Editorial

Labour seem anxious to get the message across that membership of the European Union is now no longer an issue but a reality that has to be faced.

Even though opposition leader Alfred Sant spent time rehashing the party's pre-referendum stand over the issue in the debate on the ratification of the accession treaty in parliament, somehow Labour seem all too eager to get the matter out of the way in order to be able to move ahead in their task of making the party electable again.

One immediate aim of course is to win back those who had voted for the Nationalist Party in the last election because they wanted to see Malta join the EU. Many of these had openly declared that though they were still Labour at heart, they felt Malta should not lose such an opportunity.

One Labour argument is that acceptance of the new reality does not necessarily mean they should now renounce their anti-membership stand. Labour, these hold, should still remain against membership. This would seem to run counter, at least in tone, to another Labour argument that, although they had been against membership before the referendum, they should now go along with the will of the majority.

When speaking about his party's stand, Dr Sant spoke of a sense of realism "while accepting the rules of democracy". It is somewhat strange that the Labour leader has to feel the need to assure us that his party would be observing the democratic rules. Should not this be taken for granted in a democratic country?

With Labour having been so categorical in their opposition to membership, they have obviously found themselves in a dilemma. It is argued by Labour exponents that a yes vote for ratification by Labour MPs would have meant a betrayal of the stand party delegates had taken at their general conference in January when they voted in favour of "partnership".

Well, the question today is: for how long would Labour be able to afford keeping this stand in favour of "partnership"? For if, as expected, membership would translate into tangible benefits, would not this make it even more difficult for those Labour people who are in favour of membership and who voted Nationalist in the last election to decide to go back into their party's fold if the party refuses to change its policy over such an important issue as membership? It is a dilemma of the party's own making.

The situation as it stands now is that Labour have voted against the bill for the ratification of the accession treaty. Although they have not renounced their "partnership" stand, in the words of Evarist Bartolo, the party would assume a progressive and constructive role to ensure Malta enjoys the benefits of accession in the interest of all the people, and not just of a few, while working to minimise the disadvantages.

The argument that the party could not have changed its EU policy in the short time they had between the referendum and the election without losing credibility might have made sense, at least to the party, but the situation now is different.

The party is bound to run into more serious political hiccups in future unless, in the context of the new reality which the party itself is now accepting, it modifies its EU policy to take account of new circumstances.