Ratification treaty debate

The debate in parliament on the Bill for the Ratification of the EU Treaty can be evaluated not only by what was actually said by the various speakers but also by what was not said and by whom.

As expected, all the speakers from the government side, backed twice by a popular vote, extolled the new avenues for opportunities that joining the EU is already opening for the Maltese people and will open in the future. Of course, at times the challenges that lie ahead were mentioned too and the difficulties that some sectors will encounter were underlined. But there was nothing new in this. Anyone who attended the dialogue sessions taht it-tinda heard the prime minister say exactly the same thing prior to the referendum and the general election.

EU membership has always been and will always be a question of balance.

The great surprise of the three-day debate was the silence from Labour's deputy leader, Charles Mangion, Labour's former foreign and shadow minister and now the MLP's senior representative at the European Parliament, George Vella and Labour leadership contender John Attard Montalto. Their silence speaks volumes and both party faithful and the electorate at large can reach their own conclusions.

Alfred Sant's speech was hailed as "historic" by Labour's electronic media. But then maltastar.com used the same banner to describe the so-called "social contract" which Dr Sant and his deputies had signed with the electorate at the Phoenicia Hotel prior to the general election. The electorate gave the cold shoulder to the contract as it judged it the sham that it was.

Dr Sant could not help proclaim he still believed that partnership with the EU would have been a better path for Malta to follow and that the referendum was won by his party. In doing so he rendered his contribution to the debate totally irrelevant and cut an image of an unwilling player in the new Labour Party that is emerging following two humiliating defeats. His threat that his amendments to the Bill must be accepted in committee stage sounded more like a cry for help from a diminished leader of a party that is eager to establish his authority by any means possible.

As for Anglu Farrugia's contribution, it now becomes patently obvious that the Labour conference had very little choice but to re-elect Dr Sant as leader, at least for the time being. Dr Farrugia's speech belonged to an age that many of us thought was dead and buried.

The other contender, Dr Attard Montalto, had nothing to contribute on the most important issue facing this country. Not exactly leadership material.

The sea-change that EU membership is bringing in Malta's political panorama has been witnessed during the debate. The speeches by Labour's EU spokesman Evarist Bartolo and foreign affairs spokesman Leo Brincat represent Labour's new position. They were not intended to influence parliament but the party leadership and party faithful. Both Labour speakers are realists in the true sense of the word. Theirs was the reading of the riot act to recalcitrant Labour MPs in particular, that swimming together in the new sea is not an option but a must. The alternative is drowning together.

The prime minister's winding up was an olive branch to Labour. He reminded them that theirs was not a unique experience. Several Labour parties abroad opposed EU membership but their acceptance of facts and the people's will renewed them and made them electable.

On a party level, the MLP must be aware that the EU issue almost destroyed the British Labour Party and is still wreaking havoc in the Conservative Party.

When Mr Bartolo spoke about national unity, I could not help thinking that foremost in his mind was party unity. In this context the debate served as a first hurdle that Labour had to jump before moving on.