House committee starts EU Constitution debate

Malta, a country which had been bitterly divided on EU membership would probably end up as the only country in the EU to ratify the European Constitution unanimously in its Parliament, the chairman of the European and Foreign Affairs Committee said yesterday.

Jason Azzopardi (PN) was speaking at the debate on the constitution in the committee ahead of the debate in the full Parliament tomorrow.

He said that the constitutional treaty would make the European Union more open and more assertive in international affairs. Its institutions would function more efficiently and it would be closer to the people.

Referring to various aspects of the constitution, he noted that one whole chapter had been devoted to tourism. The union had to complement action taken by member states in the tourism sector, particularly by promoting competitiveness.

An article which had found itself in the Constitution through Malta's insistence was that it should be a common aim of the EU member states to create a zone of prosperity characterised by close and peaceful relations with neighbour states.

Indeed, EU membership was not pushing Malta away from its Arab neighbours. On the contrary, this was the best means of getting Europe closer to them.

The constitutional treaty also safeguarded and respected Malta's neutrality, effectively bringing the Maltese political parties closer on issues of foreign affairs.

This reflected the maturity of the Maltese, who had recognised that the best way to improve the quality of life was through membership in the EU.

The ratification of the constitutional treaty, therefore, was in the national interest.

Foreign Minister Michael Frendo said the Constitution was a treaty between states and therefore required ratification by all member states to come into effect.

This was, however, the first international treaty which was not drawn up directly by governments but through a convention which included the participation of members of the European Parliament and of national Parliaments.

The approved document was then passed to the intergovernmental conference for debate between the governments.

Although the treaty had been defeated in referenda held in two countries, Malta was still going ahead with its ratification because the Maltese had a right and a duty to express their view on the Constitution.

All EU member states had signed their approval to the document and the fact that there were countries which did not ratify it should not stop Malta from doing so.

The document itself said that if up to five countries did not ratify the Constitution, the issue would be moved in the European Council which would have to consider what should be done in the circumstances.

The treaty, the minister said, was good for Malta not least because it strengthened the EU. Malta became a member of the EU to be part of a strong Europe.

The treaty would give Europe a sense of direction, strengthening it as an entity.

"We do not just want a Europe of peoples, we also want a Europe of states," the minister said adding that this was being assured by the treaty.

The document included clauses which would be particularly advantageous for Malta, such as that it would have six seats in the European Parliament.

The Constitution would make Malta eligible for funding given to island regions when it was no longer eligible for Objective 1 status, the maximum level of financial assistance.

It was also introducing complementary competence in tourism; it strengthened subsidiarity and was giving power to national parliaments, which were being made part of the European legislative architecture.

The treaty asserted the principle of solidarity which was at the heart of the EU's social policy - one of the factors which distinguished the EU from the US.

On Malta's suggestion, the Constitution was introducing the concept that although the European Commission could be smaller, if it was found to be functioning well in its current size, it would be retained as it was.

Although it was not perfect, the constitutional treaty was the result of a compromise. It was a process which in Malta had led to a consensus between the political forces.

"We should embrace this fact because it is beneficial for the country," Dr Frendo said.

George Vella, opposition spokesman on the EU, said information about the Constitution was still lacking and there was need for a stronger information campaign about it.

The government had a duty to explain the treaty better to the people. Unfortunately, it did not seem that an intelligent discussion had matured on the treaty.

The document that was being debated, he said, had elements of both a treaty and a Constitution, making it unique.

It was interesting to note the role of the opposition as the Constitution was being drafted. Before the 2003 election the opposition argued that there were better options for Malta than EU membership, but it bound itself to accept and respect the election result.

At a general conference the following November, the Labour Party made three important assertions: it noted that the majority of the Maltese wanted EU membership; it promised to continue defending the basic values of the country; and it promised to do its utmost to minimise the negative aspects of membership.

Even before the 2003 election, the MLP had taken an active part in the Convention on the Future of Europe because it wanted to know how the Europe Malta would be dealing with would be, whether it joined the bloc or not.

During the convention, the MLP had also insisted on a minimum of six seats being allocated for Malta in the European Parliament. It backed calls for each member state to be able to nominate one of the European commissioners and it insisted that Europe should not become a military organisation but, rather a social union. A lot of work had been carried out within the Socialist Group.

Once the treaty was published, the party analysed whether there were significant differences from the accession treaty and, especially, whether any of the provisions of the Constitution clashed with Malta's own Constitution. The MLP certainly did not want to adopt anything which would have eroded Malta's neutrality.

This had been an open exercise and the party's general conference took a clear position last Saturday.

In its ratification, Dr Vella said, Malta was making it clear that there were parts of the treaty which were being underlined to make the country's position clear. The government, he said, should not object to the opposition's reservations, which were not saying anything new.

The opposition agreed that Malta should go ahead with ratification because this was the right time for the decision, to avoid bringing the matter up closer to an election when other important issues should be debated.

He said that even though Malta would eventually have six MEPs, the Maltese MEPs would still have a tough time to keep up with the 20 committees and other European Parliament business. They therefore needed to be given proper support by Malta's mission in Brussels.

Mario de Marco (PN) said the debate was reflecting what the political class was going through and it was important that what the political class was feeling reflected what the people were feeling.

The government, he said, could have opted for other ratification methods, such as a referendum. This, however, could have been problematic.

For in a referendum the people were only asked to vote yes or no, and as seen in France and The Netherlands, it was difficult to establish what people were voting no for.

It was difficult to judge whether the nos related directly to the treaty or to other issues. And even if the nos were related to the treaty, which were the aspects that had drawn rejection?

In a Parliamentary debate, on the other hand, one had the time to reflect on the positive and the negative following discussions within the parties, which reflected what the people were feeling.

Dr de Marco said that one of the main advantages of the treaty was that it sought to bring the people and the EU closer together.

There was sincere criticism that the EU as an institution was sometimes distant from the peoples' feelings.

The EU was currently regulated by some 10 different treaties. The constitutional treaty would simplify this and consolidate everything into one treaty.

It would also make the EU more flexible and less rigid. What functioned well 40 years ago in the EU of six member states did not necessarily function well in the EU of 25 or more. The treaty better defined what fell within the competence of its institutions and what was the responsibility of the member states and national parliaments. Issues best treated on a national level, should continue to be treated on a national level.

The treaty was introducing the right of petition through the collection of one million votes inviting the commission to make certain proposals. This was giving the people a greater voice.

The treaty also included the charter for human rights and more consultative and decision-making powers for the European Parliament. The concept of solidarity was also being reflected and strengthened in several aspects of the treaty.

Although having a competitive economy was important for the EU, the union went further by also emphasising social values and the environment.

Dr de Marco said the constitutional treaty did not go against Malta's Constitution in any way, and Malta, therefore, did not have to change anything to adhere to the treaty.

The treaty would actually give stronger impetus to Malta's role as both a European and a Mediterranean country since it was facilitating the drawing up of policies between the EU and its neighbours. Malta, he said, could work more effectively to give the EU's foreign policy a Mediterranean dimension.

Leo Brincat, opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, said the treaty strengthened the social dimension.

Despite any defects it might have, the treaty was not one of extremes but one of compromise introducing more flexibility in the workings of the EU.

One hoped that the treaty would make it easier for the EU to move closer to the attainment of some of the Lisbon agenda targets for economic competitiveness. Unfortunately the attainment of those targets appeared to be receding as the economies of other regions grew faster.

Some peoples, he said, had used the treaty as a protest against their governments, but the MLP was mature enough to leave its differences with the government for other fora and occasions.

One, he said, should work for a more social Europe which worked more effectively and efficiently. As members of the EU, the Maltese people should have enough vision to change any crisis into an opportunity and overcome the difficulties membership could bring with it.

He pointed out that the Lisbon document spoke about a welfare state and not a welfare society. Indeed, the MLP in one of its reservations about the Constitution has said that the treaty will not prejudice Malta's autonomy in the carrying out of a social policy based on a modern welfare state that fits the country's particular circumstances.

Mr Brincat underlined the need for Malta to decide on ratification now.

It would be damaging to the national interest not to ratify at this stage. Such a message would be the same as opening a door to withdrawing membership. That would have negative consequences, destabilising investment and reducing confidence. He hope for a positive vote with reservations tomorrow.

Nationalist MP Clyde Puli said he agreed with Dr Vella that there was lack of information and communication which was contributing to disenchantment in the European project.

Both parties, he said, should combat this together.

They had the duty to explain why Malta was going ahead with the ratification process.

Among other things, Malta had a duty to express its opinion and confirm and strengthen the European model the country believed in.

Another reason was that the ratification presented the country with an opportunity to close an issue which had created an intense discussion which has been going on for a number of years. The treaty strengthened Europe and put Malta on the same level as other countries.

Labour MP Jose Herrera said this treaty was the result of a compromise bringing out the positive in politics, where one gave up a little to gain a lot.

Every country had had to give a little for the document to be drawn up and this would have been impossible without compromise.

Criticism by the no camp, he said, was unjust and based on issues which were too technical; the interpretation they were giving was restrictive.

The MLP, he said, had been very transparent and democratic on the issue and everyone was given space to say what one felt on the Constitution.

The MLP had shown itself to be a mature party putting the national interest first. This was how a political party won credibility, he said, adding that he was proud to be part of this party.

Nationalist MP Michael Asciak said the Constitution was a step forward on the current treaties governing the EU.

Although, in his opinion, the document was too long and an effort could have been made to shorten it, it still made the operation of the EU more efficient.

Although there was agreement on the general principles of civil freedom as the basis of European democracy there had still been national differences on more profound issues such as bioethics and individual freedoms against the community aspect.

There existed the Anglo/American model which built on respect to human dignity and gave priority to individual autonomy as the highest expression of human dignity.

The European project, on the other hand, considered human dignity as imposing limits on individual autonomy for the common good.

The EU Constitution, he said, was a European project built on the European experience over the centuries, collecting within itself a synthesis of the several cultures and evolutions.