Parliament yesterday approved a government motion to amend the EU protocol that would increase the total number of MEPs by 18 – increasing Malta’s delegation by one to six. During the 30-minute debate, opposition foreign affairs spokesman George Vella said that one must see whether there were member states – especially those losing seats like Germany – which were dragging their feet in approving the protocol.
Introducing the motion, Foreign Minister Tonio Borg said that under the new protocol, which had already been approved by the 27 member states, no country would have less than six seats. Malta was one of the first countries to ratify the protocol, as it was in its interest to benefit from the sixth seat.
Dr Vella said that when Malta was debating whether it should join the European Union, the Constitutional Treaty for the EU was being discussed. Together with then Prime Minister Alfred Sant he had argued that it was inconceivable how national representation with four seats in the European Parliament could cope with all meetings and at the same time be productive.
When the Constitutional Treaty’s final draft was concluded in 2004, the government had argued that four seats were indeed a small amount. Moreover, it had made its contributions to effect the necessary changes in the Lisbon Treaty.
The Lisbon Treaty had subsequently been enacted in 2009. The first European Parliament’s elections in 2004 had seen the PN electing two MEPs with the PL electing three. The last election in 2009 had seen the PN electing two members while the PL had elected four.
Dr Vella said that one should analyse how to take advantage of this representation. The increase of one seat would help Malta to make the difference in attending committees and being active in the European Parliament.
Those countries which had several members were not in a hurry to approve this protocol, but Malta was anxious that its sixth member takes his seat in the European Parliament.
With the way the European Parliament was developing its legislative powers, anything that, could be acquired meant a lot to Malta.
Dr Vella said that although many argued against the European Union taking a federal direction, it was still moving in that direction. A move towards federalism would not be beneficial to Malta. There should be a debate on whether the Maltese government was ready to renounce part of its sovereignty and how any such measures would affect Malta.
Moreover, the Maltese Parliament should discuss Malta’s position in the EU to enable its representatives to transmit the Maltese message.
Whatever the issue which had since kept Labour MEP Joseph Cuschieri from taking his seat in the European Parliament, it was not justified. Meanwhile, one should see whether there were certain countries that were not interested, such as Germany which would have its seats reduced.
Concluding, Dr Vella said that the PL was proud of the fourth candidate being part of the Labour ticket. Joseph Cuschieri, he said, would strive for Malta’s best interests.
House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Francis Zammit Dimech said the motion would assure Malta’s effective representation. Wishing Mr Cuschieri the best of success, he said that, despite different political ideologies, local MEPs strove for Malta’s best interests.
Winding up the debate, Dr Borg said that it would not be the Maltese government’s fault if the protocol was not ratified by December. There were no partisan lines in the EP – all Maltese MEPs gave priority to Malta’s interests.
Malta was the country to benefit the most because the addition of another seat would mean an increase of 20 per cent.
Admitting he was not a supporter of federalism, Dr Borg said there were movements in favour and against. But with an enlarged EU, there was a lesser chance for the Union to take a federal direction.
The motion was approved unanimously.