All this bears witness that the Maltese Government couldn’t care less about the Maltese people and neither their representatives in Parliament.

If only a few Maltese know what the Constitution prepared by the Convention presided by Giscard d’Estaing really consists of and what it means and what consequences it is going to have on the Constitution of Malta and on the Maltese Government policy in future, nearly no one in Malta really knows what were the agreed amendments for that Constitution, what were the amendments that were not agree to and what are the points on which there is still no agreement.

Not only were the people kept in the dark about these issues, but even the representatives of the Maltese media were not given enough detailed information about these issues so that they will be able to be in a position to inform the Maltese public.

The summit of the European Union leaders started on 11 December.

Two days previously, on 9 December, the European Council Italian Presidency published the proposed amendments for the Constitution prepared by Giscard d'Estaing.

The Malta-European Union Information Centre (MIC) was asked for a copy of the amendments proposed by the Italian Presidency.

The MIC answer was that they did not have the proposals made by the Italian Presidency.

That which the MIC did not have was acquired from the internet from the European Union website.

This we could examine the quantity of amendments for the Giscard d’Estaing Constitution that were being presented by the Italian Presidency before the leaders of the European Union countries, including the Maltese Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs who together with the Maltese Minister for Finance went to the Brussels summit.

Some of the proposed amendments by the Italian Presidency are important because of their consequences on the constitution of Malta and on the policy of Malta in the foreign affairs sector, in the military and defense sector and on the neutrality policy.

It is amazing that neither before the summit meetings nor during and afterwards, Fenech Adami did not show any interest when he spoke to the media about the amendments proposed by the Italian Presidency in the mentioned sectors of foreign affairs, military and defense and Malta’s neutrality policy.

Following the failure of the summit Fenech Adami said that he was satisfied that with what he had heard in the meetings that he had, Malta is going to have more than e European Parliament members and that the Maltese Commissioner will have a vote in the European Commission and the principle of unanimity will remain in certain sectors, such as taxation, social sector and on the European Union budget.

It was shocking that the Prime Minister of Malta did not say anything on the most important issue for Malta on the power that the small European Union member countries are going to have – and Malta is the smallest member country – in the decisions that the European Union can take by majority and not with the agreement of every member country.

The fight that Spain and Poland made against the change on how majority is calculated in the European Council and the Council of Ministers, which are the two most powerful institutions in the European Union, had the aim of not allowing the power of the small member countries to be weakened and not to allow the power of the bigger Union countries to increase who would thus make sure that their will is implemented in the decisions that the Union takes with the majority system of half the member countries that represent sixty percent of all the populations of the Union member countries taken together.

This issue on how the majority is calculated in the European Council and the Council of Ministers effectively hits Malta. Malta as a small member country in the European Union should have been at the forefront to support the stand taken by Spain and Poland, which is the stand that does not weaken the power of the small member countries.

However, Malta did not support Spain and Poland. It took the stand that does not support our country’s interests, but a stance that supports the big Union countries.

In what Fenech Adami told the media he showed that Spain and Poland were not supported by Malta.

Therefore Fenech Adami did not protect Malta’s interests in this extremely important issue for our country.

The issue of how majority is considered in the decisions taken by the European Union with the majority system are always increasing in number is much more important for Malta than the number of Maltese deputies who will be in the European Parliament and on whether the Maltese Commissioner in the European Commission will have a vote or not.

Whether the Maltese deputies in the European Parliament would be four, five or six will make little difference for our country.

Six deputies cannot keep up with the work of 17 parliamentary committees that there are in the European Parliament.

Whether the Maltese Commissioner in the European Commission will have a vote or not make any difference for our country.

Every Commissioner does not represent the interests of his country, but has to protect and promote the common interests of the European Union.

We are sorry that the Maltese Prime Minister did not even understand what is more useful and important in the first occasion that he had in a summit of the European Union.

He would have saved a lot of money for Malta if he did not go to Brussels and would thus have been more useful for our country.

It is the general impression of the public that the Maltese Government does not want to be known what exactly does the new European Union Constitution provides and its amendments and that efforts are being made for the people to be distracted on not so important points of the Constitution so as not to have the opportunity to carefully examine the points that are against the Constitution of Malta and against the interests of our people.

An example of the conflicts between what the European Union Constitution states and what the Constitution of Malta provides is found in the foreign affairs sector.

According to our Constitution Malta is to implement a policy of neutrality and non-alignment.

The European Union does not implement this policy of neutrality and non-alignment.

Therefore this difference may lead to a conflict between the policy adopted by the European Union and the foreign policy of neutrality implemented by Malta.

The Maltese Government denied that this conflict exists and said that once decisions on the common foreign and security policy requires unanimity in the European Union, Malta has the means to stop the European Union from adopting a foreign policy conflicting with that of Malta.

But the Maltese Government is mistaken on this.

In the 6 December issue of this year, L-Aġġornat, the MIC Bulletin, we find these precise words: “European Union common foreign and security policy:

“Italy proposed that on a proposal of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the European Union decisions may be adopted by a qualified majority instead of unanimity as proposed by the draft EU Constitution”.

The European Constitution states that every member country must unconditionally and without reservations support the European Union common foreign and security policy and does nothing to undermine it.

Therefore, when on the proposal of the Minister for Foreign Affairs the European Union decides a line of foreign policy that is not according the Malta’s neutrality, Malta will be bound to follow the European Union policy that would not be one of neutrality.

Another example of conflict between what is stated in the European Union Constitution and what is stated by the Constitution of Malta is about military alliances.

The Maltese Constitution clearly states that our country cannot become a member in any military alliance.

This means that it cannot become a member in an association that binds the member countries to help each other militarily.

The Maltese Government insists that the European Union is not a military alliance.

But even here the Maltese government is mistaken. Article I.40 (7) of the new European Union Constitution, as resulting from the proposals made by the Italian Presidency of the European Council binds every member country of the European Union to help with all the means at its disposal even with its military means, every other European Union member country that is attacked.

This means that Malta will be bound to take part with its military forces for the European Union common defense.

Thus Malta would be taking part in a military alliance.

This is clearly in breach of the Constitution of Malta.

The Government of Malta insists that the declaration that it attached to the European Union Membership Treaty that was signed last 16 April in Athens releases it from the obligation to take part in the common defense of the European Union or of some other member country.

But even here the Maltese Government is mistaken.

Our Constitution does not say that Malta cannot take part in the military defense of another country.

It states that Malta cannot take part in military alliances.

The fact only that Malta will be part of a military alliance, even if an occasion never arises for military intervention, is enough to amount to a breach of our country’s Constitution.

Thursday 18 December 2003.

WE WANT INDEPENDENCE FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION

e-mail: cnimalta at yahoo.co.uk 

Thank you for visiting our website

Support our fight for Independence and Freedom

Do you want to help us regain our Independence and Freedom?

If yes, help CNI in its work so that the majority of the people would want to get rid of European Union rule.

Become a CNI member by sending €5 together with this application form to,

 The Financial Secretary CNI,

60A Strait Street

Valletta

Name .......................................................

Address ....................................................

ID Number................................................

Thank you for your help

Free and neutral Malta shall overcome