Editorial

The Labour 'Alternative' to European Union membership has 'progressed' from "Switzerland-in-the-Mediterranean" (a slogan copied blindly from one coined by Dom Mintoff in 1959, at the height of the cold war, when at least it meant something - neutrality based on the Swiss model) to "partnership" with the EU, with which - Labour leader Alfred Sant continues to insist - his party wants "the closest possible relations" (surely they come no closer than membership!).

Yet it is amazing how it is Dr Sant himself who continues to debase and demean his own party's "alternative" to "full" (as MLP spokesmen ridiculously continue to qualify it) EU membership. Not so long ago he actually suggested that Government and Opposition "put on hold" pursuing their preferred relationship with the EU for a few years in order to concentrate on domestic matters. He was thereby signalling lack of faith not only in the Government's single-minded pursuit of EU membership, but also in his own "alternative".

But in his reply, last Monday, to Finance Minister John Dalli's Budget speech Dr Sant managed to debase and dilute his "partnership with the EU" proposal beyond recognition. For by "partnership" now he does not mean an arrangement covering trade, agriculture, security, co-operation, education and other areas specifically with the EU, but also with "regions and countries with which it is in our interest to work closely". He cited, as examples, Australia, the United States and Russia, which he visited recently. Not only: the partnership model should work also with different sectors of Maltese society, because everyone should contribute to the nation's development to the best of their abilities!

As if devoiding the word "partnership" (as applied to the EU) of all meaning were not enough, Dr Sant insisted - by a twist of logic defying Orwellian Newspeak - that with EU membership Malta would be "closing its doors" to other countries and other opportunities.

It was therefore relatively easy for the Prime Minister, when his turn came on Wednesday to reply to the Opposition Leader, to blast Dr Sant's arguments to smithereens. Dr Fenech Adami made it clear that the alternative to EU membership was non-membership, whatever the Labour leader chose to call it. If by partnership Dr Sant meant leaving doors open to all, he should have said that through EU membership, Malta would have immediate access to agreements with some 100 other regional groupings and individual countries which the Union has concluded. Dr Sant prefers to slam the doors now thrown wide open for us.

It would take ages for Malta to have the same accessibility to these countries through bilateral arrangements on behalf of a market of 400,000 souls, and there is no guarantee that such arrangements would be more advantageous than the EU accords already in place. So, rather than find all these doors open at once, Dr Sant prefers to open them one by one!

The truth is, of course, that - far from closing doors - EU membership will open up tremendous possibilities for expansion, as Malta would not only benefit from the EU's trade agreements, but could also use its excellent relations with North African states, for example, for them to invest in the vast EU economy, with its market of 500 million consumers. As Ireland has been a conduit for US investment in Europe - thanks, among other things, to the large Irish-American community - so could Malta become a conduit for investment in the EU by the large expatriate Maltese community in Australia, the US, Canada, etc.

Dr Sant's complete dilution of the "partnership" concept coincided with the conclusion of the agriculture chapter in Malta's negotiations with the EU, under which Malta's farming community will benefit to the tune of e181 million over a ten-year period, and the promise of topped-up aid in the financial package. Indeed, Malta's three-year-long negotiations should be concluded this week, in time for the Copenhagen summit.

Compare and contrast, if you will. On the one had we have an EU membership package which includes some highly significant concessions to Malta and financial benefits to see us through the first years of membership - not to mention numerous unquantifiable advantages in terms of foreign investment, increased trade opportunities, and opportunities for advancement for Maltese citizens in all fields.

On the other we have non-membership, or as the MLP prefers to call it, a "partnership" proposal with the EU which may or may not include any of the features touted ad nauseam in the MLP "spots" on TV, and which would take years to get off the ground, if at all, and much longer to conclude (the EU will certainly be in no particular hurry to start afresh with Malta after offering it an attractive membership package, only to be spurned).

The choice it is therefore not a question of closing or opening doors. It is an open-and-shut case.