Malta's Yes would send strong signal to Europe

Through its ratification of the EU Constitution, Malta - the smallest country in the European Union - would be giving the rest of the Union a strong signal, Italian MEP Antonio Tajani, head of the Forza Italia group in the European Parliament and vice-president of European People's Party, said yesterday.

Speaking during a conference on the EU Constitution organised at Le Meridiein Phoenicia by Nationalist MEPs Simon Busuttil and David Casa and chaired by Professor Joe Pirotta, Mr Tajani said that after the negative votes of France and The Netherlands, the vote of the Maltese parliament would bring a change in Europe.

It would be an important vote which would show that the French and Dutch votes were not against the Constitution but against Europe as it was today.

The EU was too bureaucratic and detached from citizens, and the people did not like this.

Mr Tajani heaped praise on Malta's MEPs who, he said, were very active in safeguarding Malta's interests and the interests of European citizens.

The EU Constitution, he said, brought European citizens together and the European institutions closer to the people.

It did not replace the constitutions of the individual EU states but only solved the problems of citizens that could not be resolved by the national governments.

Malta and Italy had, for example, a great common problem they could not deal with on their own. European intervention was needed to resolve the problem of illegal migration.

The EU constitution would guarantee further co-operation in defending borders. It would also guarantee a balance within Europe. For there could not be a Europe which looked just from west to east. It also had to look from north to south.

The Mediterranean, Mr Tajani said, was the sea of Europe. Historically, Europe had been based around the Mediterranean sea and the people in the south of the EU had an important role to play.

The EU Constitution would allow the Mediterranean to become a sea of peace once again, a role which Italy and Malta could carry out together.

If the constitution came into force, the immigration problem would not be solved automatically but a European aid programme for Africa could be drawn up.

Mr Tajani said that Europe had to ensure that aid was given to the southern European countries, which still needed funds to grow and develop to reach the level of the other member states.

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said the Constitution would allow the EU, which had been successful for 50 years, to consolidate and continue to progress and make a difference in peoples' lives.

It would increase opportunities for young people, workers, families and the elderly as well as all the other sectors of society.

Poorer countries had made great strides forward through the assist-ance of others in the Union and this model had worked really well, showing that a united Europe was stronger.

Dr Gonzi said the EU was once again at a crossroads; it was going through a difficult period with two negative referendum votes and a lack of agreement on the budget.

Throughout its history, the EU had always gone back to basics to push ahead and emerge stronger whenever there were moments of difficulty. He was confident it would now do the same.

The Prime Minister said that every effort had to be made under the British presidency to overcome obstacles which were keeping the European economy from developing and for the member states to commit themselves to reach the Lisbon agenda targets.

He argued that the ratification of the constitutional treaty should not be halted because two countries voted against it. Malta, he said, had a right and duty to express itself independently of what others were saying.

Through ratification, he said, Malta would be presenting a united front, curing the division there had been in the country before membership.

Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg said that, through its ratification of the constitution, Malta was to be transformed from the most divided to the most united country in Europe. This, he said, was a victory for the country.

Through the ratification at the beginning of next month, Malta could give a message to Luxembourg - which had a referendum on July 10 - and to the other EU countries in general, that the EU constitution had been debated in Malta and there was consensus.

Malta, he said, was in favour of the constitution because this strengthened the EU.

The EU needed more people of vision like Schuman, Adenaur and De Gasperi. He lamented that there was poverty of vision in certain environments in Europe and even in certain European institutions.

Foreign Minister Michael Frendo said the EU Constitution was not one which had forgotten social aspects and during the EU Convention it had been Malta which stressed the importance of including solidarity as a European value.

For solidarity between member states was something unique to the EU and the factor which most distinguished it from the United States.

In the EU, nation states chose to unite to help each other economically so that no EU country would fall behind.

The Constitution, Dr Frendo said, was for the first time in the EU's history giving clear powers to national parliaments. The treaty also ensured, for the benefit of small countries, that there would be a Europe which was operable.

Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil said the debate on the Constitution should not end with ratification. The Constitution the people were being asked to ratify, he said, was not perfect. Its 500-page text could have been simplified and brought down to 60 pages, for example, but it was the best compromise that could be found among the 25 countries.

The Constitution, he said, could have moved at a later stage giving the people more time to debate it and for it to garner more support.

But even if the Constitution was not implemented, this would not mean the end of the EU; the Union would continue operating under its current treaties.

Malta, Dr Busuttil said, should ratify the Constitution because the Maltese were also Europeans and as European citizens they had an interest in the European Constitution.

Malta had participated in its drafting from its very beginning. And, even though it was not perfect, it was a good Constitution representing the aspirations of the people and the European values of peace and prosperity.

Nationalist MEP David Casa said the EU Constitution was a challenge for Europe and its people. Its aim was to unite the Europeans as citizens. For the first time, 450 million people and 25 nations would be bound with a document which defined the principles and values of the EU.

The Constitution, Mr Casa said, would introduce elements that would help the EU become more democratic and transparent.

The people and civil society had been waiting for a long time to improve the EU's operation and the Constitution was giving this opportunity.

He said he was convinced that Malta's ratification of the Constitution would give a strong message to the rest of Europe.

Europe needed to be competitive. As a continent, it had lost this competitiveness and as an economic bloc it had to make sure that its products would be the best in the world and would be able to compete with established and emerging markets.

The Constitution, Mr Casa said, introduced the fundamental rights charter and gave priority to social rights. It was also giving Malta the sixth EP seat. This would enable the country to be more successful within the EU.