One must give credit to Simon Busuttil for admitting publicly
(April 6) that both the outgoing and incoming prime ministers
show such confidence in him.
Dr. Busuttil and I have pursued similar career paths over
the years and know each other fairly well, having both been
active in the National Youth Council and the European Youth
Forum in Brussels. We were later both engaged in the practical
analysis of the EU-Malta accession process although from
different angles.
It is perhaps sad that some have chosen to criticise Dr
Busuttil for contesting these elections on behalf of the
Nationalist Party after he had, as head of the Malta Information
Centre (MIC), dismissed various claims that MIC was biased
in favour of the PN. And I will not be the judge of the
fairness and balance of Malta's public communications strategy
related to the EU accession process. He has every right
to participate in the political process and to contribute
to Malta's development just as I chose to do after spending
a number of years employed with the European Commission
as an economist and working for the European Union delegation
for Malta. However, I fail to agree with Dr Busuttil on
four critical points.
First, the tone and spirit of his article remains caught
in a partisan pre-election mode trying to justify why membership
is good for Malta and attempting to demonstrate to the readers
using the same tedious language about how the EU will raise
our standard of living, provide us with financial assistance,
not being isolated and so on and so forth. He even goes
as far as to accuse the Labour Party candidates as being
"still ambiguous about whether we should be in or out".
How can we act as a nation and take our country
forward in a European context if we continue to act as if
we are still in a referendum campaign discussing the pros
and cons of membership?
The Maltese electorate made a decision last year and the
people of Malta expect their representatives in the European
parliament to look forward and prepare for future challenges
rather than looking back.
Secondly, the article claims that Malta can better contribute
to peace and stability in the Mediterranean simply because
as an EU member state we will have the clout of 24 like-minded
countries. However, foreign policy remains fundamentally
the domain of member states because EU countries are far
from like-minded in terms of security issues and external
relations. Malta may soon be faced with challenges to its
security and as a European nation we need to work towards
achieving common ground among all the countries of the Euro-Mediterranean
area with a view to help securing peace not only for Malta
but also for Europe and the rest of the world. However,
to be more effective in achieving this goal a future government
will need to acquire what Malta's core negotiating team
overlooked in the accession treaty.
Thirdly, the article links EU membership with a rapid improvement
in our economic performance without making reference to
the constraints of the single market on a small fragile
economy like ours. Most of my former colleagues at the European
Commission agree that Malta's major challenge as an EU member
state is to clear the hurdle of withstanding the competitive
pressure of the single market and the ability to successfully
absorb the rules and regulations of the acquis in the short-
and medium-term. The success of Malta's EU accession will
primarily be measured against the performance of the economy
and on the ability to create jobs. The openings and opportunities
for Malta created by EU membership will not bear fruit unless
the government of Malta is able to devise a truly national
strategy for economic growth and job creation with clear
objectives and the will to deliver effectively.
Finally, it is misleading to claim that the European parliament
elections are not about "local issues" - MEPs
are elected to represent the Maltese people in Brussels
and to ensure that the Maltese local issues are vigorously
exposed in a wider theatre. An MEP must ensure that the
Maltese people have a voice which is heard and respected
in Brussels and must fight valiantly for every slice of
support which can be achieved from the European institutions.
The MEP's job is to represent and negotiate in the various
parliamentary committees, to network within the parliamentary
system and to report back to the people on the developments
and activities so that the electorate may be properly informed
as to what is going on in Brussels. Above all, the MEPs
must take the lead to ensure that any benefits for Malta
emanating from Brussels are shared equally by all the Maltese
people and not distributed only among chosen beneficiaries.
I am in agreement with the call for collaboration on a national
level. I believe that EU membership requires a national
effort and that in future a determining factor in Maltese
politics will be a distinction between those who are prepared
to consume everything proposed by the European institutions
without considering the consequences to Malta and those
who are prepared to defend Malta's interests while actively
and constructively helping set the European agenda taking
into account the different realities in our continent.
“Why was the government so keen on signing
a binding agreement with the European Union about abortion
but not about Malta’s future security requirements?”
Europe's largest enlargement which took place on the 1st
of May is the result of a series of progressive steps and
meetings starting in 1993 when EU leaders set the famous
Copenhagen criteria. These outlined the democratic, political
and market economy requirements for membership of the EU.
At the beginning it was a two-tier process with half the
countries in a fast group, the Luxembourg group, and half
in a slower group, the Helsinki group. Following a change
in government in 1998 Malta just about made it to the Helsinki
group partly thanks to the fact that the Labour Government
had not withdrawn the membership application but had simply
suspended it. Had the Labour government withdrawn the application
altogether Malta would most probably have missed this enlargement
since the process of submitting a new application would
have been too complex. It would have also required consensus
amongst the 15 member states some of whom were diplomatically
expressing irritation at Malta’s switch on-switch
off approach to European policy.
The European Commission, while handling the negotiations
with the applicant countries, was supervising the process
of implementing the administrative structures in all countries
to allow them to introduce the rules and regulations of
the Acquis in many different sectors particularly those
related to the single market.
During this period I was employed as an economist with the
European Commission and worked for the European Union Delegation
to Malta. It was a privilege to work under the guidance
of Romano Prodi , the President of the European Commission
who I believe deserves a lot of credit for putting EU enlargement
as a central target of the Commission when he became president
in 1999. This work allowed me to go into the detail of all
the chapters in the negotiations particularly from an economic
perspective.
By 2001, the European Commission was able to announce that
10 countries were ready to join the EU and the negotiations
were completed at the end of 2002 with the important Copenhagen
Summit in December where enlargement from 15 to 25 member
states was given the go-ahead.
A lot of bartering took place at that summit. The Maltese
Government, for example, withdrew its request for six seats
in the European parliament in exchange for a protocol on
abortion and a unilateral declaration on neutrality.
The protocol on abortion was an unnecessary bonus because
the European Union was never going to force Malta to legislate
in favour of abortion. The type of decleration on neutrality
signed by Malta has no legal value and did not bind the
European Union in any way. Therefore, as things stand, the
European Union will expect Malta to participate fully in
future European integration in the fields of foreign policy,
security and defense despite the potential risks for such
a small nation state.
Why was the government so keen on signing a binding agreement
with the European Union about abortion but not about Malta’s
future security requirements? The government of Malta should
use its diplomatic resources to saveguard Malta's neutrality
with a view to ensuring that Malta’s national interest
will in future not clash with that of other member states
in the European Union.
We must all collaborate to ensure that Malta’s interests
correspond to those of other European states particularly
in light of the fact that the EU will continue to evolve
it’s common foreign and security policy into something
more concrete. It is not enough to say that Malta, like
other member states, retains the right of veto in this field.
It is much wiser for Malta to reach an agreement through
diplomatic channels instead of threatening to use a veto
which would have negative political and economic consequences
for Malta.
Malta’s security is linked to our economic development.
Our country requires leadership that can formulate national
strategies to encourage economic growth with a view to fulfilling
the economic obligations of accession while creating employment
opportunities in Malta. The success of Malta's membership
in the EU will be measured against the performance of Malta's
economy, job creation and security. According to current
indications the government is not able to properly handle
the responsibilities related to Malta's membership in the
European Union.
The Nationalist Party should concentrate on these important
tasks related to the future challenges and opportunities
for Malta as an EU member state instead of wasting its energy
questioning the Malta Labour Party's commitment to Europe.
Robert Micallef MBA, MA, DSS(OXON) is an MLP candidate for
the European Parliament Elections.
