The frequently recycled eurosceptic accusation that the EU weakens democracy, undermines national parliaments and centralises power in the hands of “Brussels bureaucrats” is, like so many used by eurosceptics, completely divorced from the reality of the EU and, in particular, the text of the Reform Treaty. In fact the opposite is the case - the Reform Treaty will strengthen the democratic accountability and transparency of the EU institutions and enhance the role of national parliaments and the European Parliament.
One of the key innovations of the treaty provides that all EU legislative proposals must first be examined by national parliaments and then require the double approval of elected governments in the Council of Ministers and directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament. This will give the EU a level of parliamentary scrutiny that exists in no other international structure.
At present, national parliaments have no formal role in EU law making. Decisions are taken by national governments in the Council (and in most cases jointly with the European Parliament). Under the Reform Treaty, for the first time, national parliaments will be guaranteed the opportunity of a direct say on every Commission legislative proposal. Legislative proposals will be sent first to national parliaments. This should enhance the ability of national parliaments to shape the position taken by their own government representatives and to scrutinise their actions in Brussels . In this respect, Britain has much to learn from the way that the Nordic countries operate. The example of Denmark and Finland , where any government minister attending Council has to first appear before a national parliamentary committee to go through the agenda and discuss the position to be taken, has many merits and should certainly be considered for Westminster.
National parliaments will also have the power to send proposals back to the Commission, if even a minority (a third) believe the issue should be for national – not European – law. This system, often referred to as the "yellow card"' procedure was, in large part, a UK idea.
As an extra democratic safeguard, the approval of the European Parliament and not just the Council of Ministers - will be required for all legislation. Similarly, 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 CAP 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 as up to the European Parliament and make the way that the EU spends its budget more open and balanced.
The treaty will also provide for the Council of Ministers to meet in public when discussing legislation - a long overdue reform helped on its way by the 2005 UK Presidency.
As to the notion that the treaty will transfer powers to “ Brussels ” the reality is that the Reform Treaty does not create a single new chapter of competence for the EU. Rather, it changes the way it exercises its existing competences and adding extra checks and balances as we have seen above.
Indeed, the treaty will specify that powers can be returned to the member states. Whether this is necessary or not depends on the member states themselves, because they are the gatekeepers of what goes into the European domain and what does not. And it is worth recalling that the EU cannot deal with any subject unless all member states have agreed to put it into the treaty. Even then, the intensity of EU action is determined by the Council, a body composed of national ministers from national governments accountable to national parliaments. The EU does not determine its own remit—member states do. That explains why, in the main, member states are happy with its current remit that they themselves have determined.
The perception that the EU institutions are distant from ordinary people is, to some extent, inevitable – UK MEPs often represent ten times as many people as their Westminster counterparts and a hundred times more than local councillors. Similarly, in terms of physical geography, the EU institutions are more distant from people's everyday lives than either town hall or Whitehall . However, this is not to say that the EU should not operate to the highest levels of scrutiny and transparency. This, the treaty addresses.
Discussion on the treaty boils down to the following: "reform versus more of the same" . Blocking the reform treaty will mean more of the same—the EU as it is now, with less democratic scrutiny, accountability or transparency than it should have, and constrained by a structure that was designed for a union of 15 rather than 27 nations. The Reform Treaty is a set of useful reforms that will make the EU institutions more responsive to Member States, their parliaments and their people. 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.