Neutrality in the EU
Carmelo Inguanez, Malta’s ambassador to France, as reported in the leader of September 15, expresses concern about the possible adoption of majority (rather than unanimity) voting on major issues within the EU and, in particular, as to how it might affect Malta’s stated neutrality.
Other EU members are concerned about majority voting, some of them ex-USSR satellites that seem to have possibly retained some undemocratic psyche, particularly in rule-of-law matters, but also in respect of their total opposition to “non-white, non-Christian” immigrants, with inevitable clashes with Western European secular democratic values at the heart of the EU.
The EU is probably coming up to one of its important watershed times – some of its members may have never accepted that the “European Project” is really the formation of the “United States of Europe”, comfortable in their wishful thinking that the EU will remain just a “trading closed shop”. The UK, par excellence, was one of these members and had to leave to “take back control”.
With the present unanimity voting on crucial EU matters, one member, even a tiny one, can hold up decisions and actions indefinitely to the annoyance of the bigger members.
The EU cannot move forward and become more relevant on the world stage without more transfer of power centrally and majority voting is a first step towards that.
The US had to go through a civil war to achieve that. The EU will do it more peacefully – but it needs to be done because one cannot run any organisation with 100 per cent subsidiarity, let alone the EU and its political ambitions.
It’s not going to be easy but it would concentrate minds and member nations that cannot accept more central authority, particularly when it comes to upholding core Western democratic values (as against despotic authoritarian rule – the growing dangerous chasm we’re experiencing around the world), could start thinking of leaving the union.
So, in answer to our ambassador’s worries about our neutrality: if we’re not happy with developments we could always do a Maltexit and consider joining either the African Union or the shady BRICS group. After all, we did have ambitions of belonging to the “anti-Western, non-aligned” nations only a few decades ago.
I hope, though, we have grown up enough by now.
Albert Cilia-Vincenti – Attard
Landline bill payments
A person who is elderly and an invalid, confined to a home, can only pay her landline bill every two months in order to go over the €20 limit on cheque value.
Photo: GO/FacebookGO are charging her over €2 for a month of delayed payment and hearsay is that the amount will be raised to €5.
For a person with a bill of €13 per month, or €156 per year, this would, if carried out, amount to a charge of €30 per year, which is equivalent to an interest rate of more than 19 per cent – indeed worthy of sharks.
Is it impossible for GO to allow people to pay every two months, given that many have mobility problems and no digital know-how? For one thing, fewer people would have to queue and be served personally by their busy personnel at GO outlets.
Maria Pace – Birkirkara