Pardon my French

Di-ve

I often made the point that the government does not even know the terms and fit of the EU it wants us to join.

I am not talking about some small detail here or there which any living and dynamic organisation has to change as it evolves from time to time. I am talking about something as serious that can only be changed with two-thirds qualified majority vote by our House of Representative.

I am talking about our neutrality. Chapter 27 dealing with CSFP (Common Foreign and Security Policy) was closed withoutMalta requesting and getting any transitory provisions or permanent derogations. The Maltese government made a declaration that it is prepared and capable even in terms of our Constitution to abide by the Aquis Communitaire as it stood on 31st December 1999.

Furthermore we have been repeatedly assured that our neutrality will be safeguarded and there will be no conflicts between our obligations as EU members and the neutrality provisions of our Constitution. To satisfy doubters like myself the government has agreed with the EU to attach to the final Treaty a unilateral declaration confirming Malta’s neutral status and that as things stand today EU membership presents no conflict with our Constitution.

“In simple language France andGermany are suggesting that the Foreign and Security policy issues do not remain subject to unanimity but become subject to qualified majority voting.”

Furthermore the government has often stressed that as matters of CSFP are subject to unanimity rule, it will be in a position to block any future development which would create conflicts with our Constitution.

But even before we will be invited to sign the Treaty and more than a year before the projected enlargement date the Acquis is about to be completely re-designed and overhauled particularly on matters concerning CSFP.

Pardon my French but I just read the French text of the release of the Franco-German governments of their joint proposals for the European Conventions tasked to re-write the EU constitutional documents. It was released only in French and German and as my German is worse than my French, which is hardly adequate in any case, I had to read the French text.

In simple language France and Germany are suggesting that the Foreign and Security policy issues do not remain subject to unanimity but become subject to qualified majority voting. In so far as Common Defence they accept that this should be subject to unanimity but without any prohibition in case of lack of consensus for the consenting parties to proceed on their own under the structure of Re-inforced Co-operation which will be included in the Constitution of the EU.

These are exactly the sort of developments which would be in direct conflict with our Constitution. How can the Maltese government protect the Constitution if it is taking an obligations where its Foreign and Security policy could be determined by others through the qualified majority rule, against its own wishes and against our own interest?

“So once again, pardon my French, but I am far from satisfied that our Constitution is being preserved through a unilateral declaration which does not in any bind the co-signatories of the Treaty and just state facts of the matter as they stand on date of signature.”

History shows that whatever the French and the Germans want, especially if as in this case they have the support of the other EU big guns as UK, Spain and Italy, invariably goes through notwithstanding consensus rules. There are ways and means how consensus could be imposed.

So once again, pardon my French, but I am far from satisfied that our Constitution is being preserved through a unilateral declaration which does not in any bind the co-signatories of the Treaty and just state facts of the matter as they stand on date of signature.

Given the clear intentions expressed by the big guns of the EU, government has an obligation under the Constitution to insist on the unilateral declaration to be replaced by a formal protocol to be signed by all present and future members of the EU where they engage themselves to respect our Constitution and give Malta the freedom to opt out of any future development that will conflict with our Constitution on matters that are entrenched by the two-thirds majority rule.

This crucial point needs to be cleared before we continue the headlong mad rush for a referendum to embark a one-way train leading to where our Constitution prohibits.

Otherwise the PN billboards EWROPA NIDDECIEDU INT U JIEN will be carrying a message with a very short expiry. Once we become members INT U JIEN will not decide anything anymore. Not even when our Constitution requires two thirds majority.

The Membership cake is half baked. Labour’s Partnership is far more realistic and should present us a much better fit.