What the Labour Party delegates will be voting on at the end of this week is, in a sense, not important at all.
It was never going to be important, not even if the people of France and Holland had voted in favour of the Constitutional Treaty. Small, tiny Malta did not stand a chance to block a pan-European decision. Let alone now that the whole ratification process has been derailed by the votes of the burghers of Paris and Amsterdam.
And yet, the Labour delegates’ vote is the only way a section of the Maltese population will get to vote on such an important treaty. They will be the only Maltese allowed to do so, since this government of ours has decided there is no need for a referendum.
It is amazing that just when Denmark, Ireland and the Czech Republic, followed by Sweden, Finland and Portugal on Friday, decided to postpone their vote, the Maltese papers had the Prime Minister saying, also on Friday, that Malta will ratify the treaty in July. What’s the rush? It is even more amazing that the leadership of the Labour Party is joining in this attempt to force the treaty down the throats of the Maltese.
One must try and argue this from the point of view of the Labour delegate.
Obviously, their main concern is, as it should be, their party. But on such an important issue they should, seeing as they will be the only ones to vote on it, widen their concern to also include Malta’s interest and the interest of Europe as a whole.
As this paper stated last week, the “No” votes in France and Holland did not have the same basis: the French voted against their government, but also against what they were made to see as a too liberal (economically) Europe, and against enlargement. The Dutch, on the other hand, voted against enlargement first, against what they saw as “too much interference from Brussels” second, and finally, against their own weak government.
Had the other peoples of the EU been allowed a vote, there would surely have been other “No” votes, which is why the ratification process has been blocked.
This is one reason why the delegates of the Labour Party should vote against ratification: to join the many millions in Europe who are complaining that Europe is not delivering what it promised them, and us: a better standard of living, and an economy that can grow and grow, instead of wallowing in recession; who are complaining that the real EU is not the EU it should be; that Europe spends far too much time on regulation, and very little time in alleviating poverty.
If the Labour delegates vote Yes, they would be among the very few in Europe who seem satisfied with the way Europe is being governed – sad for the delegates of a party which, up until two years ago, was steadfast against accession.
A No vote is also a vote in favour of Malta... for it is by voting in favour of ratification at a time when everybody else is consigning the treaty to the deepest oblivion, that we are turning Malta into a figure of fun Europe-wide: the only people, possibly apart from Luxembourg, to carry on with ratifying the treaty when everybody else has stopped.
To vote Yes is to prove what the Labour Party used to foresee would happen to Malta following accession: that we would revert to colonial times, when decisions regarding ourselves would be taken elsewhere, and we would become just like a small town in Sicily, having to obey Brussels’ slightest whim. How the Labour leadership, which used these and similar arguments in the referendum campaign, can now argue in favour of a Yes vote defies comprehension.
It is, however, understandable that the hardest part of the decision facing the Labour delegates regards the effects of their decision on the party itself. It is clear that the Labour leadership reasons that it must put the EU issue behind it, otherwise this issue could still prove to be a divisive one and lead to a loss of votes and internal party splits. That may be true.
It can also be argued that in a way, this weekend’s decision can have an important effect on the leadership, seeing that the same leadership has come out very strongly in favour of a Yes vote. A leadership issue should be clearly defined, and this weekend’s decision is not, nor should it be, a leadership issue.
It is also clear that Alfred Sant has led the party to three successive electoral victories since 2003, and has regained his party’s wide support. This paper condemns the scurrilous, anonymous letters that have been circulated against him, (and this condemnation was clear in the way the paper reported the case two issues ago, as any objective reading of the story can show) even though, as pointed out by Lino Spiteri last Sunday, this is not the first time that such a pernicious system has been used. And, as also could be seen in the rumours surrounding John Dalli last year, which seem to have been proved unfounded, such behaviour seems ingrained in the DNA of Maltese politics.
The effort to turn around the Labour Party from an anti-EU party into a pro-EU one would have caused friction and divided opinions even had it been made more gradually. As it is, unusual friction and furore have been allowed to generate, not just the old split with Dom Mintoff, (which seemed to have been overcome) but also more recent splits, first with Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici and now with Anna Mallia.
The temptation both inside and outside the party will always be to interpret the issue as a vote for or against one or another stand, one or another leader. The risk of seeing the party divided will not be overcome by the ballot, whichever way it goes.
But – and there is a very definite “but” here – to vote No could also mean allowing this country, even this government, Europe itself, another chance to get it right. To vote Yes would be to lose that chance forever.