Europe must 'respect' UK stance on treaty

A flexible EU should allow some members to push towards fiscal union while ensuring that its institutions serve all 27 countries, writes the leader of UK Conservative MEPs

Here we go again. The paint is still damp on the Lisbon Treaty yet already the European Union has resorted to what it does best: arguing over legalities, constitutional principles and treaties.

Anybody who thinks that the new intergovernmental treaty will solve the current crisis is mistaken. This crisis has been caused by two factors: firstly – mostly – socialist governments spent well beyond their means; and secondly the straitjacket of the euro has prevented devaluation of Mediterranean economies back into the marketplace at a sustainable level. Mostly centre-right governments such as in the United Kingdom and Spain are trying to clean up the mess bequeathed to them by engaging in tough fiscal consolidation efforts. A new treaty may help to prevent the next debt crisis but we will only solve the current one by liberating countries from their straitjacket.

Yet Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, aided and abetted by the EU's various presidents, seem determined to use this opportunity to extend their control over the eurozone's economic direction. As an MEP from a non-eurozone country it is not my place to interfere if smaller EU member states wish to yield their fiscal powers to the newest EU institution: the Merkozy council.But as an MEP from a country that made a conscious and correct choice to remain outside the euro, it is my place to defend the UK's right not to forfeit its economic sovereignty.

Sacre Bleu! A head of government came to a negotiation with some requests. The UK government's position at the December European Council was reasonable and modest. Unfortunately, Merkozy were not in the mood for negotiation, just dictation. So David Cameron was absolutely right to veto the proposals. Since then, the reaction in the European Parliament has been predictable in public but actually in private I have been surprised by the number of MEPs telling me that they respect the UK position and wish that their own governments would stand up for their interests. The veto has been very popular in the UK, where voters want us to cooperate with the EU but will not accept a government pushing us inexorably towards a federal superstate.

It seems clear that the EU can no longer move at the same speed. This is inevitable. And it is not the end of the world that some commentators seem to suggest. However, such a flexible EU must equally respect all 27 countries, without them having to sign up to every dot and comma of the political project, and without being bullied by the bigger countries. And, most importantly, the institutions – particularly the European Commission and European Court of Justice – should act as honest brokers of the existing treaties, and stop trying to extend their powers by hook or by crook. That is why I have sincere reservations about them being used to police any intergovernmental treaty signed by up to 26 EU members. The institutions belong to all 27, and if one country chooses not to sign up then the principle of unanimity should apply.

Unfortunately, we are now hearing the same argument as we heard deployed after the 2005 French and Dutch, and the 2008 Irish 'no' votes: one country cannot hold us back. But this exposes the fundamental flaw in the federalists' prejudice, namely that there is a single EU demos. This is simply not the case and whilst we clearly do have similar values, there is so much that makes us different, which we should rejoice in, rather than try to subsume into a false European nation-state. In a flexible EU some countries should be able to move ahead with fiscal union, but there must be a clear firewall between the actions they decide to take multilaterally and EU action – which must respect the treaties already in place. For a union which lectures the rest of the world on the rule of law, we seem ready to ignore our own treaties when it doesn't suit.

In particular, the single market is the preserve of the 27. No country has been a bigger proponent of it than the UK. We will continue to push for open, flexible and vibrant markets which facilitate entrepreneurs and create jobs. However, if the Fiscal Union seeks to pre-cook major decisions or – worse still – have internal market and competitiveness competences written into the new intergovernmental treaty, then more British people will start to ask why we are in the EU at all. I do not believe the single market would benefit from more protectionist countries dictating the terms of the single market, so it is in the interests of more open nations – countries like Sweden and Denmark – to ensure that the governance of EU policies remains firmly and equally with the 27.

I am also particularly concerned with the precedent that the new fiscal union will become active if only a proportion of signatory member states have ratified. Such a principle would sound the death knell for the idea of national parliamentary democracy which has served the EU well for the past 70 years. Again, to move ahead without unanimous ratification – using as many referenda as possible – will reinforce many people's perception that the EU or fiscal union have no democratic legitimacy. Democracy is not fast, and it is not efficient. But it is the best means of ensuring liberty and freedom and we cannot brush off Europe's lessons of history.

The European parliament's own motto is 'united in diversity'. Yet once again we see the EU failing to live up to its own sound bite. We should be united in understanding that the greatest strength of the EU is that we are all different, different sizes, different histories, different democratic traditions, different economies. So when it is clear that this treaty will not solve the current crisis, surely the real motives behind it are the furtherance of the United States of Europe. That is why David Cameron refused to go along with it. The EU should be united in respecting that position.

Martin Callanan is chairman of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group in the European Parliament and leader of UK Conservative MEPs