Political debate in Malta has been ignited by a recent European Parliament vote on a report on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Over how their MEPs dealt with a clause in the resolution requesting abortion be acknowledged as a basic right all across the European Union, the Nationalist Party (PN) and the Labour Party (PL) are exchanging charges.
The Vote and the Debate
MEPs passed a broad resolution on June 18, 2025. A debatable clause inside the text backed enshrining abortion as a basic right. The vote did not let MEPs differentiate their opinions on particular clauses, including the one on abortion, thus a positive vote on the report would show backing for that clause.
Position of the Nationalist Party (PN)
PN MEPs David Casa and Peter Agius opposed the resolution. According to Casa, abortion as a basic right is a red line for the PN delegation and demanded the EU not impose abortion on any member state, notably Malta, which has its own constitutional viewpoint on the matter.
He said:
Upon becoming a member of the EU, Malta arranged certain policies to preserve moral independence.
The procedure of the European Parliament prevented MEPs from voting independently on contentious clauses, therefore letting them express opposition to the abortion reference while yet supporting the general report.
Labour MEPs are inconsistent: they support actions in Brussels that would encourage abortion yet oppose it publicly in Malta.
Response from the Labour Party (PL)
Accusing the PN of double standards and hypocrisy, the Labour Party said by rejecting a resolution mostly devoted to protecting civil liberties and democratic ideals, the PN aligned itself with farright parties like the National Rally of France and Fidesz of Hungary.
PL argued that:
Because of one paragraph, the PN rejected a crucial report, so subverting general human rights ideas.
Their own MEPs voted in favor to back democracy, not to advance abortion.
The PN’s story is distorted and intended to create local debate.
In an official statement, the PN reaffirmed that:
Still contradicting its ideals, abortion is still debatable.
It holds that abortion is and must always be a national competency.
It rejected the resolution because of its wording enabling Malta to acknowledge abortion as a right, not because of its content on rule of law.
The party also pointed out a second case: a separate Strasbourg vote on child protection including reference to abortion. PN MEPs abstained on that vote for the same reasons, whereas PL MEPs again backed the motion.
The Distinctive Legal Position of Malta
Malta still is the only European nation with an absolute restriction on abortion. Abortion is not legally allowed even in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mother’s life. Any European Union action acknowledging abortion as a fundamental right is hence quite sensitive and politically explosive in the country.
The Larger Impact
The conflict highlights the tension between national sovereignty and EU-wide moral and ethical policies.
Particularly in their European positioning, it exposes a major ideological divide between PN and PL.
Malta and a few other conservative member countries are still against the European Parliament’s efforts to codify abortion rights.
Charging each other of inconsistency or betrayal, both dominant Maltese parties are trying to frame the story for local audiences.
At Last
This discussion centers on a larger question: should the European Union possess the authority to define and enforce fundamental rights across all member states, even those constitutionally object? For Malta, the question is constitutional, cultural, and very personal rather than merely political.
