No doubt, some people actually believed him, just as they believed John Redwood when he said the same in 1992 about the Maastricht Treaty.

But for those of us who are not obsessive anti-Europeans, what does the new treaty, agreed last week in Lisbon, actually contain?

The governments of the 27 European Union countries agreed modest but useful reforms to the EU. The changes don't expand the remit of the EU, but seek to improve the way it handles its existing competences.

Most focus on streamlining the institutions to make them work better now that the EU has expanded to 27 countries. Others, more interestingly, focus on providing more parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability.

The streamlining reduces the size of the European Commission, caps the number of MEPs, re-balances the votes in the Council of Ministers (increasing Britain's share), extends majority voting (though keeping unanimity for sensitive matters such as tax, foreign policy, etc), merges into one the current two external representatives of the Union (the Commissioner and the High Representative), and changes the term of office of the President of the "summit" of heads of government from six to 30 months (which Eurosceptics have described as "creating a President of Europe"!).

The increased accountability is through new checks and balances. Henceforth, 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 International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank and so on, all of which lack such accountability.

The Council of Ministers will have to meet in public when discussing legislation. New budgetary controls require all spending to be subject to approval by both the Council and the European Parliament.

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 legal matters and fighting crime, and a special protocol on the application of the EU Charter of Rights.

None of which spells the end for Britain, nor indeed justifies the other wild allegations made by dedicated anti-EU campaigners. The treaty will not mean Britain loses its seat at the United Nations. It will not mean French police roaming our streets, and it will not remove the Queen from our passports – all claims made (yes, really) by major newspapers and politicians.

But 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 treaties and re-founded the EU on a new legal basis called a "constitution".

It was precisely because this was no ordinary treaty, but a constitution, that many asked for 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 for a referendum has disappeared.

In addition, 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 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 depend).

With this treaty, we will have a more streamlined EU, functioning better and with increased accountability. It is good for Britain and good for Europe.

It will end six years of focusing on the mechanics of the EU and allow us to move on to deal better with climate change, the environment, trade, trans-national 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.

Richard Corbett is a Labour MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber