News • 15 June 2003

EU Constitution – bad news for Malta

In his role as special advisor to Alfred Sant, Dr George Vella was all praise and thumbs up for the conclusions of the European Union Constitution.

It would have been a very different story with the George Vella of yesteryear – and he probably would have been right. Because if the EU Constitution does see the light of day, Malta will be a loser and not a winner.

The proposed Constitution departs from the Nice treaty commitments and imposes the idea of qualified majority. The Constitution allots more power to the EU parliament where Malta will still have five representatives against the droves of elected representatives from other countries.

Qualified majority means the right of veto is out of the window. Motions will now only be passed with fifty percent of EU members comprising sixty percent of the EU population, and that means the larger countries could ride roughshod over the smaller nations.

Malta would have to accept decisions it strongly opposes.

The qualified majority rule will however not come into force before 2009, because of strong opposition from Spain.

Qualified majority voting is good news for those reformers who want to push through with more legislation currently possible in the social field.

It will be however bad news for those Maltese conservatives wary of more EU-imposed social reforms that are considered to be anathema to Roman Catholicism.

And if that did not hurt enough, a proposal for small countries to have only four seats, is being suggested in a review of the parliamentary structure.

The Constitution calls for a President for a period of two and half years, in theory meaning that Malta could be offered the presidency in fifty years time.

Bad news also for the fact that commissioner will not multiply to 25 – one per Member State. The number will remain restricted even if there is a proposal for a commissioner without a portfolio and with no right to vote.

The size of the EU Commission will later be reduced from its current 20 members to 15, though there would be associate members without the right to vote. The voting commissioners would rotate through the Member States. Large countries would have only one commissioner instead of two.

Each Member State would also offer a list of three for selection - good news for women in Malta’s patriarchal politics, since "at least one commissioner must be a woman."

One aspect in the Constitution, which comes as a shock to most Europhiles, is the formal recognition that a member state may decide to leave the union.

The new article in the constitution outlines how member states could leave the EU: "A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify the Council of its intention... The Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that state, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal."

This article is designed to show that the EU is a democratic association, which does not enforce membership. The new rules completely contradict what was stated before the April 12 election in Malta.