Better a debate of contrasts than no debate at all

The local political circles that should not even dare criticise the Labour Party for conducting an internal debate on the European Constitutional Treaty are those belonging to or close to the Nationalist Party.

The Nationalist Party has long chosen not to debate the Constitutional Treaty at all - either within internal party structures or publicly, as the MLP intends to do in its assemblies for delegates as well as during the forthcoming summer extraordinary general conference, when the issue will be submitted for approval together with the party's draft economic regeneration programme.

In a major party like the Labour Party one is bound to find sharp contrasts, particularly between Eurosceptics and Eurorealists who have come to realise that given the electors' vote in 2003 our destiny is to operate within the structures of the European Union.

Although a few months back the MLP had approved its revamped and updated policy on European affairs, there is still a small minority - far more vocal than numerous - that feels that Malta should leave the EU at the very first opportunity. This runs counter to the policy approved by the MLP as well as that put into practice by the party leadership.

As Dr George Vella diligently pointed out in his report on the European Constitutional Treaty, although the majority of the voters - and party delegates - still need to be well informed about the implications of past EU treaties as well as the European constitutional treaty, it is important that the party's position be clearly spelt out, in a way that can be understood by one and all.

European Socialists have already pronounced themselves as a movement in favour of this constitutional treaty; the same way that the European Trade Union Confederation have done, as well as the European bishops.

Although some harbour the wrong impression that a negative vote on our part could provide us with a quick exit from the EU, this will work out to the contrary, since a negative vote will mean saying no to an added seat in the European Parliament as well as to the new exit clause that the European constitutional treaty provides.

Basically, a no vote would leave us stranded with all the rules and regulations of the Nice treaty.

What we must bear in mind is that a negative vote by the Labour Party will create new and serious doubts about the seriousness and sincerity of Labour's recent stand when it updated its policy on Europe.

As party leader Alfred Sant had pointed out during the parliamentary debate on Malta's accession treaty: "In the years ahead of us we should build on what has been achieved so far rather than resort to a disruptive mode."

Even were one to rely on purely legalistic arguments, at the end of the day we will end up being identified with extremist European parties who oppose the mere concept and notion of a European Union.

We must distinguish between pampering our diehards and reaching out for those level-headed Labourites and floating voters whose trust and confidence we need if we seriously intend to secure a governing majority during the forthcoming general elections.

I understand that it was with this spirit in mind that a number of delegates recently wrote to the prime mover of the anti-Constitutional Treaty campaign not to continue to hinder Labour's electoral chances.

Although I had nothing to do with this letter - even though it hailed from a locality I happen to represent in Parliament - it was interesting that it was signed by delegates of both sexes and of all ages whose sole interest is in seeing the Labour Party in power again.

It would be misleading to give the impression that the European constitutional treaty has only plusses. On the contrary, it has a number of warts which defy the image of transparency and democracy-building that had been the prime movers of the convention held earlier on.

But there is nothing that should prevent us from voting in favour in a qualified manner. By expressing our reservations loud and clear we will be sending a message that a new Labour government will be determined to take the necessary measures to ensure that certain shortcomings by the Nationalist government will be remedied as far as Brussels is concerned.

In future I intend to publish a working paper which sets out a number of reasons why we should neither be alarmist nor fundamentalist about the European constitutional treaty.

Political labels and insults to the effect that we are all traitors do not impress people any more in this day and age. On the contrary, it makes certain people come across as more jaded and passé in their remarks.

Had the treaty not guaranteed that crucial areas such as tax, foreign policy and defence would remain under full national control and subject to the national veto, I would have taken a public and vociferous stand against it the same way I would have opposed the powers that certain governments wanted to give the European Foreign Minister.

As things stand, what clout he has will come from representing the common will of 25 freely co-operating nations when they want him to do so.

The constitutional treaty will still leave the EU a Europe of sovereign states. Everyone and anyone has every right to object to the European constitutional treaty. The pity is that the kind of rhetoric some of them resort to reveals all too often not a reasoned case for opposing this new constitutional treaty, but simply a visceral rejection of the idea that we should be in Europe at all... in complete disregard of the way the majority of the Maltese voted during the 2003 general election!

As a democratic party, we can assure you that the debate will continue in the coming weeks - both internally and externally. This will be done in a manner that will put the Nationalists to shame for having decided merely to keep mum about the whole project in spite of its implications.

Leo Brincat is the Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs and IT.