Referendum vs parliamentary vote

Jason Giardina writes:
I challenge you - as the beacon of individual rights within the EU - to address the following issue.
Why is the Lisbon Treaty, which German Chancellor Angela Merkel said is 99 per cent the same as the EU Constitution that was voted down by two member states some years ago, not being subjected to a referendum?
Furthermore, why is the Lisbon Treaty, which is a list of amendments to the above-mentioned rejected Constitution, not being published so that individuals can read for themselves what their "rights" are that are being voted on in Parliament?

Firstly, the Lisbon Treaty has long been published - both the full version of the legal text as well as an easy-to-follow summary. Here is the relevant weblink: http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm. So it is not correct to state that the treaty was not published. Having said that, I do not think that publishing the treaty is enough.

Explaining Europe, why it is important, what we get out of it and why we need more, not less, is an ongoing challenge.

The moment we stop, we fail. More so in countries where a referendum is held.

Secondly, the Lisbon Treaty does indeed replicate most of the contents of the EU Constitution. I view this positively since I supported the Constitution. The fact that the Lisbon Treaty is so similar does not mean that the rejection of the Constitution in France and in The Netherlands in 2005 was ignored. In fact, the Constitution was stopped and the entire negotiating process, leading to Lisbon, was started afresh. Now that process too is in trouble because, without the Irish, the treaty cannot enter into force.

To be sure, the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty were not perfect.

For instance, I have always resented the idea of replacing the system of one-commissioner-per-member-state with rotation, albeit an equal rotation, among all countries. This was originally inserted in the Nice Treaty back in 2000. But it was reinforced in the Constitution and again in Lisbon, albeit postponed from next year to 2014. Now that the Lisbon Treaty is in the balance, the Nice decision comes back into play with effect from next year rather than in five years' time.

But as far as compromises go, both the Constitution and Lisbon were comprehensively good steps forward in the process of European integration - which is in our national interest - and indeed both were negotiated and signed by our government and unanimously ratified by our national Parliament.

Thirdly, the reader questions why the Lisbon Treaty was not put to a referendum in Malta.

There is no question that a referendum is a high form of democratic expression and I would have been the last to object to it. I had publicly stated as much.

But I do accept that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was not indispensable in Malta given that we had just come out of a keenly-debated referendum on the entire issue of EU membership barely five years ago. At the time, even the draft text of the EU Constitution was already in hand and part of the debate. So we have already been there.

I do not agree with those who dismiss ratification by vote in the national Parliament as an affront to democracy. We elect our representatives to our national Parliament and we trust them to decide for us. If they decide wrongly, they pay the ultimate price. But we can hardly claim that their vote is not an expression of democracy.

In our system and that of many others, referenda are reserved for the most crucial of national decisions, which justify the "suspension" of representative parliamentary democracy for people to decide directly.

And when this happens people should be asked a very stark question that they can easily relate to. It is one thing asking whether they are in favour or against joining the European Union - whether they want to be in or out - but quite another to ask them whether they favour the Reform Treaty or the Lisbon Treaty.

The first is a substantive, yet clear and stark question which leaves no doubt on its significance. The second is also important but much less than the first. It is also too technical, unclear and can easily give rise to confusion.

So my view is that, on balance, in the light of our recent EU referendum, the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty was justifiably left in the hands of our national parliamentarians to decide. Indeed, they voted unanimously to approve it. Their decision is not less valid and not less legitimate than the one taken in Ireland. Both should be respected.

Readers who would like to ask questions to be answered in this column can send an e-mail, identifying themselves, to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu.

Dr Busuttil is a Nationalist member of the European Parliament.