Home Alfred SANT

. – I have unequivocally voted against this report, only endorsing its social chapter. It lacks all prudence in the presentation of amendments to revise the Treaties. It manifests a total disregard for national sensibilities and the need for balance between central federalizing requirements and the sovereignty of the smaller and medium sized states in the Union. The push for qualified majority voting, changes in decision-making structures, plus the establishment of an EU Defence Union without clear safeguards and opt-outs are totally unacceptable. Co-rapporteur Helmut Scholz's reservations regarding the proposed amendments to Foreign, Security, and Defence Policy are in line with these considerations. Furthermore, the lack of clarity on mitigating duplication of military capacity with NATO and the potential budgetary implications is revealing. Indeed, why should member states which stay out of the common defence policy or which are neutral contribute to fund it through the EU budget? In this area, a comprehensive, non-military concept of security coupled with adherence to international law should precede any restructuring. My vote against this resolution follows from the conviction that the proposed amendments misunderstand the realities of Europe today. Actually, though they proclaim otherwise, they lack the necessary respect for crucial aspects of the European identity, making them unacceptable to the peoples of Europe.

. – I strongly disagree with enshrining the supremacy of EU law in the Treaties and voted against this Report. Codifying in this way the primacy of EU law is not, as the rapporteurs claim, an effective solution to the ongoing ambiguities that define the interplay between EU competencies and the reach of member-states’ legal provisions, not least their constitutions. Indeed, the solution cannot be a one-decision-rule-fits-all provision, given the political complexities of defining EU competences and their relationship to national decision-making powers. Actually it could create new problems by eliminating the flexibility needed to navigate issues of deep national interest, such as neutrality, military cooperation, foreign policy, security, and taxation, thereby triggering avoidable but likely acute crises. Malta, in particular but not only, faces unique challenges that require a nuanced approach. The present situation should be maintained in order to allow for ongoing development through dialogue and experience of a flexible interface between EU law and national constitutional red lines. Such an approach would allow for the step by step and case by case clarification of dilemmas without undermining the formal and informal dynamics that contribute to the EU's internal cohesion. Enshrining supremacy in the Treaties could end up provoking more not less internal disputes.