[ANALYSIS] After the abortion vote: Liberal momentum or conservative backlash?

A resolution supported by centrist and left-wing MEPs has called for the inclusion of access to abortion in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. But despite being approved by 336 votes to 163 against, the resolution is non-binding.

A fully-fledged right to abortion access would require the backing of all 27 member states to be included in the EU's charter, which means that any such attempt can be derailed by Malta. So, on this aspect, the resolution changes nothing. But the resolution was clearly meant to put pressure on Malta and Poland to change their draconian laws curtailing what the EU mainstream considers a human right. This inevitably will have ripple effects on the political scene.

1. It makes Malta more isolated, even more now that Poland is moving in the opposite direction.

Since the moment Malta joined the EU, it became inevitable that its conservative laws, which now also impact the lives of thousands of citizens hailing from other member states who live here, fall under the scrutiny of European institutions and civil society. Moreover, Maltese politicians like Roberta Metsola have learned that a hard stance against abortion is a stumbling block for their personal political ambitions in continental politics. This is because an anti-abortion stance defies popular common sense in most EU member states where abortion is not even an issue but is regarded as a health service like any other. Malta’s isolation is likely to increase due to developments in Poland where Donald Tusk's Civic Platform party, which forms part of the European People’s Party, is proposing a law to allow for abortions up to the 12th week of pregnancy. Not coincidentally, the resolution was timed with the commencement of the debate in Poland, the only other country apart from Malta which bans abortion in most cases. It also comes in the wake of a decision by the French parliament to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right in France. President Emmanuel Macron also favours the inclusion of abortion in the EU’s Charter. It remains to be seen whether France will take parliament’s cue by making a formal proposal to amend the EU treaties to include abortion in the Charter. If this happens, Malta could still block the move, but Robert Abela, who prides himself on being “progressive”, will find himself in an awkward position; that of defending Malta’s “sovereignty” from other pesky progressives.

Maltese pro-choice activists rallied outside the European Parliament in February, accompanied by Labour MEP Cyrus Engerer and MP Randolph De Battista

2. It shoots down the half-baked reform enacted by Labour following Abela’s U-turn.

The resolution, co-authored by Labour MEP Cyrus Engerer, includes a reprimand for Abela’s U-turn in June last year when he backtracked on a timid but courageous reform which was originally meant to allow abortion in cases where both the life and health of the mother were at risk. The resolution notes that the reform “adds even more risks and barriers than before to access to abortion care”, noting that doctors can only terminate a pregnancy if the person’s life is at immediate risk and before ‘foetal viability’, and that doctors are required to refer the dying pregnant person to a medical panel of three consultants. It also notes that a pregnant person with cancer in Malta must “wait for the birth of the child before accessing cancer treatment, resulting in lower chances of successful treatment.” In this sense, the resolution belittles Abela’s claim that the toned-down reform was still a “big change that shakes the status quo that this country was stuck in”. And while Abela has never disowned the original reform and has even hinted at further amendments, he has not even managed to earn any points on the international stage for tinkering with the country’s draconian and complete ban on abortion. This could backfire on Abela’s nominee for the European Commission Chris Fearne who will probably be grilled on the topic, especially if he is nominated to a health portfolio. But like previous commissioners and Metsola herself in her bid to become EU parliament president, Fearne will probably pledge loyalty to the EU consensus on abortion and move on.

3. Labour is divided on this issue. Managing these divisions could become tricky as international pressure could trigger a rift between continentally aligned progressives in Labour and those who resent EU intrusion on Malta’s sovereignty.

The EU parliament resolution has split Labour MPs into three camps. Alex Agius Saliba and Josianne Cutajar have voted against. Consistent with his sovereigntist approach which makes him suspicious of the control of member states by parliament, Alfred Sant has abstained despite his liberal views on the topic. Cyrus Engerer, on his part, did not participate in the vote due to another commitment but had co-authored the resolution and has affirmed his support for it before and after the vote. While Alfred Sant is on the way out, his sovereigntist approach still strikes a chord with those in the party who resent foreign interference. Alex Agius Saliba's 'no' to abortion is particularly significant in view of his position as Labour’s front runner in the MEP election race and the most likely to win the title of head of delegation. If Cyrus Engerer does not contest again, as his bravado in supporting the resolution suggests, it could also mean that liberal Labour voters would be denied from having a pro-choice voice in the campaign. And while it is unlikely that there is a critical mass to elect a progressive Labourite like Engerer, Abela must be careful that his mix of candidates includes the different shades of opinions which already co-exist in Labour. Ironically, as things stand, the only other potential candidate expressing liberal views on this issue is former leader Joseph Muscat, whose stature gives him an allowance to speak his mind.  And while Labour cannot afford to take a pro-choice stance for both pragmatic reasons and because it includes a segment of people who are genuinely against, it can still offer the best hope for change. But to continue doing so it has to allow an internal debate in which pro-choice voices are respected not shunned. 

European Parliament President Roberta Metsola signed up to the Simone Veil Pact pushed by French President Emanuel Macron’s liberals that guarantees women’s access to contraception and abortion

4. It galvanises the local conservative EU sceptic right, possibly giving it a rallying cry and thus more visibility. But the price is likely to be paid by the PN not Labour.

While the local pro-choice lobby may feel vindicated by the support it receives from the European mainstream, the resolution is likely to give a raison d’etre and a rallying cry to the conservative right-wing represented in these forthcoming elections by Edwin Vassallo. But the price for this will probably not be paid by Labour but by the PN. For unlike the PN which participates in the EU mainstream and takes pride in Metsola’s presidency, candidates like Vassallo will embark on a quixotic but possibly effective crusade against the EU’s liberal establishment. And while it is extremely unlikely that a right-wing candidate is elected, such a candidature could end up siphoning more votes from the PN.

5. Conservatives who applauded the EU parliament’s censure of Labour’s corruption have been given a taste of their own medicine.

For the past decade, Labour has found itself repeatedly censored in the EU parliament by a wide majority spanning across the ideological spectrum on rule of law issues. This criticism was often shrugged off as foreign interference meant to harm the national interest by Labour but was applauded by Nationalist politicians. But inevitably, corruption is not the only issue falling under the spotlight of the EU parliament and in October last year MEPs had voted for a resolution on the rule of law in Malta six years after the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, which came with a call for Malta to legalise abortion. The reality is that parliament constantly votes on similar resolutions to exercise moral pressure on member states. And while partisan rivalries between the EPP and the Socialists play a part in singling out pariahs on both sides, being under scrutiny of pesky ‘outsiders’ is an essential part of forming part of the club. And while such pressure risks provoking a nationalist backlash in scrutinised member states, it also contributes to European consensus which tames aspiring autocrats and increases accountability. And it is only natural that the EU politicians are as concerned with the plight of women as they are concerned with money laundering and media freedom.

6. It risks giving pro-choice lobbyists the illusion that change can come through the EU’s backdoor not from Malta’s front door.

But local pro-choice movements also risk making the same mistake as rule of law NGOs who console themselves with international support, underestimating the nationalistic counter-reaction this often triggers. In this sense, while international pressure can be effective in conditioning governments and elected officials especially those serving in EU institutions, who hate being shunned by EU counterparts, it is no substitute for grassroots campaigning aimed at changing deeply entrenched beliefs and values. In this sense, the most effective tool the pro-choice movement has is the everyday life stories of Maltese mothers who have passed through difficult experiences. Only this can lead to the cultural change which would embolden pro-choice politicians to take a stand and for the Labour Party’s leadership to follow their lead.