Relevant Neutrality

The Malta Independent 

It’s official!  For the PN and for the EU,  Malta’s neutrality is irrelevant.

 

I always suspected this though the  PN in government always paid lip service to neutrality.  That  is until last Sunday when Min. Dalli writing in the Sunday Times stated

“Not only the government wishes to do away with the neutrality provisions of the Constitution because of current realities, but it considers their 1987 inclusion as infamous and something accepted unwillingly.”

 

 “we still sport, in our Constitution, an infamous 'neutrality' clause that was pushed through in 1987 as ransom for us to regain democratic government.…….It is high time that we realise that this constitutional provision is anachronistic in the present realities that are constantly changing. However, it would need the agreement of the Opposition to vote it out as this clause is entrenched in our constitution and requires a vote of two thirds of the House of Representatives. Would they have the sensibility to move this way? “

Can it be clearer?   Not only the government wishes to do away with the neutrality provisions of the Constitution because of current realities, but it considers their 1987 inclusion as infamous and something accepted unwillingly.

 

Even the President of the European Parliament on official visit to Malta this week no longer played the old hat that Malta would be able to retain its neutrality status as a member of the EU.  Instead he argued that the EU was a source of peace and stability and Malta should be proud to form part of such a source.

 

It is opportune to debate whether neutrality is still relevant.   In doing so we may well be obliging to the PN strategists whose aim is to ensure that while  the country is decay from its core, financially, morally, socially and environmentally, we keep such matters off the news headlines and instead we discuss relevance of intangibles which are distant from the sour reality of everyday life.   It helps to divert attention from the many unkept promises that helped the PN to cut short a Labour electoral mandate which had only unfolded just a third of its term;  the hardest and most critical term when hard decisions are made to make way for the harvest to be reaped towards the end of a normal legislature.

 

“If, to protect neutrality,  Labour  has to defend it from the opposition rather than compromise its position to gain government,  than this would be a price that has to be paid just as in the sixties”

The point is often made that if Labour were not to contest the PN on the EU issue and instead focus the debate on domestic issues  the fate of the next election would be a forgone conclusion. Many disgruntled PN voters are quite willing to vote in Labour next time round if Labour can make its EU policy more positive.

 

In many instances there is fault in Labour’s presentation rather than its substance.   Take the referendum issue.  The PN media portray Labour as unwilling to abide by people’s decision in a referendum.   This is not and cannot be the case.   How can Alfred Sant who sacrificed his 1996 brilliant electoral victory, prejudicing his whole political career, in order to remain faithful to the mandate voted by the people from rebellious single seat majority who wanted to impose his own version of the mandate on all the rest, be so arrogant in the face of a referendum decision?

 

Reality is that Labour will always honour the latest decision of the electorate so it will only disregard the referendum if it gains an electoral mandate which gives it the authority to do so.   It is the PN that in projecting a referendum just before the election is aiming to render partisan an issue which should be voted upon in a non-partisan manner following an intelligent debate which can only be conducted without the heat of an ensuing election.

 

As to neutrality this constitutionally enshrined right cannot be subject to a referendum decision.   If, to protect neutrality,  Labour  has to defend it from the opposition rather than compromise its position to gain government,  than this would be a price that has to be paid just as in the sixties Labour sacrificed two elections to bring the country out of the grip of an authoritarian Church.   Only neutrality can ensure that Malta’s is not forced to return to commercialise its defence values for economic survival.