I am the Law

The Malta Independent 

The bill for ratification of the treaty signed in Athens on 16 April, providing accession to the EU, is now before parliament.

There are at least three very valid reasons why the Opposition should vote against the bill. Firstly, the Opposition has to respect the opinion of the 48 per cent of the electorate that voted against EU membership. Of the candidate countries that have conducted EU referenda so far, Malta has registered the highest dissenting vote. It is only fair that this is reflected in the parliamentary ratification vote. The will of the majority will still be executed while taking cognisance of the fact that a sizeable minority held a different opinion.

Another reason why the Opposition should vote against the ratification of the treaty is to preserve the promise (emphatically made by government in the run-up to the referendum) that those provisions in our constitution which require two-thirds majority for any modification, will not be affected by the ratification. If the Opposition were to vote in favour, what defence could then be put up should it prove necessary, for compliance purposes, to change the constitution even in those matters that are entrenched for qualified majority voting?

The third reason why Labour should vote against the bill for ratification is because the bill is much more than that. It ratifies not only all other treaties, agreements, and protocols that Malta becomes a party thereto by virtue of ratification of the membership treaty, but also all future treaties which the Prime Minister declares to form part of the Accession Treaty.

Now I perfectly understand that once Malta has decided to join the EU it has no choice but to do what the ratification bill is proposing. There should be no question that membership involves loss of sovereignty and this is reflected in bill. The people were well informed about this and once they still voted for it, than as long as the entrenched matters in the constitution are not prejudiced, so be it.

However, expecting the Opposition to vote in favour of something that they were adamantly against and for which they were endorsed by 48 per cent of the electorate, is to expect that the 52 per cent majority can pretend that the 48 per cent minority is just not there. This is certainly not the case.

However, the bill does not even stop there. No matter how unpalatable it may be for the minority, it is natural that the government has to execute the democratic decision taken and present bills that are in conformity with and necessary for its execution. But the ratification bill goes well beyond the natural and in a particular section relating to transitory provisions we enter the realm of the unnatural.

Through this provision the Prime Minister is giving himself, for a period of 12 months following accession date, the sole authority to change Maltese legislation to bring it in line with the EU Treaty. This is where it results that the legislation is not conforming with the treaty as is or as it may be extended by the declaration of the Prime Minister that future treaties are to be considered as part of the original treaty, and for new legislation which the EU may adopt in future as provided for in the accession treaty.

This is a declaration of “I am the law” which should have no relevance in our current state of democratic development. It is also completely unnecessary. With a majority of four parliamentary seats the least we can expect is for changes to Maltese legislation to be processed through parliament rather than become the prerogative of a single person no matter how transitory such provision could be.