It is unclear how helpful it is for Philip Hammond to posture over the risk that Britain will vote to exit the EU.

The Foreign Secretary says that if David Cameron is not successful in negotiating European reform, the electorate will vote for the so-called Brexit.

This approach seems far from sensible, not least because the Conservative leader, and most other political leaders, have previously stressed that only the British people can decide how they will vote.

But also because other EU countries have already warned that the promised in-out referendum on the UK's membership should not be used as a threat to help drive through changes.

It is plain the government do want to use the referendum as a bargaining chip, but there must be a strong possibility that other EU nations will respond badly to such statements.

They may not be necessary in any case. Many of the principles which underlie Mr Cameron's demands are not by any means excessive. There is popular support in several EU countries for barring migrants from claiming benefits for a longer period of time, for example.

Other countries may readily accept Mr Cameron's loose demand for more power to "flow away" from Brussels towards member states, instead of increasing centralisation.

Cutting red tape is always desirable, at all levels of government and no country truly seeks to retain regulation where it is unnecessary.

The prime minister also wants powers to prevent "vast migrations" across the continent when new countries join the EU. Apart from the dog-whistle phraseology which seems designed to appease right wing Tories and deserters, this is somewhat redundant. The next most likely candidates for membership are still far from being in a position to join and existing member states can already suspend immigration for seven years from any accession states.

However there are good reasons for seeking reform to protect Britain's financial and other industries in the likely event of every closer Eurozone integration. Such protections are rightly sought by most non-Eurozone countries.

While some of his proposals will not satisfy all the government's backbenchers, some will never be satisfied. A careful balance also has to be struck. Mr Cameron would like to be able to point to treaty change, but other EU countries do not want this right now, especially those for which it would trigger their own referenda. The best he may be able to achieve is limited change now, with the promise of treaty reform at a later date.

While some of his demands are desirable, the referendum is desirable too.

The British people have not had a chance to have a say over EU membership since 1975, when the shape of the project was entirely different: A single market as opposed to the quasi-federal state which is now being developed.

It makes sense to be part of a larger family of nations with a common interest, in an uncertain world. The benefits of remaining within the EU will be shown to outweigh any disadvantages, especially if Mr Cameron can obtain some of the reforms he seeks. But the case for the EU should be put before the voters so they can give it their backing.