Labour's long-standing Euroscepticism

It can no longer be tolerated that people who have not conducted research in international archives continue to write our history. Indeed many of Mr Cini's assertions are not backed by facts at the time when they happened. Other assertions indicate that he understands very little what the case of Maltese political parties at the time was. For example Mr Cini assumes that because Borg Olivier in the 1960s made overtures to the EC or Common Market, as it was known at the time, the path to membership was a foregone conclusion. In 1967 what the Borg Olivier government had asked for was the establishment of a special agreement or "relationship" with the EC, 'rather than the normal form of "association"'. (Fairweather, British Embassy in Rome, to Diggines, Commonwealth Office, London, 2nd January 1968). Fairweather had got the information from Carrara at the Italian Foreign Ministry who reported that he had told Borg Olivier that 'there was very little hope of immediate progress'. Indeed, the Commission was not in a hurry to present its report on Malta's application for a special relationship.
Surprisingly, one of the stumbling blocks for Malta was Britain's own application to join. Although Malta was said to have achieved its independence in 1964 in both London and Brussels, including NATO headquarters, Malta was seen as somehow still being linked with Britain. NATO had refused Malta membership or even observer status on the organisation on the grounds that 'Malta (independent Malta) was under the jurisdiction of Britain'. During his visit to Rome, in December 1967, Borg Olivier complained to Moro that NATO's relationship with Malta as "colonial". He also stated that what 'he wanted was a more "dignified relationship with NATO and in particular Malta wanted to be informed of political decisions reached within the organisation.' In other words he wanted NATO to stop using Malta as its pleases and to respect our independence while taking us into its confidence in respect of decisions touching our interests.
On the EC issue the UK Delegation to the European Communities reported, on Malta's application to Brussels, that 'the Commission may well take the view that the Maltese question is closely linked to the progress of the U.K. application and Malta (independent Malta) need not make faster progress than ourselves'. (Melton, Brussels, to Stoddart, U.K. Foreign Office, 28th November 1967) The reluctance by the EU to admit Malta as a member continued until the 1990s and Mr Cini should re-visit the discussions between Malta and the EU until 1993. Mr Cini shoudl for example explain why at one stage Brussels declared that Malta's case for membership was tied to that of Cyprus but the latter first required to solve its issue of division in two states before its case could be addressed. What was the message for Malta in this? Furthermore, why did the EU take such a long time to produce its Avis on Malta's application? Does Mr Cini remember how three other states, who had submitted their application well after that of Malta, had received their Avis well before that of Malta? I also suggest that the writer reads that Avis very carefully as some of its statements are very indicative. It was changed international circumstances that really opened Malta's path to membership. The idea that twenty years were wasted under Labour is nothing but a false judgement. Mr Cini is right when he says that the PN from the very beginning eyed membership of the European Community as a goal, but he is wrong to assume that in the 1960s and 70s it believed Malta was ready for membership. He should look to statements made in Parliament on this issue.
Mr Cini's also passes judgement on Mintoff's idea of Malta as a Switzerland in the Mediterranean. He dismisses it out of hand but forgets that that idea was raised when Malta was a colony (1958) and few Maltese saw an alternative to Malta's economic dependence on Britain. Yet Mr Mintoff was proposing such an alternative of a small nation building its future on unfettered economic relations based on a system of political neutrality. What Mintoff wanted was to rid Malta of the handicaps imposed on it by its status as a military base and as I briefly demonstrated above (believe me there is much more) continued to plague it after independence. It was also a call for the Maltese to take their lives in their own hands. For Maltese people living in 1958 Switzerland was a symbol of a rich and stable economy to which countries flocked to invest. The Swiss had among the highest standards of living in the world and they had achieved this by pursuing their own path and not that of other countries. It was a call for a historical break. Neither is Mr Cini historically correct when he says that the Labour government of Malta "took the road of isolationism". Under Mr Mintoff Malta's extended its relations to a far greater number of countries than before. Before 1971 Malta's relations were with a restricted number of countries. One may disagree with some of the newly established relations but this does not give one the right to distort what actually took place. And I cannot see why Mr Cini objects to Malta having close relations with Libya and Algeria. In the 1970's to get oil and gas supplies to sustain their economy, the Germans to justify their establishment of close relations with the Soviet Union became the champions of detente. And they got their oil and gas pipeline!!! Does Mr Cini really think that Malta's economic development would have progressed without Libyan aid? And can Mr Cini, who like many seem to dislike the idea of Malta having relations with Arab countries, whether he remembers how European leaders rushed to Libya within days of international sanctions being lifted?
As to Labour's position under Sant it does not take a genius to know that there were divisions over EU membership. And why is this so unusual? There were divisions in the British Labour and Conservative parties over membership of the EU and there are divisions persisting today. But I also know some PN supporters who also fear that Malta would be swallowed up in a strongly unified EU. What is wrong with that? Should there be no room for debate within the parties?

As the man says "History is well documented". The terms under which the PN took Malta into the EU make it impossible for the Maltese civil service to operate the EU systems efficiently. Malta should have negotiated a special deal because the EU needed Malta's membership. Many financial advantages were sacrificed for membership, so it is silly to boast of the "millions received". This propaganda is childish and negative.

Bla....Bla.....Bla.....haven't we had enough of this propaganda. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it but please don’t try to make the PN look like any saint or saviour!!!

What you might ask your buddies in Brussels is why Malta and its citizens are rated like non EU or worst, like 3rd world country citizens when we travel to or live in the Middle East. To add insult to injury, countries like San Marino, The Vatican and Norway whom which are non members of the EU are given the full treatment.

With your entire funfair please note that we are still considered as 2nd class citizens!!!!!!

I find this contribution to be singularly headless, replete with sweeping statements and selective morsels of history casually flicked in the air less the guilt of a nose-picker, reaching amazing conclusions that render winnie the pooh as real as our national debt. I fail to understand the purpose of such contributions that I find to be so tasteless.

What you said is true, facts cannot be changed. If I may add something more to your article, I would say that after just one year the nationalist party lost the european parliament elections by 22,000 votes and the solid track record of the Labour MEPs shows that the Labour party has not only accepted the fact that the Maltese wanted to be part of EU community, but it is managing to do the job better.

I think that the main exponents of the Labour party have made it very clear now and before the general election that the EU issue was closed 5 years ago. Those that keep on harping about euroscepticism are simply stuck in a timewarp and are repeating the same things we are fed up of hearing from net/pn journalists.