It had all the trappings of a normal Parliament, including Mr Speaker Anton Tabone. However, the usual heated arguments between government and the opposition were replaced by more reasoned debate, without affecting the quality of the discussion.
This was the final session of the NSTF Mini-European Assembly, which was held at the House of Representatives recently. Eleven teams from seven post-secondary and tertiary institutions in Malta took part in the debate.
Each team represented a different European country and had to present the perspective of that country during the debate, which they did with fervour and passion.
Understandably, the theme of the final debate was the European Constitutional Treaty.
“Why a European Constitution when my country already has one?” was the question asked during the final debate.
To assist in the debate, one of the teams prepared a report on the theme of the debate. In their 21-page report, the team representing the United Kingdom concluded that the European Constitution “does not replace the national Constitutions of the member States. It coexists with these Constitutions and does not have superior power over them. The European Union defines the context within which the European Union is competent to act.
“Never before in the history of the Union has there been such a mobilization of political parties and public opinion to consider the same Constitution for Europe. Given the complexities of all this, citizens need a proper information campaign rather than just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ arguments. This is because the European Constitution is an important step in the construction of Europe and the life of its citizens. It is designed to meet the challenges of an enlarged Europe: a Europe of 25 member States and 450 million inhabitants (and even more later on), a democratic, transparent, efficient Europe working to serve all Europeans.”
The keynote speaker, President Emeritus Guido de Marco, said the European Constitutional Treaty is needed to enable the EU to function properly. “This is a treaty, more than a Constitution, which governs the set-up of the EU.”
He explained that the Treaty grafts together the conclusions reached in different European Councils, drafts them better, and introduces qualified majority voting on certain issues, “while keeping the main thing that the EU is a union of member States pooling aspects of their sovereignty”.
Prof. de Marco said it was “too premature” to push for a federalist EU, since not all member States would feel comfortable with it.
“We hope it will be approved. The most important thing is never to give up if you believe that this Treaty is the right thing for Europe. This is the way the EU has been formed.”
After the presentation of the report, a resolution on the Treaty was tabled by the delegation representing Luxembourg. There were various amendments presented, accompanied by a robust debate almost all the time, but a compromise solution was found except in a few cases. A lesson in brinkmanship indeed for their adult peers. The final resolution was approved unanimously amid applause from the House itself as well as from the Strangers’ Gallery, which was (unusually) packed with relatives and fellow students. The resolution recognises “the lack of sufficient communication between EU institutions and EU citizens,” and “the implications of rejection of the Constitution Treaty by one or more member States”.
It acknowledges the fact that populations of various member States voiced concern over a Constitution common to all member States, regarding it as a threat to national identity and sovereignty.
The resolution recognises “the need and importance lying behind the subsidiarity and proportionality principles in preventing the EU from being overbearing in governmental affairs of individual member States, which could easily lead to the European motto “Unity in Diversity” becoming null and void.
It argues that the current EU Constitution Draft “is a balance between two opposite poles; neither embodying the idea of a single European super-state where national identities are trodden on, nor suggesting the definition of the EU as a loose confederation lacking shared action, interests and motivation”.
The resolution has a seven-pillar strategy for promoting the European Constitutional Treaty:
1. Media/Information
1.1. Resolves to set up a well-publicised unbiased weekly newspaper issued by the EU and purchased by willing citizens of member States.
1.2. Resolves to strive, through media campaigns, to destroy all misconceptions regarding the Constitution Treaty and pleads to populations of member States that votes cast during referenda over the ratification or otherwise of the EU Constitution are not used to voice discontent over domestic politics or controversial international issues except for their intended purpose, that of approving or disapproving the EU Constitution as a text with its consequential implications.
1.3. Resolves to embark on an effective information campaign that will educate all households regarding the content of the EU Constitution Treaty and its effect on the nation State, even in those member States where the treaty will not be ratified through a referendum. This campaign will involve the use of billboards, TV, radio, etc. Internet alone is not considered sufficient as only those who actively seek information have access to it.
1.4. Ensures that all information issued on the Constitution from the EU shall be of a strictly factual nature rather than propaganda material.
1.5. Requests that all information campaigns contain emphasis on the proportionality and subsidiarity principle. In line with this, the ordinary legislative procedure should be made clear to highlight the importance and weight of the citizen’s representation in the European Parliament. This should be mainly targeted at young people, blue-collar workers and also people who ended their studies prematurely.
1.6. Publicly approves and seeks to make known the fact that the constitution serves to:
1.6.1. Define the EU and its objectives and fundamental principles.
1.6.2. Outline the fundamental rights and citizenship in the Union.
1.6.3. Outline the EU’s structure and function.
2. Increasing popular participation
2.1. Resolves to initiate a means for the public to express its views on the Constitution treaty to its parliamentary representatives, thus in conjunction with subsection 1 of the resolution, setting up a two-way communication between citizens and their powers. Always taking into consideration data protection and privacy of the individual. This can be set about with the coordination of incoming proposals by information centres responsible of relaying them to their destinations. To the ends of achieving practicability and respecting the individual’s busy lifestyle the range of communicatory mediums available should be broad, including: Postage, electronic mailing and short message service.
2.2. Encourages governments of member States hosting referenda to strongly urge their citizens to vote.
2.3. Suggests to member States holding a consultative referendum to host a second referendum in the eventuality of an exceedingly poor electorate turnout. The interval between the two referenda should serve as a period during which people can be further informed and strongly motivated to participate in this decision-making. Such action will not be deemed as going against but rather as truly embracing the principle behind Article 4.3.
3. Education
3.1. Proposes the introduction of EU studies as a compulsory part of national curricula in all member States. This subject will cover topics of general interest in EU policies, as well as current EU affairs.
3.2. Proposes a sum of the youth programme to be devoted to projects aimed at creating educational campaigns for young people on the topic of the draft constitutional treaty organised by NGOs which are unaffiliated to political parties and European institutions.
4. The ratification process
4.1. Encourages member States to revise their respective national constitutions and carry out any necessary amendments in order to avoid conflicts with the content in or enforcement of the EU Constitution within a given time-frame after this has been put into force.
4.2. Resolves to respect the decision that unanimity is required for the Constitution to be ratified. As long as this decision stands, all rejections will be tackled on equal ground, regardless of the size or population of the rejecting member State.
4.3. Urges governments of member States hosting a consultative referendum to abide by the outcome of the polls.
5. Comprehension of text
5.1. Proposes the creation of an efficient index to be attached to the EU Constitution in order to make it more reader-friendly.
6. Post-ratification scenario
6.1. Proposes offering, in no manner meant to pressure, the opportunity of withdrawal to any one member State refusing the EU Constitution in the eventuality of its being a sole opponent.
6.2. Resolves to maintain diplomatic relations with any country opting out of the EU in accordance with the draft constitutional treaty (title IX Article 60 Par. 2), taking into account reasons for withdrawal and withdrawal negotiation agreements.
6.3. Proposes that (should the Constitution be adopted) any amendments proposed by member States are fully considered in accordance with the Ordinary Revision Procedure, defined under Article IV-443 of the Treaty. The following is an abridged version of the procedure:
6.3.1. A consultative meeting between the European Parliament, Commission and European Council after which the European Council must, by simple majority decide whether or not they are in favour of examining the proposed amendment.
6.3.2. The President of the European Council shall bring together a convention composed of representatives of national and European Institutions. The convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of member States.
6.3.3. A conference of representatives of the governments of the member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining the amendments to be made. The amendments enter into force after being ratified by all member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
6.4. Calls on the EU to take considerable caution in executing the principle of subisidiarity in what may turn into a cause for discontent. Also that in so doing the principle of proportionality is respected.
6.5. Expects, in the eventuality of the EU Constitution having been enforced, all member States to fulfil their obligations towards the union by respecting and abiding with the norms they have been given in the Constitution and therefore not jeopardise the legitimacy of the European Courts of Justice.
6.6. Calls on the European Court of Justice to work in close proximity with the European Court of Human Rights, on issues dealing with fundamental human rights since these will become legally binding if the Constitution is ratified, to avoid a situation in which different judgements are given for similar cases, while keeping in mind that the European Court of Human Rights has been the sole arbiter in this field for a number of years.
7. Human Rights Case Law – Respecting the Constitutions
7.1. Suggest the ECJ to take into account ECHR Case Law interpreting common terms present in both the charter of fundamental human rights of the Union (treaty establishing a constitution for Europe) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) in order to avoid unnecessary divergence.
And the winner is…
At the end of the debate, the jury announced that the Junior College team representing the UK had won this year’s edition of the Mini European Assembly.
The winning team made up of Clara Borg Bonaci, Emma Calleja, Kirsten Cassar and Anthea Pace will be representing Malta in Brussels and Strasbourg in July.
Teams from St Aloysius College (representing Bulgaria) and the University of Malta (representing Denmark) placed second and third respectively.
The Mini-European Assembly is organised by the NSTF (Malta) with the assistance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Parliament Valletta Information Office, Tumas Group and Airmalta.
[email protected]