Hardly had the ink dried on a new draft international treaty signed by 25 of the 27 EU member states that a Bill to amend the Maltese Constitution was presented to the House of Representatives.

The new treaty lays down that the new rules shall start being implemented at the latest one year after the entry into force of the treaty through binding provisions of a permanent character, preferably constitutional, or otherwise guaranteed to be fully respected and adhered to throughout the national budgetary processes.

The choice on the method of implementation was left to the member states, in accordance with their national legal structure and tradition.

Let’s make it clear before we venture further that we are not against the objectives of the new draft treaty to entrench the “golden rule” in national law to restrain government spending. We cannot write eloquently enough about the need to ensure fiscal sustainability and to strengthen the resilience of our economies to meet any future exogenous or endogenous shock.

Nor are we against the fact that on this latest constitutional amendment the government and the opposition are in near complete agreement. We say “near” because, up to a few months ago, leading spokesmen on the opposition benches asserted that the objectives of the treaty go against Malta’s interests.

We have no intention of starting a polemic on this.

What concerns us most on this issue is the constitutional process itself. This amendment should not be hurried through. Sufficient time should be allocated for a debate and reflection that involves a broader cross-section of the public too.

We need to bear in mind that the changes that this treaty introduces are significant, binding and long-lasting. For this reason, the social partners, not least the members of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development, should be thoroughly involved in it.

However, we suggest that both the government and the opposition should publish their views on the impact of this constitutional amendment ahead of the parliamentary debate and discuss the amend-ment’s long-term and short-term implications so that the people can react.

There is some perplexity how a country that has for a number of years run a public deficit of about three per cent or more is not going to experience pain when it begins to sustain a balanced budget or surplus or, in extremis, a deficit that does not exceed 0.5 per cent of GDP.

After this amendment, future governments will have fewer levers to pull in order to maintain a steady course. They will either have to slash public programmes or increase taxation or do both.

Of course, it could be argued that growth will provide the required additional revenue to avoid doing both. But we all know the economic environment we are operating in and growth is anything but a foregone conclusion.

Again, we stress, there is nothing wrong with seeking to achieve balanced budgets as long as the measures to achieve this are based on the right economic rationale and as long as economics is not always put before social cohesion and social justice.

So we expect the constitutional amendment to be accompanied by more detailed statements on how the two main political parties intend to restructure public spending to ensure that, while keeping with the stricter criteria, justice and fairness are also ensured.

For example, how will the Labour Party keep its promise to slash water and electricity tariffs without endangering other public services or raising taxes? How do the two parties look on further pension reform? How do they intend to strengthen the office of the Auditor General to stop public profligacy?

Malta’s two political parties have an enormous capacity to mobilise public opinion and public debate. For once, they could put this power to best use by explaining to the electorate not so much the legalisms involved in this latest constitutional change but what the effects are likely to be and what adjustments will have to be made.

It is sad to observe that in the last few months, while the EU was negotiating the draft treaty, the local debate was dominated by political trivia. We need to head the debate in a useful direction and to attract people back into politics by inviting them to debate the real issues that impact their daily lives.

We also need to establish a serious approach to constitutional change that involves the people because, at the end of the day, the Constitution belongs to the people.

Prof. Pace teaches European Studies at the University of Malta and Mr Mallia is a member of the European Economic and Social Committee.