THE atmosphere in the Chamber was electric as we debated the future of our relationship with Europe for several hours.
Speeches on both sides of the argument were animated.
Those in favour of a referendum were more numerous and vociferous.
Some were angry at the party machine for imposing a three-line whip; an unwise move, in my view.
It made the waverers more resolute and placed colleagues, usually consistently loyal to the Government, in an impossible position.
The referendum motion was proposed by my colleague David Nuttall, backed by an e-petition with more than 100,000 signatories, which, in itself, sparks a Commons’ debate.
Regrettably, I was not called, but watched MPs from all sides of the House make some good speeches.
More than once, the three Party leaders were accused of collusion.
The point, well made, was followed by the observation that, when all three Parties impose such a draconian measure, something must be wrong.
I concur.
For here was a chance for Parliament to redeem itself, to appear relevant and democratic.
And, encouragingly, many MPs took up the cudgel and spoke their minds.
The theme was consistent.
What had been sold as nothing more than a free trade agreement back in 1975, was now a federalist movement, pursuing political and fiscal union.
The latter was never on the cards, nor should it be.
We were told repeatedly that now is not the time for a referendum, with the eurozone in crisis.
Is there ever a good time to end a sour and destructive relationship?
No.
My own opinion, for what it’s worth, is that we should not rest until all powers are repatriated.
What concerns me is that, despite the growing mountain of evidence showing that Federalism can never work, politicians of all three main Parties blunder on in our name.
Monday’s debate was, and is, about the very future of our country.