Indeed, it is a treaty that a genuine sceptic – in the true sense of the word rather than someone who simply hates anything to do with Europe – should, after objective analysis, welcome.

The treaty brings in a series of safeguards to cater for the fears of those who think the EU is about creating a centralised superstate. It explicitly states that the EU has only those powers conferred upon it by member states.

It retains unanimity for any change to the treaties. It reinforces the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality – that the EU may act only where national action alone is insufficient, and the intensity of EU action must not exceed what is necessary to deal with the common problem at hand. It gives national parliaments a new role in policing the respect of these principles and guarantees national parliaments time to examine proposals before their ministers deal with them in the Council of Ministers.

Under the terms of this treaty, EU legislation will not only require this prior examination by national parliaments, but also the approval of both the Council of Ministers (composed of ministers from elected national governments) and of the directly elected European Parliament – a level of parliamentary scrutiny that exists in no other international structure. Indeed, those worried about the real problem of how to secure democratic accountability of decisions taken internationally would do well to focus more on the WTO, the IMF, NATO and others. The European budget, which has anyway declined in recent years to under one per cent of GDP, is subject to a cap which can only be raised with the agreement of every single member state.

The new treaty also requires all EU spending to be subject to the approval of the European Parliament (which, by the way, should increase the likelihood of significant further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy). This drive towards greater efficiency is also reflected by the reduction in the number of commissioners from 27 to 18.

The treaty makes clear that on foreign policy and security questions, it is the member states (through unanimity in the Council of Ministers) who determine any common positions that the Union takes. A single person (instead of two as now) – the High Representative – will speak for Europe when we do have a common position, but, of course, if we don't agree then there can be no common position and each country will go its separate way, as happened, for better or for worse, over Iraq.

Britain's share of the votes in the Council will be increased from eight per cent to 12 per cent by a new system that weights the vote-share to correlate with a country's population.

This, and the small increase of Qualified Majority Voting, is to our country's advantage. For example, making humanitarian aid operations, where Britain has led on the world stage, subject to majority voting will stop recalcitrant member states from blocking aid.

Moreover, it is important not to forget that the veto is a double edged sword – if we have one, so do 26 other countries. The treaty also creates a longer term Presidency of the European Council – 30 months instead of six – to better prepare and follow up the meetings of the leaders of the sovereign member states.

This reinforces the intergovernmental side of the Union. Federalists dislike this and would rather have strengthened the Commission president. Every single one of these changes should offer re-assurance to those who are – rightly or wrongly – uneasy about the role of the EU. It is important to recognise that the Lisbon Treaty is specifically designed to solve practical problems in the functioning of a Union that has just been enlarged to 27 countries.

Unlike the Single European Act (which created the internal market) or the Maastricht Treaty (which established monetary union and added a dozen new chapters to the EU's field of competence), the Lisbon Treaty does not give the EU any new policy areas in which it can legislate. On the contrary, it spells out and limits the areas where the EU can act.

The Lisbon Treaty is being subjected to line-by-line scrutiny in the Commons and Lords and a huge amount of press coverage and public debate. But there is a grave danger that the debate will descend into sterile name-calling, party political point scoring and myth-making.

The reality is that this treaty will not sweep away a thousand years of history into a European superstate. It will reform rather than give new powers to the EU, and, hopefully, will put an end to nearly a decade of wrangling about the EU's institutional framework.


Richard Corbett is Labour MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber.