In that two speed EU the inner tier can go ahead with "ever closer union" without having to consult us - and we will have no say. As the EU stands presently we are the brake on "ever closer union" - but once this goes through, we're out on the edges and still on the leash. 

But with our media so incapable of imagining or even considering that it impacts elsewhere, it will be viewed and analysed only within the context of how it applies to Britain, specifically David Cameron and whether has secured "reforms". As far as the EU and moderate minds are concerned, it does very much exclude us from "ever closer union".

In that respect, the eurosceptics will look like they are out on their own - having spent the whole campaign telling us that he won't get anything. 

It's true that nothing in the exact relationship changes - we will still be subordinated by supranationalism with the respective institutions of the EU making our laws - but there will be sufficient enough of a sea change where the EU can convincingly claim it is a wholly reformed entity - and Cameron will be be credited as an instigator. We will have our "new relationship".

Cameron will not be interested in what eurosceptics think of it. He will be selling his settlement to the moderate middle who will probably go for it because is seems superficially like what we went to get.

It will take some time for this to filter into the media and the popular consciousness that this is what is on the agenda - but this is the deal on the table. The will sell it as "The British Model". It has every chance of reaching the moderate swing voters and nothing the Leave campaigns will have to offer but the usual petulant whining about how awful the EU is. 

Unless there is a better offer on the table, the public will go for it. Cameron has a strong hand. There is no use in going hell for leather in attacking this just yet. Rather it is our job to make the hack-o-sphere aware of what is happening so that they begin to discuss in. Only then can we attack the inherent weaknesses of it. Quite obviously our strong hand is that we lose influence over crucial top level EU decisions because we are in the second tier - and europhile claims that we need to be at the "heart of  Europe" will be a physical impossibility. 

Moreover - as we say, it does not change the master-slave relationship. We will still be a subordinate state - with muted influence in the EU and no say at the top tables. This is again why we must put the emphasis on the role of global bodies.

We need to rebrand the Norway Model because the "British Model" - a rhetorical device Cameron will use sounds better over the airwaves. But our offer to the public is still better than his. With the Norway Model approach we can offer more or less the same market access - but with a voice at the top tables we would other wise not have - and a means of shaping the rules we obey that we do not presently enjoy.  

The Remain camp have gone large on the idea that anything along the lines of associate membership puts us on the fringes of Europe - yet that is exactly what we are getting from the new deal, with diminished influence and no leverage over the EU as it pushes further toward becoming that eurozone superstate. A veto on the world stage would replace that lost leverage which is not just vital for us but a safety mechanism for all of Europe. Cameron offers us fringe membership with no benefits - we can offer off the same but better with a voice on the world stage. 

If we get the pitch of the message right and refrain from flinging faeces in the direction of the EU like angry safari park baboons (mentioning no names), then we can make a rational, progressive case for greater global engagement while also offering a real change in our EU relationship that Cameron simply cannot give us. Of the two available options, it's a no brainer. Leaving is still the best bet.