The long and winding road towards the entry into force of the new EU treaty finally seems to be going somewhere. The European Council, meeting two weeks ago, reaffirmed its wish to see the Lisbon Treaty enter into force by the end of this year. This requires ratification in all 27 EU countries; all have done so except for four.

Ireland will be holding a second referendum in autumn after the treaty was resoundingly rejected in a first referendum held in June last year. In Poland and the Czech Republic the treaty only requires the signature of the President whereas in Germany, only last week the treaty overcame a legal hurdle in the Constitutional Court.

This explains why the European Council agreed on a number of concessions, which will enable Ireland to hold a re-run of its referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, probably in early October.

But why should the Irish hold a second referendum when they already rejected the treaty last year? And why should they say "yes" this time around? These are fair questions and they deserve a reply.

For almost a year now, the EU and Ireland have been engaged in a deep study of the reasons that could have led to the rejection and to come up with ways that could address the reasons that led to the "no" vote. It appears that there were four key reasons why the Irish voted "no".

The first relates to the right to life, family and education where the Irish fears related mostly to the introduction of abortion. Along with Malta and Poland, Ireland remains one of the few EU countries that still bans abortion.

The second has to do with tax-ation where it appears that the Irish fear the possibility of the EU imposing a harmonised tax rate. The third is about security and defence, with the Irish fearing that their neutrality would be jeopardised as a result of the Lisbon Treaty.

Now allow me to say that the thing about these fears is that they are unfounded. This is because the EU has no competence to impose abortion in Ireland, to impose a common tax rate and still less to require Irish troops to be deployed in some war. Nevertheless, given that the Irish voters seem to have harboured these fears - no doubt fuelled by scaremongers - the European Council decided to adopt a legally-binding decision, which effectively gives a legal guarantee that none of these fears could ever come about as a result of the Lisbon Treaty.

Does all this sound familiar? Yes, it does, because we know what it means to have scaremongers inventing phony stories about the EU. Some of them are still at it and are still given ample space in newspapers.

Not that the EU is perfect or that it does not at times come up with initiatives that one may dislike or even oppose. But these fears are blatantly unfounded and if the Irish truly rejected the treaty for these reasons in last year's referendum, then the scaremongers have rendered no great service to the people on whose behalf they claim to speak, or indeed to democracy. On the other hand, the fourth Irish concern is legitimate and well-founded.

It essentially questioned whether Ireland's sovereignty would be reduced once the European Commission is no longer composed of one commissioner per member state as envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty.

To be sure, the principle of one commissioner per member state had already been lost as a result of the entry into force of the Nice Treaty, rather than as a result of Lisbon. And, therefore, even without the Lisbon Treaty, not all member states would have had the automatic right to nominate a commissioner from next year.

Nevertheless, I share the concern expressed in Ireland because I too believe that the right to nominate a commissioner is crucial, more so for small countries that need to feel that, in coming up with new European proposals, the Commission must truly reflect the common European interest without neglecting the interests of individual countries, especially the smaller ones.

In response to this fear, the European Council therefore decided to undo the Lisbon Treaty's provisions on the composition of the Commission and establish, instead, the principle of one commissioner per member state on an indefinite basis. This is a major achievement not just for Ireland but also for other small countries, including Malta. Ireland deserves credit for seeing this through.

The decisions of the European Council will take legal effect if and when the Lisbon Treaty enters into force. Subsequently, they will also be enshrined into the EU treaty itself, through a protocol, at the next round of treaty changes, which will be required when the EU takes in new member states, probably Croatia (and, possibly, Iceland) at some point in or about 2012.

The lesson in this story is that a great deal of scaremongering about the EU is simply unfounded. But where concerns are well-founded, remedial action can be taken to address them.

Readers who would like to ask questions to be answered in this column can send an e-mail, identifying themselves, to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu.

Dr Busuttil is a Nationalist member of the European Parliament.