, afford him the opportunity and the mandate to renegotiate the terms of our membership before we decide in the referendum. Lord Lawson has expressed his scepticism that David Cameron will achieve any significant concessions.

I think the PM should be given his chance. After all, he has already confounded all expectations by securing the first ever reduction in the EU budget, he has for the first time ever vetoed an EU treaty and he has legislated to require a referendum if any further power is passed from the UK to Brussels.

My own preference for waiting till 2017 is based on my experience in 1975. I often tell those calling for a referendum now to be careful what they wish for, because I have no doubt that a referendum now would end up with the same result as in 1975. However much people say they dislike it, it is my estimate that they still believe we need it economically. I am confident the British people will not vote to withdraw until they are convinced that staying put is making them poorer – and that debate has hardly started yet.

My nightmare scenario would be a referendum on the flawed state of our relationship with the EU as it is now and in which the people vote to just continue to put up with it, as they did in 1975. What a depressing thought.