By October 31 – if everything goes according to Boris Johnson’s plans – the UK will leave the European Union. The British, to say the least, were never in love with their EU membership. So, their divorce from the EU was always in the air.
When the European Economic Community (EEC) was established by the Treaty of Rome (1957) only six European states formed this organisation: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany. The UK was against the EEC and formed its own economic block, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) consisting of seven European states: Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK.
In one of his major speeches after Independence, George Borg Olivier referred to the two Western European economic blocks as being “at sixes and sevens” not only because the EEC was made up of six states and EFTA of seven, but also because their relations in the economic field weren’t good.
When Malta was negotiating its Independence, the Nationalist government was also looking at the best relationship it should have with one of the European economic blocks. It chose the EEC, not EFTA. Since our economy was so intrinsically dependent on the UK, EFTA was supposed to be our natural choice, but the Nationalist government chose the EEC. This shows Borg Olivier’s foresight. He was sure the EEC, made up of the core European states, was a more viable proposition than EFTA, which was made up of periphery states or, as they were called, “the outer states”.
Back to 1955, when the Labour Party won the general election with the integration proposal. Labour sold its proposal with a promise of £9 a week wage, as was prevalent in the UK. The Nationalist Party, which was always in favour of independence within the Commonwealth or dominion status, was totally against this proposal and fought it tooth and nail, with all the means at its disposal.
The Labour government unleashed its supporters against the Nationalist Party.
With the help of the police, they obstructed the Nationalist Party from organising meetings and conferences. The Nationalist Party even went to the High Court in London to stop the referendum from going ahead. The Labour government went so far as to introduce the undemocratic concept of the “trusted friend”, which made a mockery of our democratic electoral system.
We will be affected by Brexit, but we do not have to cope with its wider implications
At this stage, the Nationalist Party ordered its supporters to boycott the referendum. At the same time, those in government service or in positions that could be discriminated if they did not vote were asked to vote ‘no’.
Under the integration proposal, Malta was to have three MPs in the House of Commons with the UK Parliament responsible for defence and foreign affairs and eventually for direct taxation.
The referendum was held on February 11 and 12, 1956. A total of 67,607 voted for integration and 20,177 who voted against, with 2,559 invalid votes. A total of 85,176 did not vote. If we take the result of the 1955 general election in which 81.2 per cent of the registered voters voted, we can presume that, in the referendum, those who boycotted the referendum were about 56,500 which, together with those voting ‘no’, were more than those who voted ‘yes’.
The referendum result was never implemented. Following the Suez Canal fiasco, the British government decided to rundown its defence bases and installations all over the world. Malta was to become a forward operating base, losing thousands of jobs in the process.
Just one year after the referendum and the Suez Canal aftermath, the British proposed a half-way house under which Malta was to be transferred to the Home Office and, at the same time, not to have seats in the House of Commons. That was only one year on! I fret to think what would have happened to our nation where we integrated to Britain 63 years ago.
In the end of 1957, a resolution to the effect that representatives of the Maltese people in Parliament were no longer bound by agreements towards the British government was unanimously approved by the Maltese Parliament. This is still referred to as the Break with Britain Resolution.
This brought the integration proposal to an end and Mintoff, like the Nationalist Party, turned to independence. The Labour government resigned in April 1958. Malta lost its Constitution and was placed under the direct rule of the Colonial Office.
That’s for history. But history is very much relevant to what is happening today.
Fast forward. What would have happened to our country today if we were integrated with the UK? What would have happened to our economy, which owes its prosperity to our accession to the European Union? Britain is in a sea of trouble with its MPs not able to make up their mind about anything. We would have been much worse off because a government thousands of kilometres away from our country would be deciding for us.
Integration would have given the death knell to our political aspirations. We would have become a mini district of a much larger state. We would be looking to the shenanigans in the British House of Commons with, possibly, the voice of three MPs in a House of 650. In the EU, which has a population seven times that of the UK, we have six MEPs. We have our own Commissioner and have a say in everything.
Today, thanks to the stand taken by the Nationalist Party in 1956, thanks to the foresight of the Nationalist Party leaders, we find that we will be affected by Brexit, but we do not have to cope with its wider implications. Because today we are deciding our own future without nobody’s interference.
Joseph Zahra is a former editor of the Nationalist Party daily In-Nazzjon Tagħna.