Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the EU Commission, was right when he stated, at a press conference on 14 June 2008, that: “The Treaty is not dead, The Treaty is alive and we will try to work to find a solution”.
The Lisbon Treaty is now more than a week old, and all the government and opposition have had to say about it concerns that blessed sixth seat... as if this is what the Lisbon Treaty is all about.
Mind you, our MEPs are also to blame for not informing the people who elected them about the implications of the Lisbon Treaty.
I was in Brussels last week when the Lisbon Treaty came into force and although I could understand the jubilation in the faces of the staff, I could not understand what Malta has to celebrate about this treaty except for another seat in Parliament.
By giving us another seat in Parliament Malta has lost a number of concessions it had gained from the pre-accession negotiations before joining the EU in 2004. Unlike other countries – most notably Ireland, Poland, UK and Denmark – Malta gave up much of what it had for this sixth seat, and it is so sad that our politicians always put politics before the interests of the country as a whole.
Why am I saying this? I am saying this because under the Lisbon Treaty, Malta has lost the following rights:
• The right to hold the EU presidency for six months;
• The right to have a commissioner in every term as from 2014
• The right of veto, which is now limited to tax, foreign policy, defence and social security.
As EU citizens, with the Lisbon Treaty the Commission will remain answerable solely to the European Council and not directly to any EU citizens, as would the new President.
This means that now, a politician is chosen to be president of the European Council for two and a half years – replacing the current system where countries take turns at being president for six months. This means that as of 2014, there will be a smaller European Commission, made up of only 18 commissioners appointed on a rotational basis, rather than the present compliment of 27 permanent posts.
With fewer commissioners than there are member states – meaning that John Dalli will be the last commissioner that Malta will ever have in any future commission – I do not know how the Government intends to safeguard our national interests when Malta does not have a Commissioner.
This also means now Malta can exercise the veto only in the areas of tax, foreign policy, defence and social security and that the removal of national vetoes in a number of areas including fighting climate change, energy security and emergency aid will be taken by qualified majority based on a “double majority” of 55% of member states accounting for 65% of the EU’s population. This will be phased in between 2014 and 2017 and will be extended into 40 new areas controversially including certain external affairs.
This means that the ability for individual nation states to prevent contentious legislation being passed and implemented would be reduced. It has been calculated that the extension of the qualified majority voting system will cut Britain’s ability to prevent legislation that it opposes from being passed by 30%.
In Malta, I wonder if anybody has had the decency of even think of this possibility, let alone studying its impact on our country.
Other major changes which the Lisbon Treaty introduced is the new post called High Representative – combining the jobs of the existing foreign affairs supremo, Javier Solana, and the external affairs commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner – to give the EU more influence on the world stage
This means that the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Catherine Ashton, is to conduct the foreign policy on behalf of the European Council, such as representing all member states at the United Nations.
Again this means that Malta has no longer any say at the United Nations and this post renders our embassy at the United Nations merely cosmetic.
It also gave new powers to the European Commission, European Parliament and the European Court of Justice, for example in the field of justice and home affairs. The parliament will be on an equal footing with the Council – the grouping of member states’ governments – for most legislation, including the budget and agriculture. This is called “co-decision”. The ECJ now has the power to dictate the fundamental rights of all EU citizens, with precedence over long-established national institutions.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights became binding with the Lisbon Treaty although the full text does not appear, even in an annex, in the treaty.
But whereas other member states negotiated till the end and even threatened to halt the Lisbon process, we seemed to have been blinded by this sixth seat and forgot all about the rest. Let us see what other countries managed to obtain.
With regards to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the UK secured a written guarantee that the Charter of Fundamental Rights cannot be used by the European Court to alter British labour law or other laws that deal with social rights; Poland won an opt-out from the Charter because it insisted on retaining national control over family issues and morality such as abortion.
The Czech Republic also has an opt-out, secured by the Eurosceptic Czech President Vaclav Klaus as a condition for signing the treaty. He wanted a guarantee that his country would not be exposed to property claims by Germans expelled from the then Czechoslovakia after World War II. London won guarantees that EU laws and courts will not prevail over its judicial system, while Poland cannot be forced to allow gay marriages.
The Irish Republic and the UK currently have an opt-out from European policies concerning asylum visas and immigration and under the Lisbon Treaty they have the right to opt in or out of any policies in the entire field of justice and home affairs. Dublin also won guarantees that the treaty would not infringe on its sovereignty in the areas of taxation, family issues and state neutrality. Denmark will continue with its existing opt–out for the pick-and-choose system.
An opt-out means that they can refuse to sign an agreement on that particular matter on which they negotiated the opt out.
And please do not call me ‘Eurosceptic’ for telling you the truth!
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
