And there are probably a few people who actually believed him, just like they believed John Redwood when the Tory MP said the same in 1992 about the Maastricht Treaty, and in the future they will no doubt nod their heads furiously the next time Britain's demise is predicted in a Eurosceptic fit of pique.
But for those of us who are not obsessive anti-Europeans, what does the new treaty, agreed last week in Lisbon, actually provide?
The heads of government of the 27 EU countries have agreed modest but useful reforms to the current EU. The changes don't expand the remit (the "competences") of the EU, but seek to improve the way the EU handles its existing competences. Most are really quite dull and focus on streamlining the EU institutions to make them work better now that the EU has expanded to 27 countries. Others, more interestingly, focus on providing more parliamentary scrutiny, greater democratic accountability and increased transparency.
The "streamlining" changes reduce the size of the European Commission, cap the number of MEPs, re-balances the voting system in the Council of Ministers (which results in Britain gaining a greater share), extends the field in which decisions are taken by vote instead of unanimity (though keeping sensitive matters such as tax, foreign policy, etc under unanimity), merges into one post the current two external representatives of the Union (the Commissioner for External affairs and the High Representative for Foreign affairs), and changes the term of office of the President of the European Council (the "summit" of heads of government) from six months to 30 months (which Eurosceptics have described as "creating a President of Europe"!).
The changes that focus on increased accountability build in new checks and balances to the system. In my view, the most important one is that, under the terms of the new treaty, no EU legislation can be adopted without, first, examination by national parliaments, second, approval by the EU Council of Ministers (composed of national ministers from national governments accountable to those national parliaments) and third, approval of the European Parliament (composed of our directly elected MEPs). This is a level of scrutiny that exists in no other international organisation. Anyone genuinely worried about accountability should focus on NATO, the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank, the OECD and so on, which lack such accountability.
The treaty requires the Council of Ministers to meet in public when discussing legislation, an overdue reform and one that was instigated by Britain during our country's presidency of the EU in 2005. There are also new budgetary controls which demand that all spending must be subject to approval by both the Council and the European Parliament, a measure that will continue the momentum started by Britain in reducing the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy.
The treaty also contains points specific to Britain, which gains the right to opt in or out of EU legislation as it sees fit in the field of cooperation on legal matters and fighting crime. Britain has a special protocol on the application of the EU Charter of Rights to clarify that it does not overturn national law. It also retains its opt-out of the common currency, the euro.
None of which spells the end for Britain, nor indeed any of the other wild allegations made by dedicated anti-EU campaigners.The treaty will not mean Britain loses its seat at the UN, a ludicrous allegation propogated by William Hague, recently countered by Leon Britain. It will not mean French police roaming our streets, as a national newspaper recently claimed. It will not remove the Queen from our passports - another claim made (yes, really) by a major tabloid.
However useful and necessary these reforms are, I would be ignoring the elephant in the room if I did not mention the demands for a referendum. A referendum was promised on the previous attempt to reform the EU which would have swept away the pre-existing EU treaties and re-founded the EU on a new legal basis called a "constitution". It was argued that this was therefore no ordinary treaty, but a constitution and therefore deserved a referendum. Now that this constitutional approach has been explicitly abandoned, and we are instead talking about an ordinary treaty bringing adjustments to the pre-existing European treaties, which stay in place, the argument that had been used for a referendum has disappeared.
Granted, many of the practical institutional reforms that had found their way into the previous constitution have been retained. Some say that 90 per cent of them have (although the text is half as long). But the DNA of mice and men are said to be 90 per cent identical - I would submit that the ten per cent difference is rather important! So it is here, with the fundamental disappearence of the previous constitution, the dropping of all aspects that might have caused people to fear a superstate was being created, the special provisions for Britain and other additions and changes secured to ensure that Britain's "red lines" were met, all make this a very different treaty - and one tailor made for Britain.
Britain has never ever ratified an international treaty by means of a referendum. We don't even settle major national issues that way. To start with one on a set adjustments to the EU institutions such as changing the term of office of the Council president from six months to 30 months would be somewhat odd.
Many of those who are calling for a referendum are not actually interested in the treaty - they want Britain to leave the EU. But the EU is our neighbourhood committee, where Britain works with its neighbouring countries on common problems and to find solutions to issues that cross borders. To leave it would be to retreat into isolation - and cut ourselves off from our main export market (on which 300,000 jobs in Yorkshire and the Humber depend).
With this treaty, we will have a more streamlined, efficient EU that is better capable of acting to meet the demands of a far larger Union, while increasing scrutiny and accountability. It is good news for Britain and good news for Europe. It will put an end to six years of focussing on the mechanics of the EU and allow us to move on to deal better with climate change, the environment, trade, transnational crime, terrorism and other challenges that we and our neighbours face together.
Talk of Britain's death has been greatly exaggerated. We're alive and kicking and thanks to the new treaty so is the EU. Sorry Bernard!