The process has only been conducted by the Malta Labour Party. It has been subjected, as expected, to a running campaign of misinformation by those who believed it provided another opportunity to destabilise Labour. Overall, it proved to be a very healthy democratic exercise, even if media reporting about it was skimpy at best… but that, too, was to be expected.
So maybe it would be a good idea to chronicle today, for the record, Labour’s internal debate about whether to vote for or against ratification of the EU’s constitutional treaty, as discussions developed in past weeks. The process was always projected to end with a general conference vote in secret, about the option to be adopted.
Glosses
The EU’s constitutional treaty is an extra-long document, containing some 500 pages of articles, protocols, declarations and annexes. According to the glosses you prefer to put on it, the treaty is: an instrument which brings together all the rules by which the EU is run, as upgraded to allow the participation of the present 25 member states and some others, instead of the original six; a forward-looking declaration which sets up a federal superstate, to also cover defence and foreign policy matters; a text that is slanted towards this or that group of member states; a treaty that enshrines free market principles at the expense of the European model of economic management (whatever that is), besides other interpretations.
The problem is that few have read the treaty from beginning to end. Due to its daunting complexity, even fewer have “understood” “all” of it. One could count their number on the fingers of one hand; or to be diplomatic, let’s say, on the fingers of two hands, for one would not like to antagonise a multitude of four to five people at most. Yet the treaty was supposed to simplify the EU’s rulebook by devising a charter or “constitution”. Starting from this baseline, EU members were faced with the task of ratifying (ie approving the signature by their governments) the constitutional treaty, which was negotiated over a period of some four years.
How and when to ratify
When and if it becomes applicable, the treaty does set the rules and the framework within which the EU could operate in the coming years. It lays out guidelines for how decisions will be taken, and how the union could expand its activities. In Malta, the decision was to ratify by a vote taken in Parliament, as with other treaties. It always was a foregone conclusion that the treaty would be approved, since all that is needed is a parliamentary majority – which the PN government has. Still, Labour needed to decide on its own vote.
The government had intended to bring the matter to a decision before the end of 2004. We made it clear that this was not acceptable, since the national interest demanded that the whole matter be afforded serious discussion. Also, more time was needed to be given to understand how the ratification process would proceed in other EU states. Time has showed how right we were to adopt this perspective.
For once, the Gonzi administration accepted Labour’s advice, and postponed the ratification vote in Parliament until the beginning of July. Actually, Labour’s political decision-making body, the national executive, had already decided late last autumn to schedule a full-scale internal discussion of the constitutional treaty for the period March-June 2005. It would culminate in a general conference which would include on its agenda the opposition’s position on ratification of the pan-European document.
The political background to this approach was as follows: up to 2003, Labour steadfastly proposed as best for Malta’s future, a partnership model with the EU, as contrasted to the full membership advocated by the PN. In 2001, the party’s general conference decided it would respect the people’s verdict about the choice regarding Malta’s future relations with the EU, as manifested in a general election. When the 2003 election gave victory to the party proposing EU membership, Labour immediately declared it would respect this result.
The background
The treaty by which Malta joined the EU was signed in Athens, in April 2003. It was brought for ratification by Parliament in the summer of that year. At that stage, Labour voted no, to respect the will of the many voters who had supported EU partnership. We did not, however, ask for a division on the vote, in order to signal that we would honour our promise to respect the people’s majority decision in the election.
Meanwhile, steps were taken to hold a general conference to define Labour’s future European policy, while taking account of the changed national circumstances. In November 2003, Labour’s delegates at the general conference unanimously approved a resolution and text that pledged the party would honour its 2001 promise. EU membership was here to stay. Labour would participate in all the EU’s institutions with the aim of seeking to minimise the disadvantageous aspects of membership, and helping to secure any advantages accruing from it, while ensuring that they would be fairly distributed. At the same time, Labour also started preparing its slate of candidates for the upcoming national elections to the European Parliament.
When these were held, in June of last year, Labour obtained close to the absolute majority of the votes cast, electing three out of the five MEPs “given” to Malta – an amazing success by any measure. John Attard Montalto, Louis Grech and Joseph Muscat, Labour’s MEPs, have since been giving a very good account of themselves in the Brussels/Strasbourg Parliament.
Contrasting views
Against this background, it was clear that the looming debate about the EU constitutional treaty was a complex one and would require serious discussion. As happened elsewhere, contrasting views were sure to emerge both within and outside Labour, about whether the treaty was compatible with the national Constitution; about whether it infringed the neutrality enshrined in the Maltese Constitution, and all that this implied regarding the conduct of foreign and security policy; about whether the treaty introduced new constraints on Maltese sovereignty beyond what had been signed in Athens; about whether enough margins would still exist for Malta to tailor its economic and social policies according to our special circumstances, and so on.
There was no reason, however, why the necessary debate could not proceed in a civil and democratic way. But it needed time to mature. The usual anti-Labour set in the media railed about how Labour was “dithering” over the issue, ignoring how, on the PN side, there was absolutely no discussion about such an important matter. This carping did not deflect Labour from its timetable.
As of last summer, during a meeting of the Labour leadership, Michael Falzon, Charles Mangion and myself agreed to commission reports on aspects raised by the constitutional treaty. Dr Joe Brincat and Dr Paul Lia were requested to prepare a report on the legal aspects. Dr George Vella was invited to submit a report on the political perspectives, with suggestions as to how they could be dealt with. Dr Edward Zammit Lewis was asked to review how the ratification procedures were being handled by EU members.
The three reports were published late in March this year. When Labour’s parliamentary group met early in April to set the discussion rolling, it was agreed that members of the group could submit their own reports to the group, to also serve as a basis for the debate. Eventually, Dr John Attard Montalto, Mr Leo Brincat, Dr Angelo Farrugia, Dr Gavin Gulia, Dr Jose Herrera and Dr Joe Sammut (listed in alphabetical order) submitted some very good texts.
Structuring the debate
For its part, the national executive met to structure the internal discussion. At a first phase, the party’s conference delegates would discuss the matter in assemblies, which would be organised in sessions held for two electoral districts at a time.
Delegate assemblies – summoned at least twice yearly – are an innovation introduced in the summer of 2003. They bring together the leadership and delegates to Labour’s general conference, giving the latter the opportunity to raise any matter they consider to be of interest. Meetings are not covered by the media, thus providing an uninhibited forum, without fear that plain speaking could be instrumentalised by partisan reporting.
Furthermore, Labour’s executive decided it would meet to define its position following the outcome of the assemblies and of the discussion within the parliamentary group. It was agreed further that the delegates’ assemblies would – prior to the discussion by the delegates themselves – be addressed by the MPs who had written the reports commissioned by the leadership, and by MPs who submitted separate reports to the parliamentary group.
A common voice
Another decision taken by the executive raised spurious controversy. Internal debate would take place only in the assemblies. Some claimed that this was an arbitrary restriction. In fact, it was a rational and transparent way by which to organise debate on an extremely complex legal and political matter. Eight sessions of assembly meetings, each lasting between two to three hours, were held.
Meanwhile, Labour’s parliamentary group started its work. A unanimous view emerged that it could be counterproductive for eight or so MPs to address the assemblies to present differing views. It made better sense for the group as a body, to thrash out the issues and try to reach a common voice on them. So, a marathon series of meetings was held almost daily to go into the detail of the constitutional treaty. Over eight sessions lasting some 24 hours, held in April/early May, the group finally came to a common position, reached by secret vote.
It was one of the most productive and far-reaching exercises in which I have taken part since entering politics. There were first class contributions, notably by writers of the reports commissioned by the leadership, and the other reports submitted separately.
Six arguments
As had always been intended, the official account of how decisions were reached, was published. Actually, the debates centred around six main arguments. Here they are, in question and answer form, the answer being the decision reached by the parliamentary group.
1. Would the constitutional treaty have primacy or supremacy over Malta’s Constitution?
The treaty has its own set of competencies, which need to be examined in detail, to establish whether they exceed the parameters of application of the Athens Treaty, with respect to the Maltese Constitution.
2. As a natural follow-up to the first question: once the competencies of the constitutional treaty have been examined, does it result that they exceed in a significant and unacceptable manner, the EU’s competencies as laid out in the Athens Treaty?
To the extent that special attention is given to questions related to Malta’s sovereignty, the competencies laid out in the constitutional treaty are in conformity with the Athens treaty or are acceptable.
3. Does the constitutional treaty contradict Malta’s sovereignty when it comes to the implementation of neutrality, and Malta’s foreign, defence and security policies?
The constitutional treaty provides the mechanisms of unanimity in EU decision-making, by which the neutrality etc. of Malta can be safeguarded by its government. However, the Labour parliamentary group would need to make a statement reserving the right for the party, once in government, to rescind any decision taken by a former (PN) government that would have undermined Malta’s constitutional integrity.
4. In its institutional aspects, does the constitutional treaty affect Malta’s interests or reduce the strength of Malta’s vote (as an EU member)?
The treaty provides enough safeguards for Malta, at times improving the position effective under the Athens Treaty.
5. Should the ratification process include a consultative referendum?
The treaty should be simply put to a vote in Parliament according to the ratification process laid out for Malta’s treaties.
6. How should the Labour opposition vote on parliamentary ratification?
The vote should be “yes” with a statement of reservations to comply with answer 3 above.
Trends
Once the parliamentary group reached its position on a common voice, it also decided to publicise the decision – for the sake of clarity and to avoid the usual rumour-mongering, fuelled by media speculation. In no way did this mean that the decision had been taken for the party as a whole. The parliamentary group has its own role to play in Labour’s internal institutions. The decision announced on 8 May simply indicated that in the ongoing discussions, MPs would speak with one voice.
Indeed, as the assemblies started meeting, three different trends emerged among delegates. I give away no secrets by saying what they were.
The first trend reflected the parliamentary group’s conclusions, both on grounds of substance and on the grounds that MPs were in a better position than most to decide about such a complex matter.
Another trend believed it was wrong to vote for the treaty, as this would give support to the PN which never backed anything Labour proposed or desired, and also because the treaty contradicted what Labour stood for up to the 2003 election.
Thirdly, there were those who believed that the matter has to be gotten out of the way; European matters should no longer remain a controversial issue so that socialists can concentrate on how to tackle the ongoing economic and social crisis.
Subsequently, other institutions within the Labour fold took up their own positions. The Youth Forum and the Veterans’ Association, among others, came out in support of the parliamentary group’s position.
Eventually, when the national executive met to review the matter, the discussion was shorter than expected: probably because the subject had been raised at so many different levels during the previous weeks. Again, unanimous support emerged for the position adopted by Labour’s parliamentary group, which was asked by the executive to draw up a statement of reservations that would qualify the “yes” vote of the Labour opposition during the ratification debate.
And this is the stage reached by the discussion process up to now. The national executive and the parliamentary group combined should discuss, in a short while, a draft motion covering the reservations to the treaty drawn up within the parliamentary group. Once adopted, that draft will be put before the general conference due to be held in the final days of this month.
In the past two weeks, the developments in France and Holland have complicated the discussion. Negative votes in the referenda organised in these two countries always were on the cards. The strength of the “no” vote caused some surprise. Many believe that the EU constitutional treaty is dead in the water.
However, it has frequently been the case that matters considered dead in the EU somehow survive and revive. Do not rule out that this could happen once again. In which case, there will be no point in repeating the process of debating and counter-debating the same points two to three years down the line. Best get the whole matter out of the way now, and then go back to the bread and butter issues that rack the future of this country.
Diplomatic instrument
To be sure, the constitutional treaty is a diplomatic instrument which can only be killed off by a decision of the member states participating in it. That decision could be taken this week, when the heads of state and government of the EU meet. If they do decide that way, then the treaty is truly dead.
If not, it makes sense – and the treaty provides for this eventuality – to continue with the ratification process in all signatories to establish how the land lies. Clearly, the EU is not made up of France and Holland alone.
All in all, the internal discussion within Labour regarding the constitutional treaty has been a rewarding experience. The usual attempts were made to try and present a sombre and melodramatic picture of events in the Labour camp – because as in all other European parties, contrasting views were held and expressed about the whole issue. No doubt, we will have more of such media circuses, run by “hidden” coordinators who have become very recognisable and predictable.
Beyond their antics however, Labour has done a big service to this country by showing how a deep political discussion can be held within a framework that respects realities, while providing the space for intelligent and meaningful debate. That this has happened around a “hot” European issue confirms how right the electorate was in June last year, to give its thumbs up to Labour’s candidates in the national election for the European Parliament.