House ratifies the Lisbon treaty

The House of Representatives unanimously ratified the EU's Lisbon reform treaty yesterday, with the Prime Minister arguing that, although the MLP had changed its policy on EU membership, there were still differences between the two sides in the way they viewed integration with the bloc.

The treaty was signed by EU leaders in Lisbon last month, replacing the draft EU constitutional treaty which was shelved after being rejected in referenda in France and the Netherlands.

The ratification motion was moved by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi.

Foreign Minister Michael Frendo, the first speaker in the debate, spoke on how Malta had actively participated in the drafting of the new treaty. He said that although this treaty was different from the Constitution, what Malta had achieved in the latter had been retained in the new treaty, such as the allocation to it of a sixth seat in the European Parliament. This would mean that Malta would be represented in at least another two committees in the European Parliament.

Malta had also managed to achieve recognition that small island states could also benefit from cohesion programmes normally reserved for islands without capital cities.

Touching on the wider changes to the administration of the EU which this treaty would bring about, Dr Frendo said the EU would have a high representative for foreign affairs, national parliaments would have a greater role in EU law-making and more decisions would be taken by double-majority voting.

All member states, however, would continue to nominate a commissioner to the European Commission.

Dr Frendo said Malta was taking an active role in the EU institutions, including in the drawing up of foreign policy. In this context Malta would next month be hosting a regional conference of European and North African foreign ministers.

Dr Frendo said that the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty was further proof of Malta's conviction that it had made the right choice to join the EU, and it was taking its rightful place in the history-making decisions that were being taken. He was confident that the benefits of ratification would become more evident as time wore on.

Opposition EU spokesman George Vella regretted that there had hardly been any public debate in Malta on the drafting of the new treaty. Neither had the government said much on the positions Malta was taking.

The new treaty had removed all signs of federalism which could be found in the draft constitutional treaty, including the proposed anthem.

The MLP had backed efforts for Malta to have more seats in the European Parliament, more so because at one time there was even the fear that Malta's seats would actually be reduced to four.

What was important, now that this treaty was being approved, was that Malta made the best of its EU membership. For example, it needed to better source all funds for which it was eligible.

The treaty provided for a greater role for national parliaments in EU-decision making, yet the Maltese Parliament had not yet been restructured to better handle this role, Dr Vella said.

Malta needed to better stand up for its national interests in the EU, highlighting its own circumstances. This could apply, for example, with regard to government subsidies to the Gozo helicopter service. Malta also needed to revise the agreement reached with the EU with regard to Malta Shipyards.

Dr Vella said the Labour Party believed strongly in a social Europe. Competitiveness, he stressed, should not take priority over workers' rights. The MLP, like the European socialists, therefore disagreed with a recent European Court ruling providing that foreign workers could be paid less than the national minimum wage.

Dr Vella said the Labour Party had made it clear to its socialist partners that it intended to take Malta's European membership to new heights. There was nothing wrong in this, once Malta was now in the EU.

Opposition leader Alfred Sant said the Lisbon treaty was largely similar to the Constitution and the ratification which the MLP had backed for the Constitution applied also to the treaty, with the same reservations as expressed at the time.

The MLP had always been pro-European but had left it to the people to decide whether Malta should actually be in the EU. It respected the decision taken at the 2003 general election and was working for EU membership to be a success. The people appreciated this position, as shown by the MLP's success at the European Parliament elections.

The MLP agreed that the Lisbon treaty was a tool for the EU to function more efficiently, and it was not removing anything which Malta had achieved to date. The Lisbon treaty was actually improving national interests, as against federalism.

The MLP agreed with the concept found in the treaty, of an "open Europe" rather than a fortress Europe. In the context of illegal immigration, however, the MLP was for a transparent and fair burden-sharing policy.

The MLP similarly agreed with the central importance which the treaty gave to human rights and to Europe's role in the promotion of peace and stability with neighbouring regions. Another positive was how the treaty would streamline institutions so as to enable the EU to boost its economic and financial standing in the world.

Dr Sant stressed that economic growth had to reflect itself in social development and better working conditions across Europe, an ideal which the Lisbon treaty would permit. The MLP was giving particular importance to primary and secondary education, with much remaining to be done in Malta.

Concluding, Dr Sant said the proof of the pudding was in the eating. Would the decision-making process improve and would subsidiarity come more to the fore? The key to success for the Lisbon treaty was social development. The MLP, with the European socialists, would therefore work for the creation of a social Europe.

Winding up, Dr Gonzi said that five years ago the government had expressed its confidence that EU membership would open new horizons for Malta, creating new jobs and new educational opportunities. The Lisbon treaty would further strengthen the EU and, therefore, the benefits for Malta. Everybody now agreed with EU membership, but the historic truth was that the Labour Party five years ago had advised the people against joining. Labour's new beginning, therefore, came five years ago when it had to take their policies back to the drawing board after the people rejected its mistaken advice.

One appreciated the change of policy which had taken place in the MLP, but its approach to the EU was still different from the government's.

The government had been determined, from the outset, to integrate Malta as closely as possible to the EU, including euro adoption. The opposition wanted Malta to take a slower pace. How could the opposition argue that it was in favour of the Lisbon treaty because it would make Europe stronger, when it was against adoption of the euro, the common currency which was central to European economic growth?

Euro adoption was recognition by the EU of the economic progress which Malta had made, progress which would not have been achieved had Malta stayed out of the EU. Yet MLP speakers had told European socialists that Malta had hurried in adopting the euro, when it had been the European socialists who praised Malta for its euro adoption decision.

Dr Gonzi said Malta had achieved what it sought from the Lisbon treaty, in the same way as it had achieved the €855 million funding in the EU Budget which it argued that it was eligible for.

There was no question that the government had stood up for the national interest. It was no coincidence that Malta had achieved a sixth seat in the European Parliament and it was true that there had been a risk that Malta would actually see its seats reduced to four.

Malta had made logical and fair arguments, insisting that no country could effectively operate in the European Parliament without a minimum of six MEPs. He thanked all of Malta's current MEPs for their service with limited resources.

Another significant achievement was that Malta, as an island, would be eligible for cohesion funds to counter the problems of economies of scale and insularity, in the same way as would other small islands which were not states. There had been some who had argued that islands which had their own capital city should not benefit from such aid. One could argue that an island state such as Britain did not need cohesion funds, but small countries such as Malta did.

Dr Gonzi said there was no need for this treaty to be subjected to a referendum since the political debate before the referendum and the election five years ago had already included all the points now included in the treaty.

Turning to the political implications of this ratification, Dr Gonzi said the government had promised that EU membership would bring progress and growth for Malta, and it had been shown to be right.

Malta was facing challenges such as globalisation, rising prices abroad, illegal immigration, terrorism, climate change and uncertainty on the international financial markets, and there was no doubt that it could face these challenges better within the EU than on its own.

On illegal immigration, Dr Gonzi said Malta was insisting with the EU on burden sharing.

Concluding, Dr Gonzi said the EU was a classic example of what could be achieved when all worked together and his appeal to the Maltese, therefore, was to work together for further progress, better jobs and more investment.