Labour and the Irish vote

George Vella, still Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman, is reported to have reacted favourably to the overwhelming Irish “yes” vote to the Lisbon Treaty. But he unexpectedly added a very partisan, and allow me to say, Santian whiplash. He first praised the Irish for having “safeguarded their national interest” and for “putting the interests of the people and the respect for the constitution first, before others”.

The Labour spokesman’s sting in the tail was: “Labour praises the Irish people which safeguarded its interests, did not decide to take on the Treaty straight away, and through delicate and precise negotiations, assured itself that the Lisbon Treaty’s operation did not affect its rights when it comes to neutrality, the life of the unborn...”

He therefore believes that the Irish were wise to vote “no” at the first referendum on the Lisbon Treaty; a vote which had prejudiced the entire process of European integration!

Can Joseph Muscat please explain what the words of his chief spokesman on foreign affairs were supposed to mean within the Maltese context? Is Dr Muscat in agreement with them? And why was this position not reflected in Labour’s parliamentary vote on the Lisbon Treaty when Labour voted in favour “straight away”?

What aspects of the national interest does he imply the Maltese have prejudiced in approving the Lisbon Treaty “straight away”? More fundamentally, does the Labour spokesman on foreign affairs still want to re-negotiate the conditions of Malta’s accession to the European Union? If so, Dr Vella is still echoing Alfred Sant’s statement made during the last electoral campaign that he would have re-negotiated Malta’s terms of membership, causing the immediate reaction on the part of the European Commission that no re-negotiation could take place.

No doubt it must still be painful for Labour to recall how Dr Sant sounded more and more eurosceptic the more the voting date approached. Notorious remains the sight of Dr Sant refusing to tackle the questions raised by University students on his commitment to the EU process of integration and the recognition by Labour of the referendum result.

Among the “yes” voters there was an increasing suspicion that Drs Sant and Vella had an agenda only to be revealed after the 2008 general election much similar to Dr Sant’s freezing of the EU application after he won the 1996 elections.

This is being said since in reality Labour has yet to make any radical re-thinking of the policies which it had presented before the electorate at the general election held only in 2008, and which the electorate unceremoniously voted against. It is no use burying its head in the sand; the fear of electing the eurosceptic Dr Sant, sustained by an equally if not more eurosceptic Dr Vella as foreign affairs spokesman, prevented a vital and determining number of “yes” voters from voting MLP.

Labour cannot remain looking at the past in a vain attempt to legitimise its retrograde policies on EU membership and its opposition to the introduction of the Euro. Fairness demands that Dr Muscat be given the necessary time to complete his very difficult task of making his party electable.

In fact he must be one of the very few leaders of the Opposition who certainly would not relish a general election being held in the very short term since he still needs to make a clean sweep of the “old guard” starting from the secretary general. He has to ensure that a clearly pro-EU secretary general be appointed without any reputation of looking at the past or wishing to remake the past, since the past has only meant defeat for Labour. Then he must pass on to the eurosceptics in his shadow cabinet.

Only then would he be credible in reforming the policies of the party in the manner Tony Blair had done to the British Labour Party when it was unelectable.