The European Union Bill would make the prime minister the Napoleon of Malta whose orders would become law without reference to parliament, opposition justice spokesman Anglu Farrugia said in parliament yesterday.

But Social Policy Minister Lawrence Gonzi countered that the prime minister would use his power by legal notice, which could be contested in parliament, and the House, therefore, was not being bypassed.

Dr Farrugia said that while the opposition respected the people's decision for Malta to join the European Union, the European Union Bill, which included the ratification of the EU accession treaty, also included "shameful" clauses which clearly violated the constitution.

The bill would give the prime minister powers akin to an "order in council" to "make such amendments to any existing law as may appear to him to be necessary or expedient for bringing that law into conformity with the provisions of this bill."

The bill also laid down that the local courts should allow primacy to EU laws and decisions by the European court over any question on the meaning or effect of the treaty.

The House was even being asked to approve into domestic law future acts adopted by the European Union, without knowing what they could be.

Dr Farrugia observed that in a protocol to the treaty dealing with neutrality, Malta said it affirmed its commitment to the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy and confirmed that its participation in the policy did not prejudice its neutrality. But how could the prime minister know that neutrality would not be prejudiced in the future as the Common Foreign and Security Policy evolved?

Furthermore, the constitution laid down that "Malta is a neutral state actively pursuing peace security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance."

While one could argue that for now, the concept of neutrality was safe as the EU was not yet a military alliance, there was no doubt that upon accession Malta would form part of an alliance, even though it did not yet have a military function. Therefore, upon accession, Malta could no longer be described as non-aligned. The constitution would therefore be violated. This was an issue which had not yet been addressed.

Indeed, the government should have gone before parliament to tackle the various constitutional problems before the treaty was signed. The government's argument appeared to be that once the people had decided to join the EU, the constitution could be ignored. This was not right.

The bill was proposing to amend article 65 of the constitution providing that parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Malta in conformity with full respect for human rights, generally accepted principles of international law and Malta's international and regional obligations "in particular those assumed by the treaty of accession to the European Union signed on April 16, 2003."

This meant that Malta could adopt laws dictated by others.

Yet article six of the constitution also said that if any law was inconsistent with this constitution, the constitution shall prevail and the other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

Therefore, despite the amendment to article 65, any EU law which was inconsistent with the Maltese constitution would be void in Malta. The constitutional amendment was therefore worthless.

The government even had the cheek to say through this bill that the prime minister could amend laws without reference to parliament, and he could even delegate those powers to ministers or any other authority. The prime minister could even create any new criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of not more than Lm10,000.

This provision made the prime minister the Napoleon of Malta whose orders would become law. This was an insult to parliamentary democracy and made the prime minister a dictator.

Turning to the courts, Dr Farrugia said that Malta's legal system was not based on precedent. Yet now, through this bill, the local courts were being told to observe precedents set in Brussels.

These were not matters which the people had decided upon.

This, Dr Farrugia said, was a dangerous bill. Only parliament could amend the constitution, in many cases only with the support of a two-thirds majority, and the government could not think it could simply bypass parliament.

Replying, Social Policy Minister Lawrence Gonzi said the powers being given by the bill were necessary for the implementation of the will of the people.

He said that the provisions giving the prime minister the authority to amend legislation to bring it in line with EU legislation did not mean that the parliamentary process would be bypassed.

In terms of the Interpretation Act, the prime minister would exercise this right by legal notice which would be tabled in parliament and which could be contested under local parliamentary procedures.

Indeed, rather than wanting to do away with the parliamentary process, the government, wanted parliament to have a committee which would filter new directives and regulations issued by the EU.

The government's intention was not to short circuit the parliamentary process. It was true that a legal notice was not an act of parliament but it was not bypassing the parliamentary process.

This was the practical way of doing what had to be done. It was what other countries, which had systems similar to Malta's, such as the UK, had done.

Dr Gonzi said the bill was modelled on the law which led to Britain joining the EU in 1972. The government, he argued, was doing what the people had asked it to do through the verdict they had given.

Dr Gonzi said Malta's membership of the EU would strengthen the people's sovereignty as through it, Malta would be able to participate in decisions affecting all of Europe.

Dr Gonzi said he appreciated Dr Sant's statement on Monday that the opposition accepted the people's verdict in the last election but his implication had also been that such a verdict could not be accepted against certain conditions.

For Malta to join the EU the treaty had to be ratified and this bill authorised the government to do so.

Joining the EU meant all EU legislation had to become part of domestic legislation.

Parliament had been passing legislation for years so that Malta could get in line with the acquis. The whole civil society had been involved in this dialogue with only the opposition choosing to be absent.

Dr Gonzi said he could not understand how Dr Sant could say 'yes' and 'no' at the same time. While saying he accepted the people's verdict, he claimed that the bill being debated was dictatorial.

Accepting the people's verdict meant accepting that EU legislation should be adopted by Malta.

Home Affairs and Justice Minister Tonio Borg said Malta would be taking part in the drawing up of EU directives and regulations and it was therefore logical that they would also be applied here. This was not imposition. Brussels was Malta as well.

All countries joining the EU had enacted laws to enable them to implement EU law and nearly all member countries included the European Union in their constitution, to varying degrees.

The House had already adopted legislation which was given primacy over existing ordinary legislation, such as the European Convention Act. In that case, an international court could impose a sentence against the state of Malta and the Constitutional Court in Malta would order that that sentence be enforced, even when it would originally have taken a decision which was different from that of the European Court.

Now the same principle was being extended to the areas which fell within the responsibility of the European Court. There was no violation of the constitution in this at all.

Mr Leo Brincat, opposition foreign affairs spokesman said the people's verdict had sealed the EU issue. The opposition had since declared that it would work for Malta to make the best of the advantages of EU membership and minimise the disadvantages.

It was not the thinking of main stream Labourites to take Malta out of the EU and those who had this view had no right to impose it on the MLP.

Even in the last legislature, the opposition had not voted against EU related laws when they were viewed as being positive for Malta.

The opposition, however, viewed the European Union bill as being vitiated. It gave the government too many blank cheques. Could it be repealed with the same simple majority that would enact it?

What was especially worrying was the total adoption of present and future EU laws. Would that include laws which went against Malta's constitution?

The separation of powers between the executive and the legislative arms was being narrowed excessively.

The opposition's position did not mean that it should back this law or it could not criticise the accession conditions.

The government was showing itself to be scared of scrutiny. The government had not given any indication that it was prepared to set up a House committee specifically to monitor EU-related developments, as several member and accession countries had done.

Mr Brincat said it was important for the country to know what stage had been reached in preparation for Malta to adopt the Euro and whether the economy was well in line for this change.

Was Malta making sufficient plans to be eligible for EU funds?

The government's policies on the EU tax directive were also not being discussed. Was it true that Malta had sought a transition period which it then withdrew because it would not have been accepted?

Nationalist MP Josef Bonnici said the people had now taken their decision about the country's future and the opposition should realise its responsibility to respect that decision in an effective manner.

But instead, the opposition was still trying to justify its partnership option saying it was better and was still claiming it had won the referendum.

Prof. Bonnici denied that the EU had a one size fits all mentality. Indeed there were many examples where commission proposals were defeated in the European Parliament in the interests of small countries.

Dr Jason Azzopardi (PN) said he was scandalised to hear Opposition leader Alfred Sant speak on Monday, for he had spoken as if he was in a time warp. He was cut off from reality, and had delivered the same sort of speech he could have delivered before the EU membership referendum.

It was not true that the role of the Maltese parliament would be diluted following accession. Indeed, the draft European constitution stressed that national parliaments would be involved in the application of the principle of subsidiarity and they would have the power to refer matters to the court of justice.

The draft constitution also strengthened the role of the European Parliament's decision-making powers to 80 subject areas, twice as many as at present. The European Parliament represented the citizens of Europe and Malta would be represented there as well.

Dr Azzopardi said the ratification process was not an end, but the beginning of a new era for Malta. It would be an uphill and downhill road, but as Winston Churchill had said, "kites rise highest against the wind." Malta should grab the opportunities which EU membership would present.

Dr Azzopardi said one of the vocations of Malta in the EU would be to raise Mediterranean and Middle East issues to the highest levels of the EU.

He augured, however, that accession would also open the door for a policy of convergence in local politics and the opposition would no longer propose yesterday's policies for tomorrow. The Labour Party should admit that its partnership policy had failed and it should now turn a new leaf. The government would collaborate with all those of good will to make a success of EU membership.

Dr Michael Frendo (PN) said the bill was amending the constitution to declare that parliament could enact legislation in line with its membership in the EU and its obligations. This article had not been necessary but it was certainly in place.

He said he did not agree with Labour's stand that it would be voting against the bill, when it also said it was accepting the people's verdict. Once Labour had said that it would recognise the people's verdict in the election, it should use the occasion to vote in favour of the treaty and turn a new leaf.

Dr Frendo said that one should vote for the treaty because Malta was a small island on the periphery of Europe. After membership, instead of risking finding itself in a backwater, Malta would find itself in the heart of EU decision-making and strengthen its sovereignty by becoming more relevant in the decisions that affected it.

Mr Tonio Fenech (PN) said the time had come for the government and the opposition to work together in the EU context to get the best for Malta. Spain's success in exploiting more EU opportunities than other countries was attributed to the unity Spanish politicians showed in EU circles.

Mr Fenech said Malta should not be scared of EU regulations as they were aimed at increased safety and bringing about a higher standard of living. The government had successfully managed to achieve derogations or transition periods in those areas where the regulations were not in line with Malta's circumstances.