Treaty and The Times

What has happened to The Times? Its editorial of June 21 is the second written in a few days greeting the result of the recent Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as the cause of some sort of celebration - the small guys standing up to the big guys. The Times should get its facts right.

Fact one, the Union is not being "held hostage by a million plus men and women, it is being held hostage by a 100,000 majority, the minutest fraction of the EU population.

Fact number two, the Irish were not being asked to vote for the same treaty as the Danes, the French, and the Dutch, so it is incorrect and misleading to say that the latter were "before them".

Third fact, the treaty was not concocted by some anonymous bureacrats in "Brussels"; it is the fruit of free and protracted negotiations by the political leaders of the people of Europe, their Prime Ministers. No wonder Brian Cowen was embarrassed by the result - not because he was put "on display," as The Times put it, but because the result was, in effect, a vote of no confidence in his political judgment by his people.

Fourth fact, "the fact of the matter" is not that "without the Lisbon Treaty the European Union will continue to function; as it has been doing"; it is the opposite. Again, this is gross misrepresentation. Why, does The Times think, are the European leaders (including the traditionally "difficult" Britain) so eager to get it endorsed, because they want to chuck away chunks of their national sovereignty and give more power to "Brussels", as the sceptics put it?

The fact of the matter is that without the treaty Europe just cannot go forward and the political leaders know it, even if their people (or, at least, a large number of them) haven't understood it. The treaty, if it has escaped the notice of The Times, aims for structural reforms intended to streamline decision-making and give the Union a more coherent voice on the international level to defend our interests in the face of the global challenges Europe faces and to act more effectively. These challenges include climate change, energy dependency on foreign sources (on Russia in particular), economic competition from China and East Asia, and international terrorism. The Times should be able to see this.

The issue is not about being "brought to a grinding halt". Is that when Europe should act on reform according to The Times, when we are brought "to a grinding halt"? Nor is the treaty about the Union's internal efficiency; about whether it has or has not improved since enlargement (which is a moot point). It is about facing up to the external challenges I have just outlined.

The people of Europe have to understand that the past is gone, that the continent has to exist within a broader economic, political and cultural reality that is the world. They are actually experiencing this reality every day with rising fuel prices, food shortages, climate deterioration etc. This is what the treaty is about. The governments of Europe, ours included (and the opposition too in our fortunate case), because they are into it, have understood this very well - hence the disappointment of both Lawrence Gonzi and Joseph Muscat (and, indeed, of the Irish Prime Minister) with the result. This is why they are keen to have the treaty endorsed.

On the other hand they have clearly done nowhere near enough to educate their people into this reality. This is the task, to be honest, I expected The Times to contribute to. Instead it wrote a one-sided and badly informed editorial that comforts the CNi (as The Times gleefully reported last week) and reads like something out of the British Conservative tabloids.

The Irish vote, minuscule as it was, must, as The Times said, be respected, but it would be a tragedy for Europe were it to follow the ill-conceived advice given by The Times about how to "seriously address" the problem it has raised by declaring the treaty dead. That would not be "serious" that would be suicidal. "Seriously addressed" must mean moving the treaty forward, meanwhile working on a compromise that everyone can endorse but that must be effective. Countries reluctant to move in that direction should seriously reconsider their membership of the Union.

On another matter, I don't understand the remark made by The Times that "it is not recommendable" that Malta should consider losing its sixth seat "as being the end of the world". Here, again, The Times chooses to echo Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici. Of course, it is not the end of the world but the question is whether, in political terms, Malta is better or worse off by it and I don't think the answer to that is in doubt. It is obviously better for six parliamentarians to speak and act for Malta than five! But The Times and CNi tells us that it does not matter!

I think the loss of a seat is not just a matter of concern for "Europhiles" but for anyone who has this country's interest at heart! All right, so now we know that The Times itself is not Europhile - is this a declaration that it has turned Eurosceptic?

Finally, I am disappointed by the deeply offensive and arrogant language of the editorial aimed towards the arguments of those who, like myself, did not exactly celebrate the Irish vote. The concern of these people, according to The Times, is "undemocratic" or they have "spluttered," or "fumed" - so how would exactly one describe an editorial that forgoes the basic value of balanced discussion? This sort of writing is not the stuff of an editorial I would have identified with The Times.

Editor's note

Where The Times stands in relation to EU membership or otherwise should be clear to all. It adopted a clear pro-EU stand before the 2003 referendum and continues to do so ever since. That does not mean, however, that it should or would not speak out when, in its opinion, things go wrong - as was the case with the Irish vote.

The strongest point The Times wanted to make in its June 21 leader is that the voice of the people must be heard, no matter what. That is the very essence of democracy and The Times has struggled, and suffered, for that ever since its inception.

Which does not mean that points raised by Prof. Wain are not valid. Indeed, as the leader suggested - and this was even highlighted in the heading - the situation resulting from the irish vote must be addressed. The leader concluded thus: "It is to the good, as a matter of democratic principle, that a country empowered to ratify or not to ratify a treaty... chose the course of action it took. The answer is not to ignore this but seriously to address it".