Pre-European election blues

Last weekend you attended the European Forum Wachau at Gottweig Abbey in Austria. Other participants included the new Prime Minister of Hungary, as well as the Foreign Ministers of Austria, the Czech Republic and Romania. Did you learn anything of particular interest to Malta on the eve of the European elections?

As usual in this kind of international conference, the private conversations in the wings tend to be even more interesting than the public speeches, although I should say that I was very impressed by Gordon Bajnai, whom I was hearing for the first time.

He was elected Prime Minister of Hungary without having even been a Member of Parliament, because of the managerial ability he had shown outside the political arena. He accepted the office for just one year. Our Austrian hosts expressed hopeful scepticism about how firmly he would keep this resolution. His style reminded me of a young John Dalli.

The item of most specific relevance to the controversial issues raised in our pre-European election campaign concerned the status of the Charter of Human Rights as now recognised in the Lisbon Treaty. The former No2EU candidate Sharon Ellul Bonici has been seeking to alarm Maltese voters by arguing that the Luxembourg European Court could well interpret the charter as entitling Maltese citizens to abortion in certain circumstances, in spite of all the guarantees given us to the contrary.

Some most expert participants, such as Teija Tiilikainen, who was my colleague as the delegate of the Finnish government at the European Convention, spoke about the matter. They were all somewhat peeved that Britain and Ireland had succeeded in opting out from recognition of the charter. It had been mainly on their insistence (with, I should add, Malta's support) that two protocols had been added to the charter immensely reducing its applicability.

The first protocol restricted reference to the court only when the complaint that a breach of the charter had occurred was directed at the European authorities or at national governments or other agencies solely when acting in execution of European authority decisions. This means very clearly that the court has no jurisdiction whatsoever with regard to national laws concerning abortion or any other matter when those laws are not enacted to implement European decisions.

The second protocol states that the Luxembourg court is to interpret the charter according to the juridical traditions of the member state concerned.

It could be argued, of course, that the court decides about its own competence, and it could conceivably fly in the face of what the protocols retained in the Lisbon Treat so plainly state. In that case, Malta would have every right to follow the British and Irish example.

By clarifying the above, I do not wish, however, to suggest that Ellul Bonici's scaremongering is proof of insincerity.

This consideration was surely not a principal theme of the Wachau forum. What were the principal issues discussed at Gottwieg Abbey?

The first was security. Some participants were pleased at the more united and effective role that the EU was now playing in crisis situations such as the Balkans or Georgia. Others were disappointed that the EU reacted to other situations like Pakistan only through NATO.

There was, however, general regret that the EU had not managed to contribute more positively in the Middle East. I was not called upon to speak on the matter, but in my heart I greatly regretted that Malta had not promoted more effectively a distinctive approach.

When Michael Frendo was minister, indications had been given on both Arab and Israeli sides that the peace talks should aim first at the terms of a general and final settlement, and then proceed to discuss the step-by-step process towards it. Sadly, Malta has given only mumbled clichés instead.

The second issue was regional development. The political leaders of Lower Austria and Bavaria struck up a partnership with Romania to promote a programme for the Danube basin and the Black Sea similar to that for the Mediterranean. Once again, I silently sorrowed that we had not managed to provide a model with as well thought-out planning as our successors were now doing.

The third issue was intercultural dialogue. The discussion here was between those who would like to fence out Islam on one hand and those who, like me, would like Europe to adopt a much more active policy to promote the development of an integrated governance system for the Mediterranean with the equal participation of all littoral states. Such a policy should be adopted as a step towards a wider and deeper Euro-African alliance.

Are these issues featuring in the European election campaigns on the continent anymore than they are doing in Malta?

The context of the European elections clearly conditioned the Gottweig workshops. Before our last general election, noises were being made from both major parties about the need for a common front on foreign policy.

I had hoped that it would happen at least in the European Parliament. It would then have been possible for us to vote for the best candidates in the light of basic agreement on global issues between the local parties. Alas, the campaign is being conducted as if its sole purpose was giving a message to Lawrence Gonzi.

Nevertheless, I myself will vote for the candidates who have shown a more than parish pump vision, especially with respect to the immigration minefield.

Fr Peter Serracino Inglott was talking to Miriam Vincenti.