He said it all

Never so many dreams have been shattered by so few words. Some commentators and political observers had started to air their belief or hopes that the Malta Labour Party was sending the right signals to its European partners that they have at last arrived at the point of embracing the European ideals that have driven many of them to support the EU project.

Michael Falzon, Labour's deputy leader for party affairs, has put it bluntly and simply. The MLP's support for the EU Constitution has been inspired by party interests. Not the national interest, forgetting what, after all, we were told, that Labour wanted to respect the election results that favoured membership of the EU. Nothing about the values that have made Europe what it is today. Not even a hint at the values and principles held by international socialism.

No, party interests have driven the Labour leadership to jump on the European bandwagon. Which, translated in straight talking, means: the only aim the MLP has is to gain power - at any cost.

As Europe might prove to be yet another winner at the next election for the Nationalist Party, Labour is arguing it is better to cosy up to Europe by voting in favour of the EU Constitution so that the two parties will stand on an equal footing vis-a-vis membership of the EU.

Of course, we have partly been here before. Alfred Sant's spectacular triumph in the 1996 election was the result of putting party interests first and forget the national interest. Labour calculated that VAT was unpopular. The tax was starting to introduce discipline where none existed previously. For once, some traders and self-employed who never declared their earnings and hardly paid any tax had to start doing so. So the promise to abolish VAT, based purely on party interests (time has proved how true this was), proved to be a winner for Labour. But what a phyrric victory that was! Not only the hotch-potch tax collection system introduced by Labour proved to be a very expensive unmitigated disaster, politically it started the ball rolling for the divisions in the party that followed. The resignation of the Minister of Finance, Lino Spiteri, was the first salvo. Dr Sant appeared wounded. The demise of the Labour government came about sooner than anyone expected.

In 1996 party interests were served. But only for the short term. Party interests alone do not sustain governments. Party interests could prove to be successful if they happen to run parallel with the national interest. Both Malta's independence and Malta's membership of the EU contained both ingredients and led the PN to electoral successes.

It can be argued, of course, that Labour's opting to support the EU Constitution happens to be such a case too. Only time will tell. But if Labour tells us officially that it is party interests that drove the leadership towards a yes vote on the EU Constitution in Parliament, how long will it be when those within the MLP who believe that all this is totally inconsistent with Labour's vote in Parliament against the treaty of membership start stirring things up? This, especially if the effects of membership would prove to be difficult for some sections of the electorate before the coming election.

Presumably there are members within the MLP who are unhappy about the party's volte face on Europe. Will they continue to knuckle under and follow the wishes of the party delegates?

There must be others holding important positions who hold great reservations about Labour's yes vote. They may after all be driven by party interests to keep their heads down. But will they be a thorn in the side of a future Labour government?

Labour's opportunistic stance in favour of the EU Constitution in a strange sort of way will serve the national interest. Seen from abroad, Malta will appear united for the first time on the European issue.

Investors and others interested in Malta will not look into the narrow political reasons behind the newly found national unity. They will only take in the headline, that Malta voted for the EU Constitution.