It has been eight years in the making, but the signature of Czech President Klaus on the Lisbon Treaty has transformed the European Union. Lisbon was conceived as a compromise after the failure of an effort at a European constitution which would enhance federal decision-making powers. Though welcomed at first, a Dutch and French reversal put paid to the constitution. Work to replace it began in earnest in 2007, under German leadership, and the Lisbon treaty that resulted can be viewed largely as a reform project.

Why revamp the EU anyway? First, the EU is often regarded as a fatally divided body, lacking concrete, binding leadership. Lisbon changes that to an extent. It departs from its predecessors — the Treaties of Maastricht and Rome — as it builds on the powers of the bloc and brings them up-to-date. Many components of Lisbon are borrowed from the constitution, but it does have opt-out clauses necessary to appease member states — notably Britain and Ireland, which succeeded in keeping domestic labour laws free from scrutiny. Benchmark clauses such as a NATO-style mutual defence clause and more regulated voting patterns are revolutionary; the appointment of a president of the European Council — a so-called “European President” and a foreign policy head might finally answer Kissinger’s 1970s question: “Who do I call if I want to call Europe?”

Age-old euroskeptic arguments are being trotted out again: that Lisbon will lead to a loss of authority and sovereignty. But the new Europe has charted out a path for itself between the “superstate” those making that argument fear and the stagnation others feared. What can look like merely a shake-up in the EU’s internal machinery should not only result in quicker, more decisive action, but will finally give the idea of Europe a recognisable face globally.