Editorial

Despite the Labour Party's constant efforts to put flesh on the "partnership" it prefers to "full" EU membership, that concept remains as vague as ever. No European Commission spokesman has ever even remotely hinted that what the MLP is seeking will in fact feature in a "partnership" agreement. On the contrary, one after the other have said that such a "partnership" does not exist.

Indeed, the nearest we ever got to obtaining an "industrial free trade zone" with the EU - as the Labour government of 1996-98 then called its 'partnership" proposal - was a series of rebuffs of its proposals, including that of excluding agriculture from any agreement. If we look at what Norway or Switzerland managed to obtain from the EU - and had to give back in return - we would soon realise that the dubious advantages of "partnership" cannot be remotely compared to the tangible ones of membership.

The vagueness of the "partnership" proposal is confirmed by none other than the MLP leader himself, who debases the meaning of the word when he says he would seek a "partnership" with Maltese society, a "partnership" with neighbouring, non-EU states, a "partnership" with all comers - a convenient, elastic cover-all term for agreements or understandings of various forms.

On the other hand, what the people of these islands are being asked to approve or disapprove is a very tangible membership agreement which, to begin with, will benefit the island to the tune of Lm81 million in net receipts in less than three years. "Partnership" would at the most, if understood in terms of the MEDA programme for non-EU states in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (that word again!) launched in Barcelona in 1995, amount to a piffling Lm400,000 a year.

The Prime Minister last Friday explained the seven reasons why the people of these islands should say Yes to membership. (The alternative, contrary to what the MLP is claiming, is No to membership, and not Yes to "partnership", which is still in the realm of the MLP's collective fantasy.)

The first reason is that individual Maltese will strengthen their position in their own country. This is because, once we join the EU, democracy will be strengthened, because respect for the rule of law and fundamental human rights is ingrained in the systems of the member states. And this is not something only the former Communist countries were looking forward to when they applied to join. As Dr Fenech Adami rightly recalled, Malta too went through a longish phase, under socialist rule of not so happy memory, where democracy was seriously threatened.

The second reason is that Malta would strengthen its position in the world. As part of the EU, where members' sovereignty is pooled, Malta can speak with a much more powerful voice than it can ever do on its own. For example, EU founding member Luxembourg (which incidentally has the same population) has a much greater influence in European and world affairs than it ever had before 1957.

A third reason is that membership offers Malta security in a rapidly changing world. Where previously the threat to a nation's security came from East-West tensions, today it comes from international terrorism, illegal immigration, international crime, and from various other sources which can only be fought collectively, rather than individually.

Few can argue with the fourth reason: that EU membership enables us to exploit bigger markets and attract more investment. This is precisely what happened to Ireland, Portugal, Greece and all the other countries which have prospered thanks to membership. Malta will benefit not only from free access to a 460 million-strong market, but also from the scores of agreements the EU has with regional groupings and individual states, agreements which Malta, with a domestic market of just 400,000 consumers, would find it much more difficult to obtain.

The fifth reason is that we would enjoy higher standards in all sectors - from food to environment. The much-maligned EU regulations ensure consumer protection in the widest possible sense: from the quality of our food to the air we breathe. Dr Fenech Adami recalled that taking on these regulations necessitated asking to delay their entry into force because of compliance difficulties, but there is no doubt that once in place, these regulations can only be for our benefit.

Ensuring a brighter future for us, and especially for our children, is reason number six. While some may be disadvantaged in the immediate term, there is no doubt about the long-term benefits of membership. Again, other countries' experience is proof of this.

The seventh and last reason is that Europe is the natural home of the Maltese people. The MLP tries to make the distinction that "Europe" is not the European Union, but with 25 members within its fold next year, and up to ten other states in 15-20 years' time, there is no doubt that an integrated Europe is where we should be. Staying out would mean our complete isolation.