Recently, a debate arose on whether Malta’s membership of the European Union should be enshrined in our constitution in such a way that any change would require a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives.
The idea was suggested by Stefano Mallia, president of the Employers’ Group of the EU Economic and Social Committee. I feel I should address this issue, set the facts right and make a strong case against the entrenchment of Malta’s EU membership in the constitution.
Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) provides for the possibility of an EU member state to leave the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. This article was introduced in the treaty to respect, first and foremost, the fact that the EU is composed of sovereign member states.
Secondly, it respects the principle of active democracy, whereby the will of the people is sovereign. On this matter, we recently witnessed the experience of the United Kingdom, the first sovereign state within the EU to decide, after a public vote, to leave the bloc following over 40 years of EU membership.
It should also be noted that, historically, there have been four other instances where countries or territories chose to withdraw from the Union. These are Algeria, upon gaining independence from France in 1962, Greenland, following a referendum in 1985, Saint Barthélemy and Saint Pierre and Miquelon, which subsequently obtained the status of overseas countries and territories within the Union.
The UK experience [which I experienced first-hand as then minister, inter alia, for EU affairs] demonstrated that the people are sovereign, and the UK government, irrespective of who was in power, respected the will of the people as reflected in the referendum held in June 2016.
This clearly shows that the EU, through article 50 introduced via the Treaty of Lisbon – effective as of December 1, 2009 – introduced for the first time a procedure whereby a member state can voluntarily exit the Union in accordance with the will of its people and the mechanisms provided in that member state’s constitution.
Thus, it is not the case that our country has a particular need to entrench EU membership in the constitution.
Moreover, the will of the people, from time to time, should remain sovereign, as we are a sovereign nation within a union of nations, which is the EU.
There is no doubt that our country is among the happiest with its membership in the EU. This is not to say that from time to time the EU does not pose challenges to our country. I have had the opportunity to speak publicly on some of these, such as the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (my contribution in Times of Malta of January 15, 2024).
The will of the people... should remain sovereign- Edward Zammit Lewis
This does not mean, however, that our country is unstable or historically lacked conviction. On the contrary, our country has moved forward, especially since gaining independence, with clear and strong convictions over time. This does not imply that, on a national level, we have not had our internal democratic conflicts – these have occurred in every country.
Should the question therefore arise as to whether we should remain EU members over time, this should be decided by the people and no one else. This is because the basic principles of the EU itself recognise this.
The fact that Prime Minister Robert Abela takes a strong stand where our national interest is at stake, such as with regard to a common taxation, does not mean that our EU membership is in danger and does not trigger the necessity of any constitutional entrenchment.
It is the prime minister’s obligation to follow the developments within EU institutions regarding the so-called ‘qualified majority voting’ procedure. This is because it could lead to our country, as the smallest member state within the Union, losing its sovereignty in policy areas that are not of exclusive EU competence.
Other countries take stands to safeguard their national interests. For instance, the Germans do so regarding state aid for their enterprises, and the French do so to protect the interests of their farmers and livestock owners with regard to funds allocated periodically from the EU budget towards the Common Agricultural Policy.
Finally, the legal framework provided by the EU treaty is sound, and its effectiveness was demonstrated after the sovereign vote taken – regrettably, in my opinion – by the people of the UK in 2016 and the developments after that.
Thus, to conclude, we should recognise the benefits, the stability and the political relevance which EU membership gave to our country. The question, however, as to whether Malta should, over time, remain an EU member state should remain always a sovereign decision for the Maltese and Gozitan people.
Edward Zammit Lewis is a Labour MP and chairperson of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign & European Affairs.