EUobserver.com

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - At last, after years of institutional wrangling a new treaty reforming the EU has been agreed by all 27 national governments. However, amid the national posturing and media sensationalism that inevitably surrounds European summit negotiations, it is easy to lose sight of the substance of what is, certainly compared to the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties, a comparatively modest text.

So, what is all the fuss about? What is in the Lisbon treaty?

First, let's get one thing straight: this treaty is not about transferring powers from national governments to "Brussels". It does not create a single new chapter of competence for the EU. Rather, it changes the way the Union exercises its existing competences while adding extra checks and balances.

In my view, the most important provisions of the Lisbon Treaty are those which focus on making the decision-making processes of the EU more transparent and with higher levels of parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability.

Under the terms of the 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 provides that all budgetary spending must be subject to double approval by the Council and the European Parliament. This is particularly relevant to agriculture spending which is currently decided exclusively by the Council of Ministers.

Opening these policy areas up to the European Parliament, where MEPs divide along ideological rather than national lines, will inevitably make policy delivery more transparent and make the way that the EU spends its budget more open and balanced.

The treaty will require the Council of Ministers to meet in public when discussing legislation - entrenching a long overdue reform helped on its way by the 2005 UK Presidency.

The treaty also provides for the President of the Commission to be elected by the European Parliament. The choice of a candidate by the European Council must take account of the European election results and the majorities that are possible in the European Parliament.

At the very least, this (and the need for a vote of confidence by Parliament in the whole Commission) will make it clear that the Commission is not a group of unelected bureaucrats, but is a political executive dependant on the confidence of the elected parliament.

As an extra safeguard, the treaty obliges the EU institutions to respect a Charter of Rights, failing which its decisions can be struck down by the courts. This will ensure the EU cannot undermine rights commonly accepted across Europe. The UK protocol on the effect on national law of the Charter does not detract from this purpose.

From a British perspective, looking beyond the obsessive euroscepticism of much of the British press, who continue to fill their pages with wild-eyed diatribes and baseless scare stories about the contents of the Treaty and how it will lead to a centralised superstate, the reality is that this treaty is good for Britain and good for the EU.

The treaty contains all the things London asked for at the June summit, which include some special provisions for Britain. All of the Government's so-called 'red lines' have been agreed. It was a successful and, indeed, low-octane first summit for Gordon Brown as Prime Minister.

Apart from the democratic reforms mentioned above, the treaty focuses on practical changes to help the institutions function better in an enlarged Union: reducing the number of Commissioners, merging the two EU foreign affairs positions into one role of High Representative and replacing the six month rotating Council presidency with a 30-month permanent position.

There are some who will, undoubtedly, be disappointed with the treaty. Federalists mourn the loss of the symbols of the EU flag and anthem and the concept of a single, codifying constitution.

However, the Lisbon Treaty is a compromise between the 18 countries that had said 'yes' to the constitution, the two who said 'no', and the seven who were waiting to see - but it is a positive compromise that is a significant improvement on what we have already after the Treaty of Nice.

Besides, while all Member States believed that the EU structure needed reform, few thought that the 27 heads of government would be able to reach agreement.

For those of us who believe in a European Union that is fit for purpose, this treaty is a result to be welcomed - a set of useful reforms that should put an end to years of institutional wrangling and will make the EU institutions more responsive to citizens, to Member States, their parliaments and their peoples.

In other words, it will deliver a more focused EU, better capable of delivering in those policy areas where we benefit from common European action, but subject also to stronger safeguards and more scrutiny. This, surely, is the sort of EU we want and need.

The author is a British Labour member of the European Parliament

[Comment] The Reform Treaty should be welcomed