Parliament ratifies EU treaty

The Maltese Parliament unanimously ratified the European Union constitution last night even as the bloc remained uncertain over the future of the treaty.

"Through its vote Parliament is closing a long, controversial, divisive, chapter in its history and opening another where there is national support on European policy. This new chapter offers many opportunities for the Maltese people and both sides were going forward together" Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said.

Opposition leader Alfred Sant insisted that the opposition's vote in favour of ratification was conditional to five reservations on its understanding of the interpretation of the Constitution.

He stressed that a future Labour government would reverse any decisions seen as violating these reservations, particularly with regard to neutrality. In this context, he said, Labour would take Malta out of the European Defence Agency, which was viewed as violating neutrality.

Dr Gonzi in his motion recalled that the treaty was the fruit of the Convention for the Future of Europe which was attended by a representative of the government and two representatives of Parliament. The text was also debated and agreed in the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) where all member states were equally represented.

"Malta considers the constitutional treaty as bearing witness of a newly united Europe, a Europe of peoples and states, a Europe built over a period of more than 50 years on the basis of peace, human values and prosperity for all European peoples and states," he said in his motion for ratification.

In an obvious reference to the controversy over whether the constitution should include a reference to Christianity (it does not) Dr Gonzi said the EU member states had drawn inspiration from their common European heritage, including the religious heritage "which Malta understands as being, particularly, the Christian heritage of Europe".

The constitution, he said, included all the conditions Malta achieved in the EU accession treaty, including the declarations and protocols annexed to it. Indeed, Malta had achieved more, including better representation in the EU institutions and the recognition of the eligibility of island states for aid under the cohesion policy.

Dr Gonzi sad this was an exceptional debate where the two sides were taking a decision unanimously. Through its vote Parliament was closing a long, controversial, divisive, chapter in its history and opening another where there was national support on European policy. This new chapter offered many opportunities for the Maltese people and both sides were going forward together.

Dr Gonzi said this debate addressed three questions - the need for ratification, its consequences, and what would happen next.

He said Malta had a national interest to ratify the treaty and work for it to come into force. The treaty was beneficial for Malta, not only for the values it upheld but also for various other reasons. For example, once the Constitution came into force, Malta and other small states would be given six seats in the European Parliament. Malta would also be eligible for more regional aid as a small island state. Those were among the issues - another being tourism - that Malta had insisted upon during the talks on the Constitution, and its voice had been heard.

Malta and several other countries had also sought to have a reference to Europe's Christian heritage in the Constitution but that had not been achieved. However he was pleased that the House was agreeing on a reference to this heritage in its motion.

The Constitution, he said, settled so many other issues that had been hotly debated in the accession referendum and the subsequent general election, such as respect for Malta's neutrality, Malta's right to nominate a commissioner and the language issue.

The Constitution was also important for Malta because it underlined the European values of peace, subsidiarity and solidarity, all of which were also part of Malta's own DNA.

The EU, Dr Gonzi said, was an important instrument which would help Malta to overcome the challenges of globalisation and improve living standards. The Constitution consolidated the work done by the EU over five decades to achieve such aims. How could Malta vote against it?

The Constitutional Treaty included Malta's accession treaty and its attached declarations aimed at addressing specific Maltese concerns, such as those on neutrality and abortion.

One of the opposition's reservations was about neutrality. The opposition was saying the Constitution would not prejudice Malta's neutrality. That was already in the Constitution itself and the accession treaty. So why the reservation? It was reservations which raised doubts, Dr Gonzi said. He respected the reservations, but saw no need for them.

The Constitution was not perfect, ideally one would have wanted more, such as more seats in the European Parliament, but both sides were now agreeing that it was beneficial to Malta. Since the constitution included the accession treaty, this was another reason for Malta to ratify the treaty. It confirmed everything that was negotiated in the accession talks and expressed by the people in the referendum and the general election of 2003.

This Constitution also needed to be ratified and brought into force to ensure that the enlarged EU functioned efficiently and competitively. This too was in Malta's interest. What strengthened the EU, strengthened Malta. Indeed, Malta was already benefiting from its membership of the EU and would benefit more with time.

Dr Gonzi said it was shameful that there had been some in Malta who said Malta should stop its ratification process after the "no" votes in France and Holland. Malta had a right and a duty to express its own view on the Constitution. It certainly could not bow its head because somebody else had said no, he said. Indeed, the fact that both sides were converging showed how worthwhile this exercise was. What had seemed impossible two years ago was now happening and did both sides proud. The government had acted maturely in having delayed the ratifiction debate from December to the present.

In December the opposition could have voted against. Happily, however, consensus was now being achieved. Whatever happened to the Constitution in the future, the fact that the two sides had converged was an important gain for Malta, enabling it to better focus on its priorities.

Dr Gonzi said that Malta would await the outcome of the accession process in all the member states. It would try within the European institutions to convice others that it was in everybody's interest that the Constitution came into force. They would thus be better able to face the challenges Europe faced, such as the economic challenges posed by China, Asia and the US.

Concluding, Dr Gonzi said the road ahead was not an easy one. But he was convinced that the European Project which over 50 years had brought about peace, unity and a high standard of living would remain the overriding guiding light for progress.

The motion was then approved unanimously and with applause.

The ratification process so far

The Constitutional Treaty has so far been ratified by Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. In Germany, ratification awaits endorsement from the President.

Following the rejection of the treaty in referenda in France and Holland, referenda planned in Denmark, Poland, Czech Republic, Sweden, the UK and Portugal have been postponed. Luxembourg will go ahead with its referendum on Sunday.