Editorial

When only six weeks remain for the negotiations on Malta's European Union membership - and that of nine other countries - to be concluded, it is time to ask the Labour Party, which strenuously opposes membership, what alternative it is offering, and why this should be preferable to "full" membership (as the MLP calls it).

The MLP has suddenly made a "sensational" discovery which, in its view, vindicates Labour's position - now "refined" to one of "partnership" (an English term they use also in Maltese!) with the EU.

They have seized upon declarations by Giuliano Amato, vice-president of the Convention on the Future of Europe, and more recently by the Convention's president, Valery Giscard D'Estaing, that the EU should be prepared to enter into a "partnership" (oh happy word!) with countries which do not want or are unable to become "full" members.

Malta, they argue, is one of these countries so hey, presto! the alternative is there for all to see, because Europe will quickly extend its "partnership" hand to us if we decide to turn down "full" membership!

To begin with, no one can blame countries which are unable - among others for geographic reasons (Morocco, a North African country, had actually applied but was firmly told it was ineligible) - to become members to seek a formal "partnership" instead which would give them some preferential treatment in their dealings with the EU, soon to be enlarged to embrace 25 nations.

So Malta, having applied in 1990 and now having practically concluded its membership negotiations, would fall into the category of those countries in Europe "which do not want" to become members.

We therefore ask the Labour Party:

¤ How many European countries "do not want" to become members? Two? Three? Let's say three (perhaps Norway, which turned down membership twice, Switzerland, and Iceland). All the other countries which are not EU members or prospective members - including Russia - give every indication that they want to join at the first opportunity (Croatia, for example, is expected to apply in January).

¤ Now how many European countries are about to join the Union? Ten (including Malta) will join, God willing, some time in 2004. Romania and Bulgaria should join by 2007. Turkey is a candidate country, while other countries are expected to apply eventually.

¤ Could the Labour Party therefore tell us how is it that none of the countries which have applied to join as "full" members have seen the wisdom of its "partnership" alternative? How come they have not woken up to its incredible advantages, among them the fact, that "it does not carry the obligations (nor the rights) of membership"? Are the leaders of these 12 other countries (and others) so blind as to take their countries into the EU when a more attractive alternative - indicated by the Labour Party of Malta - beckons?

¤ Can the Labour Party tell us, not what it wishes the "partnership" agreement to contain and provide for, but what solid evidence it has to show that those desirable features will in fact be there, once we reject membership?

¤ Does the Labour Party expect the electorate (in a referendum or a general election) to give up a package which will bring about immediate tangible benefits, not to mention incalculable medium- and long-term advantages to our economy, social structure and the cultural, educational and physical environment, for the sake of an agreement which does not exist, or if it does, is intended for countries, like Morocco, which can never be part of the Union?

¤ And, mentioning the referendum, why does Dr Sant and his party insist they will ignore its outcome and say only a general election will decide the issue of EU membership? Have not five general elections been fought already between 1981 and 1998, in which the seeking of EU membership featured prominently on the programme of the Nationalist Party, which went on the win four of those five elections (including the last one in 1998)? So why was the outcome of those elections (as far as EU membership is concerned) not acceptable in the MLP's eyes, while the next one would be?

¤ How does the MLP expect Europe to treat us after having offered us membership, which means nothing less than sitting at the table just like the other Union members, and given us a number of concessions on the way, only to see a new Labour government spurn this offer because it prefers to crawl on the floor picking up the crumbs that fall from the table? And finally:

¤ Is Dr Alfred Sant prepared to shoulder the huge responsibility of denying the Maltese people this historic opportunity of joining the newly extended European family merely out of pique in order to remain outside, begging at the gate, perhaps waiting for another opportunity to be allowed in, which may not come for another 30 years?