The Times of Malta
For all the complications of the EU enlargement project which is the centre-piece of the Prodi Commission objectives, Malta presents a very particular problem.
Malta is the only country among existing members and applicant countries,` where not only the electorate on the best hypothesis favours accession by a flimsy majority, but where there is a chasm about the membership concept, not just about the details, between` the political bodies represented in` the countries democratic structures.
This situation is uncomfortable and undesirable for the EU and one can start to understand the pressure being put on the MLP to reconsider its policies.` One could also speculate on the source of vile attempts to destabilise the MLP leadership by whoever has an interest to provoke a leadership bid once the current leadership cannot be persuaded to dance to their tune.
The decision to accede to EU membership is a decision with consequences far longer than the expiry date of the incumbent government`s mandate.` It is no decision which a Government takes in the ordinary course of its business. It binds future governments and should ideally be taken following congruence of concepts between the incumbent and the alternative government.
The state of congruence of concepts has prevailed in all major constitutional decisions taken by our country in the post war period. In the run-up to independence both major parties were solidly backing the independence concept. The difference between the political parties was mainly whether independence should be packaged with other defence related agreements as accepted by the incumbent government or whether independence should be a stand-alone,` with defence agreement being negotiated by Malta as a sovereign independent state as advocated by the opposition.
The same congruence of concepts applied for the creation of the Republic, the closure of the military base and the inclusion of the neutrality and non-alignment provisions in the constitution.
Taking on the EU accession project without convergence on the concept by the two main political parties is risky.` Project realisation depends on it being approved by more than a wafer thin majority at a time when the electorate will be feeling the pain of economic re-structuring and would inevitable associate such pain with the EU accession project.
If, as it is likely, the referendum would return a negative vote then the EU accession project would have to be shelved for the next 20 years. Not even any eventual convergence on the membership concept would guarantee an early revival of the project.
It is easy to jump to the conclusion that such a scenario would favour Labour. In the short term it surely does.` The PN would find the platform over which it has built its domestic and foreign policy suddenly disappearing. The Prime Minister would have a low exit from his political carreer and a Labour Party returned to power would have its options narrowed to one model without the important opportunity to keep options open to react to unfolding scenarios as the EU itself develops its scope and structures.
In the end Malta would have lost by being forced to take a premature political decision at a time when it was distracted by the needs to re-structure its economy and when it was still suffering from the withdrawal symptoms of a Mintoff legacy.` Whilst this legacy has managed to settle the bill which Mintoff himself had rung up by denying the PN a moral electoral victory in 1981,` it has left the country in state where the two main political schools distrust each other with bitterness, following the undemocratic way which a resounding electoral mandate was undemocratically terminated by Mintoff. His recent repetition that everybody knew he had his own electoral manifesto speaks volumes on how the man who fought so much for democracy could not sustain it when he achieved it. He has now has forgotten the simple concept that the electoral manifesto of a party is that approved by the general conference and not any hybrid version which any particular member may concoct.
Malta should not run the risk of seeing the EU accession project aborted by a pre-mature referendum. For the Maltese to take a sober decision about EU membership there needs time to see how the EU will itself evolve its structures as this will have a big influence on the preservation of our sovereignty and statehood. We also need time to re-structure ourselves out of the economic mess over-spending and over-consumption has put us in. And finally we must have normal relations between our main political parties.
While opposing each other as expected in a democracy, political parties have to mature to` treat each other with dignity and to stand together on a national issue when one really profiles itself especially if such an issue carries an expiry date far beyond the next general elections.` This set of circumstances can only emerge if the EU referendum is preceded by a general election.
Alfred Mifsud
For all the complications of the EU enlargement project which is the centre-piece of the Prodi Commission objectives, Malta presents a very particular problem.
Malta is the only country among existing members and applicant countries,` where not only the electorate on the best hypothesis favours accession by a flimsy majority, but where there is a chasm about the membership concept, not just about the details, between` the political bodies represented in` the countries democratic structures.
This situation is uncomfortable and undesirable for the EU and one can start to understand the pressure being put on the MLP to reconsider its policies.` One could also speculate on the source of vile attempts to destabilise the MLP leadership by whoever has an interest to provoke a leadership bid once the current leadership cannot be persuaded to dance to their tune.
The decision to accede to EU membership is a decision with consequences far longer than the expiry date of the incumbent government`s mandate.` It is no decision which a Government takes in the ordinary course of its business. It binds future governments and should ideally be taken following congruence of concepts between the incumbent and the alternative government.
The state of congruence of concepts has prevailed in all major constitutional decisions taken by our country in the post war period. In the run-up to independence both major parties were solidly backing the independence concept. The difference between the political parties was mainly whether independence should be packaged with other defence related agreements as accepted by the incumbent government or whether independence should be a stand-alone,` with defence agreement being negotiated by Malta as a sovereign independent state as advocated by the opposition.
The same congruence of concepts applied for the creation of the Republic, the closure of the military base and the inclusion of the neutrality and non-alignment provisions in the constitution.
Taking on the EU accession project without convergence on the concept by the two main political parties is risky.` Project realisation depends on it being approved by more than a wafer thin majority at a time when the electorate will be feeling the pain of economic re-structuring and would inevitable associate such pain with the EU accession project.
If, as it is likely, the referendum would return a negative vote then the EU accession project would have to be shelved for the next 20 years. Not even any eventual convergence on the membership concept would guarantee an early revival of the project.
It is easy to jump to the conclusion that such a scenario would favour Labour. In the short term it surely does.` The PN would find the platform over which it has built its domestic and foreign policy suddenly disappearing. The Prime Minister would have a low exit from his political carreer and a Labour Party returned to power would have its options narrowed to one model without the important opportunity to keep options open to react to unfolding scenarios as the EU itself develops its scope and structures.
In the end Malta would have lost by being forced to take a premature political decision at a time when it was distracted by the needs to re-structure its economy and when it was still suffering from the withdrawal symptoms of a Mintoff legacy.` Whilst this legacy has managed to settle the bill which Mintoff himself had rung up by denying the PN a moral electoral victory in 1981,` it has left the country in state where the two main political schools distrust each other with bitterness, following the undemocratic way which a resounding electoral mandate was undemocratically terminated by Mintoff. His recent repetition that everybody knew he had his own electoral manifesto speaks volumes on how the man who fought so much for democracy could not sustain it when he achieved it. He has now has forgotten the simple concept that the electoral manifesto of a party is that approved by the general conference and not any hybrid version which any particular member may concoct.
Malta should not run the risk of seeing the EU accession project aborted by a pre-mature referendum. For the Maltese to take a sober decision about EU membership there needs time to see how the EU will itself evolve its structures as this will have a big influence on the preservation of our sovereignty and statehood. We also need time to re-structure ourselves out of the economic mess over-spending and over-consumption has put us in. And finally we must have normal relations between our main political parties.
While opposing each other as expected in a democracy, political parties have to mature to` treat each other with dignity and to stand together on a national issue when one really profiles itself especially if such an issue carries an expiry date far beyond the next general elections.` This set of circumstances can only emerge if the EU referendum is preceded by a general election.
Alfred Mifsud
No comments:
Post a Comment