Before the current Labour leadership could ever be entrusted to form a new government, it needs to explain to its Labour supporters, and to the rest of the citizens of Malta and Gozo, what its position is on the question of withdrawal from the European Union.

It must be recalled that the current Labour leadership publicly celebrated the outcome of the EU accession referendum, interpreting the result in its perceived perverted way.

As far as it is known, Malta was the only EU candidate country that was extremely polarised on EU membership as a result of the flawed vision and policy of the current Labour leadership.

If I am not mistaken, Malta was also the first and only country that voted by consensus in favour of ratifying the draft EU Constitution. Has anybody analysed how and why these diametrically opposite positions by the Labour leadership have come about? Was there anything in the draft EU Constitution that was of particular interest to the Labour leadership?

It is too simplistic to attribute such a change of heart to the fact that the 2004 election had sealed the direction to EU membership. It is common knowledge that after the election the Labour leadership continued to express views that the “partnership” option would have been better.

One possible explanation could be that the current Labour leadership is prepared to do anything to regain power, even if this implies contradicting its own former vision and policies. It is obvious that former Labour policies, particularly those concerning the EU, were not based on sound principles! Principles are not expected to change for the sake of convenience.

Perhaps it is possible that there might be another latent explanation. Why was the draft EU Constitution acceptable to the current Labour leadership when prior to the referendum and general election it practically saw nothing right or good for Malta as a member of the EU?

It happens that the current Labour leader was personally involved in the discussions of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on the EU Constitution. This was the only personal participation by the Labour leader in any EU-related matter during that period of time, as far as is known. The main role on the discussion of the article on withdrawal from the EU was not entrusted to the former Labour Foreign Minister.

According to the records of the time, Rev. Peter Serracino Inglott, on behalf of the government, was busy giving his contribution and discussing the various clauses of the draft treaty that could be of benefit to Malta.

Article 35

In contrast, the Labour leader was also busy – in a completely different direction – discussing an article that would make it possible for a member country to withdraw from the EU, a major innovation! Article 35 in the draft EU Reform Treaty is basically the same as draft Article I-59 – Voluntary Withdrawal from the Union – of the defunct EU Constitution.

The existing EU treaties, which have been concluded for an indefinite period, do not contain any exit clause for a member State that wishes to withdraw from the Union. Can the Labour leader explain to us why he thought it was so important for him to devote all his energy at the IGC discussing an article on withdrawing from the EU? Can he let us know whether he still believes that the result of the EU accession referendum favoured “partnership”?

The current Labour leadership needs to explain what its position is concerning Article 35 of the draft EU Reform Treaty. It needs to explain under what conditions would the Labour leadership consider it appropriate for Malta to seek to withdraw from the EU. It needs to clarify to us whether, in its opinion, the current advantages and disadvantages of EU membership merit the withdrawal of Malta from the EU as of now.

In other words, the Labour leadership needs to confirm to us that given the current costs and benefits of EU membership, it is still better for Malta to be a member of the EU. The Labour leadership needs to concede that it was completely mistaken to propose a “partnership” when membership is proving to be better.

In the past election, the current Labour leadership came up with the idea of “binding” promises in its electoral manifesto. What kind of “binding” promise is the current Labour leadership prepared to offer the electorate on Article 35 of the EU Reform Treaty, if the latter is eventually ratified by all EU member countries? What would be the consequences if such a promise were to be tampered with?