The only certainty is uncertainty

Since the president of the European Parliament visited Malta last May, quite a few occurrences proved Harold Wilson's famous remark that a week is a long time in politics.

Mr Pat Cox had then spoken about abortion, saying it had nothing to do with the EU. Together with others in the Labour Party, I had pointed out at the time that Labour did not have a problem with this; it was actually the MIC which was showing an advert on national television asking the question on abortion and the EU, trying to put minds at rest that there is nothing to worry about.

Shortly after Mr Cox left Malta with his reassurances, the European Parliament, which he presides, voted in favour of a resolution on the legalisation of abortion in all current and future EU nations. As expected, there were reactions to this from various quarters in Malta including the Labour Party.

But what is interesting now is how members of Pat Cox's European Parliament (MEPs) are stepping up their attacks on the Catholic church on this matter.

According to the United Nations-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), MEPs are "circulating a number of resolutions condemning the Church's moral authority on subjects like abortion and demanding that all Church influence on temporal matters cease".

They say this because they do not regard issues such as abortion as matters of morality, but of women's health. They insist that these resolutions are necessary because of the Catholic church's "desire to lay down the law and to interfere with national legislations on sexual and reproductive health".

These new resolutions appeared two weeks after the European Parliament approved the Van Lancker report, and passed the abortion resolution.

If these new resolutions, seeking to restrict the Church's moral authority, gain enough support, they may be taken up by a parliamentary committee which could then recommend a parliamentary vote on them.

Of course, one cannot say for sure whether this will happen, although the EU is known for its stand in favour of abortion. When last year US President George Bush blocked federal funding for international groups that perform or advocate abortion, the EU criticised him. The EU even said it will make up for some of the funds lost to international agencies that promote abortion. "EU ready to fund abortion-promotion groups" ran the headlines then.

Paul Nielson, EU commissioner for development had then said that "Europe should be ready to step in to fill the decency gap. The European Commission is ready to help fund some of the gap."

There were EU citizens who protested because they did not want their taxes to go towards abortion promotion. They were ignored; the EU was committed to fund these groups.

Very vociferous against the US move to block funding for abortion was Anna Diamantopoulou, the EU Employment and Social Affairs Commissioner. She described Mr Bush's move as "a step backwards".

She was quoted on the BBC news page saying that "The EU can't influence Bush, but we can express our disappointment." The decision sent strong signals, Diamantopoulou said, and then went on to ask "Why is it so easy to undo what we have earned during the last years? How can it be done in one moment, in one day? While the EU is unlikely to be able to influence US politics, further discussion on the issue is needed." And influence they did try.

Reading these comments last year was one thing, reading them again now in the context of the July 3 European Parliament resolution on abortion is another.

It is this influence and pressure that many are worried about. And in this context one understands better Dr Michael Frendo's concern in his speech at the Convention when he spoke of the need for emphasis on the competence of member states on such matters in the next treaty.

Also in this context, what Thomas Fuller, special correspondent on the EU for the International Herald Tribune (IHT, June 20) had to say, ought to be of interest to us: "...Ultimately the Convention will have to squarely address the question of how much sovereignty Europeans are willing to cede to Brussels.

Will Europeans allow the European Parliament to become more powerful and influential than their own national legislatures?"

Meanwhile, the Secretariat of the Commission of the Bishops' Conference of the EC fears that the resolution on abortion "will send two messages that can only serve to discredit the European Parliament. Either it will give the impression that parliament wishes to impose on member states and accession countries policies on which they have the exclusive, democratic right to decide. Or it will promote the suspicion that parliament has no more urgent business than to produce reports on issues for which it has no competence."

The more information we get from different sources, the more we realise it is only here that they are so sure about everything and that "abortion rules will not change" as was declared with certainty recently by those paid to inform us.