PM, Vella agree ratification process should continue

The Prime Minister and George Vella, the opposition spokesman on EU affairs, agreed yesterday that Malta should continue its process for the ratification of the European constitution.

"Malta has a right and a duty to express its authentic view on the European constitution, mindful of the national interest and the interest of the EU as a whole," Prime Minister Gonzi said in a statement to Parliament on last weekend's EU summit.

Dr Gonzi also expressed confidence that the EU would be able to overcome its current difficulties on the constitution and the budget as long as the principles which led to the actual founding of the bloc - such as unity, solidarity and subsidiarity - remained the guiding light for the development of the union.

At no time in his statement did Dr Gonzi take sides in the arguments between the UK and France on the EU budget, never mentioning them by name in this context and only saying there were good points on both sides of the argument.

On the EU constitution ratification process, Dr Gonzi said that a declaration annexed to the constitution established that if the treaty ratification was not approved by some of the member states, the issue would be referred to a heads of government meeting once the process had been concluded in all the member states.

That process was still in the half-way stage. Ten countries had so far ratified the constitutional treaty, including one through a referendum. The constitution had been defeated in referendums in France and The Netherlands while referenda were planned in another seven countries. The remaining countries, including Malta, would subject ratification to their Parliaments.

No one, not even at the summit, had been able to say what would happen in The Netherlands and France in view of their referendum results. This was something which those countries would have to see as circumstances developed.

Member states planning to hold a referendum had been concerned that the outcome of the referenda in The Netherlands and France would have a negative impact on their own ratification process. Several countries therefore proposed that the time limit within which the constitution should be approved - November next year - should be extended in order to give those countries more time to explain the benefits of the treaty.

Malta was not against such an extension, but no formal proposal was actually made and none was included in the final declaration. Malta and several other countries objected, however, to any move to actually freeze the ratification process. What was eventually decided at the summit was that all countries would be allowed to proceed according to the way they deemed best.

Malta's view was every country should remain free to decide on the time and method for its ratification of the treaty.

In Malta's case, it was felt that the issues of the constitution had been debated at length as part of the intensive campaigns before the referendum and the general election. The position taken by Malta at the end of the inter-governmental conference which issued the constitution was in line with the arguments raised in the pre-referendum campaign - such as that Malta should have six seats in the European Parliament, that each country should be able to nominate a commissioner, that small island states should be eligible for aid given to regions, and that Maltese should be recognised as an official language of the EU. All this objectives had been achieved in the constitution and there was therefore no reason to further delay ratification.

Furthermore, it was not acceptable for the EU to bind any country on how and when to ratify the treaty.

Malta had a right and a duty to give its authentic view on the treaty irrespective of what happened in other countries and there was no reason in Malta to stop the process. To do so would mean leaving in abeyance for an undisclosed period an issue which had absorbed a lot of energy. It was Dr Gonzi's hope that Malta would approve the constitution unanimously in the interests of the country and the future of the EU as a whole.

Turning to the stalemate over the EU budget, Dr Gonzi thanked outgoing EU President Jean-Claude Juncker for his efforts to produce a package which could find agreement from all the other member states. He was also grateful that Mr Juncker had given attention to matters raised by Malta in bilateral talks as the package was being drawn up.

Dr Gonzi said he would not go into the arguments which held up agreement on the budget, but he was of the view that there were valid points on both sides. Reaching a compromise meant one could not make everyone happy all the time. The fact was, however, that no agreement had been reached, even though, with a little more effort, it was felt that a compromise could have been struck on the final proposal.

Malta had backed the final proposal by the presidency as it was seen as meeting its objectives even though one could continue to improve it.

That no agreement had been reached meant that all proposals would now be withdrawn and one had to see how the process would be restarted - whether it would be from the original proposals by the commission or the proposals made by the outgoing presidency.

The process for agreement was urgent and important but achieving a deal would not be easy because of the various political realities.

While one had to be realistic, he was convinced that if the further development of the European project was seen as the over-riding consideration, agreement would be reached. The European project, after all, had united the continent, improved living standards and introduced a social model which Malta backed. It was these values which should be the guiding light for the way forward, Dr Gonzi said.

Dr Vella asked whether Dr Gonzi now acknowledged that the MLP had been right when late last year it insisted with the government not to rush ratification through Parliament in order to give more time for an informed debate.

Why had the government been so silent about the implications of the constitution over the past few months? Surely the people should have been given more information on the treaty. One should also have better explained the differences between the constitution and the Nice and other treaties which would continue to apply until the constitution was ratified throughout the EU.

The Opposition agreed, however, that Malta should now decide on this issue. The EU council's decision to let each country decide on when and how to ratify the treaty was a wise one because circumstances in each country were different.

In Malta, the MLP had embarked on an information and consultation campaign and hopefully the party's general conference would shortly take the final decision on how the opposition will proceed.

Malta needed to settle this issue and turn the page to more pressing economic and social problems.

Nonetheless, even after ratification, the government should still see to it that the people were informed about the constitution.

Replying, Dr Gonzi said the government had actually decided not to rush ratification - it could have opted to go ahead with it last December but decided not to do so in order to give time so that an issue which had divided the country for so long could hopefully be concluded with agreement.

The government, however, was continuing to focus on the challenges being faced by the country even as the constitution debate continued. If the MLP wanted to focus first on the constitution and then on the other matters, that was up to it.

He agreed on the need for the people to be better informed, not just on the constitution but on many other aspects involving the EU, such as opportunities, funding and how EU funds were being used here. The debate on the constitution as such had already taken place within the context of the accession referendum campaign.

He agreed with Dr Vella that each country had its own circumstances and should therefore decide on its own ratification process. He suspected that the dialogue in other countries had brought in issues which had nothing to do with the constitution. Malta, however, had a right and a duty to express itself on the constitution without being conditioned by what other countries did.