Will the MLP ever become truly European?

The statement attributed to George Vella, Labour's former deputy leader, that the new leadership of the MLP does not intend to pull Malta out of the EU must be music to the ears of the majority of the Maltese people who voted, not once, but twice for Malta's rightful place in the EU.

Labour's position gives a clear signal to people like Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici and the NO2EU crew that they will be just hitting at the wind if their promise of a crusade to get Malta out of the EU at the first opportunity is delivered. As for Dom Mintoff's position, to comment on it would indeed be just a waste of time and energy.

Now that Labour has accepted the new reality of Malta's EU membership, their next step should be that they should move from a position of a grudging acceptance to an enthusiastic embrace of Malta's new status. And considering the statements that have emerged lately from Labour sources, there seems to be a narrowing of differences which in time should lead to a "proactive EU policy", to use Desmond Zammit Marmara's viewpoint as expressed in this paper on May 10.

But he went further. He mentioned "the full exploitation of the excellent opportunities available to Maltese students through the European Union's educational programmes; the new opportunities available to local business through the expanded market provided by EU membership and advantageous EU trade agreements with non-EU countries and EU initiatives in environmental protection".

Now all this is a far cry from the position taken by MLP spokesmen during the referendum and election campaigns. The educational opportunities, we were told, were equally achievable outside the EU and local businesses will only face stiff competition from voracious foreigners who are itching to steal our businesses. As for trade agreements, these were either pooh-poohed or alternatives were already in the pipeline, involving China, Russia, Australia and the US.

Another interesting response that goes to the heart of the matter came from none other than Alfred Sant and Dr Vella, both representing the MLP in the European Convention for the Future of Europe. In their response to the draft EU constitution they maintained that the proposed constitution "allows for enough subsidiarity and leaves a big enough role for the national parliaments of the member states so that the Europe defined in the future by this Constitutional Treaty could appropriately be considered as a federation of soverign nation states".

The ink has hardly dried up that we had the same Labour protagonists bombarding the electorate with literature that our parliament would be just rubber stamping EU legislation and that Malta would lose its freedom and independence if we were to become "full" members of the EU.

These positions are either conversions of Damascian proportions or, dare I say, that these positions were already held but because Labour had turned the EU question into a sacred cow or, as Alfred Mifsud argued recently, a matter of principle, they were unable to change them without damaging themselves and their party.

In this context Dr Sant's reaction to the referendum result shines through. If Dr Sant and others are able now to make statements which are diametrically opposed to their pre-referendum stands, why did they not make them after the referendum results? At least the MLP should have called an extraordinary general conference and thrashed out its response to the referendum result. Instead we had the comi-tragedy at Ta' Qali which will go down in history as one of the dark days in Malta's post-independence period. What is more, Dr Sant has burdened his party with yet another albatross round its neck to be fully exploited by political adversaries when the appropriate time comes.

Even now Labour's acceptance of the status quo is being based on the electoral result rather than the referendum result, a quirky position which is bound to cause problems in the future for the MLP itself.

Which brings me to the vote in parliament on the EU treaty signed by Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami on April 16. Given the new statements that are being made by Labour leaders, Reno Calleja's position as expressed in this paper on May 28 needs to be taken seriously and it could give Labour a road map. True enough, the MLP general conference in January "approved unanimously a motion in favour of partnership and against full membership", but let us call a spade a spade, was anything different expected? Mr Calleja continues: "Unless an extaordinary general conference is convened to change that decision, no Labour MP should and could vote in favour of ratification on the EU accessing treaty".

This is where bold decisions have got to be taken. Tony Blair boldly led old Labour to slay the sacred cows which characterised defeat in the mind of the British electorate in order to make the British Labour Party electable again. He had the advantage, of course, of being a new broom. This is not a luxury afforded to Dr Sant. But politicans are never short of tricks of making U-turns palatable to their followers when and where it suits.

A general conference should be influenced by the new reality and by convincing arguments, that to vote against the accession treaty may create more problems for Labour in the future and will inevitably delay Labour's road to recovery. The reasoning that Labour still objects to the terms agreed in Brussels but respects the majority verdict in favour of EU membership is as vague as it is ambiguous. The majority also accepted the implied terms agreed.

In any case, even when tangible favourable and uncontroversial terms were obtained from Brussels, such as when the Maltese language was accepted as an EU language, we still had Labour bringing out a motely crew of writers on the eve of the referendum accusing the Maltese government of all sorts of betrayal of national and historical figures such as Dun Karm and George Borg Olivier.

The argument put forward by Keith Grech on May 31 and others earlier, that MPs go to parliament to "maintain the pledges made to them before the election" and that if they were to vote for the treaty they "would be betraying the very same people who have elected them", holds very little sway when what is under consideration is the national interest.

In cases of this nature MPs do not vote as delegates but as individuals, according to the oath they take when they enter parliament. By voting for the treaty (preferably after a favourable vote by the party general conference), Labour MPs would be saying "sorry, we got it wrong". It would not only put an end to the EU debate but also give a clear signal that Labour intends to become a truly European party.