Partnership: can, should, will be

The Sunday Times editorial of November 3, "Happy with the crumbs", possibly reached a new low in the dumbing down of the ongoing public discussion about Malta's future relations with the European Union. It seems as if for the join-the-EU-at-all-costs-brigade, in whose ranks The Sunday Times and its editor are irrevocably enrolled, discussion of the available options is now outside the pale. There is no alternative to joining. Hip! Hip! Hip!

Long discarded is Dr Censu Tabone's honourable dictum that we should join the EU if the conditions are right. That is no longer acceptable. If Commissioner Gunter Verheugen, whose interest it is to carry the EU enlargement process to the end, declares on Malta's version of the Jerry Springer Show that the EU will find it difficult to conclude a partnership agreement with Malta, then that statement is converted into the second commandment, the first one being: Join the EU at all costs.

If former French President Giscard D'Estaing, addressing a plenary session of the European Convention in Brussels, puts forward partnership as a constitutional pillar of the European Union, then all we need do is sniffle and snuffle.

Nothing shows better the low level to which the pro-membership case has sunk than the editorial's argument that "None of the countries which have applied to join as full members, have seen the wisdom of (the) partnership alternative". The editorial continues: "Are the leaders of these 12 countries (and others) so blind as to take their countries into the EU when a more attractive alternative beckons?"

Surely with such an argument, one could logically make a case in favour of the introduction of abortion in Malta. Since most of these countries, if not all of them have legalised abortion and have found it such an attractive alternative, why not follow suit?

The real point of course is that all countries decide on their way forward, according to their own particular circumstances. None of the other applicant countries face conditions that are even remotely comparable to that of Malta.

They have just exited from a subservient relationship to the former USSR and would like to politically and economically tie in with Western Europe, as a counterbalance to potentially dominant influences from Russia. They are trying to construct a viable and pluralist democracy, similar to that of EU member states, following half a century of communist hegemony.

Having a sizable farm sector, many of these countries believed they stood to gain a lot from the EU's common agricultural policy.

In the case of Cyprus, a divided island, the political rationale for joining the EU arises from the long-standing political target of eventual union with Greece. For Cyprus, EU membership would be a vital step towards this goal.

None of these reasons have any relevance to Malta. Clearly, democratic institutions function well here. Malta does not have to turn to the EU as counterbalance against some hegemonic swing in our region.

We have no big farm sector that could "benefit" from the common agricultural policy, nor can our situation be compared in any way to that of Cyprus.

So we are placed in a position where the advantages and disadvantages of any option must be assessed in concrete terms, according to our very particular circumstances. We operate as a micro-society out of a micro-territory.

We are an island in the centre of the Mediterranean, but at a frontier between north and south of the Middle Sea. And for long centuries we served as a fortress on this frontier.

About 30-35 per cent of our economy depends on tourism. Even just on this point no other member or candidate country of the EU has a profile that is remotely similar to ours.

Mention of Luxembourg in such a context is typical of the airy-fairy, ahistorical and superficial generalisations that have always characterised the join-the-EU-at-all-costs brigade. For Luxembourg's historical, geographical and economic situation bears absolutely no comparison with that of Malta.

Labour's argument remains that the application of all the EU's rules and regulations to Malta just does not make sense - seen from the Malta end, of course. As far as Brussels is concerned, their rules are their rules, and those who want to join must apply them. Whence the pronouncements of the top Commission and other EU officials like Mr Verheugen being brought to Malta to take part in the pro-membership campaign. (Elsewhere this does not prevent EU Commission President Romano Prodi and others from labelling some Community rules as "stupid". Presumably, if this is so, it should hardly be surprising that these same "stupid" rules could not fit Malta well.)

For the record, let me repeat once more what the partnership option with the EU will consist of:

A contractual agreement regarding industrial free trade between Malta and the EU. This will give Malta full access to the EU's internal markets for its industrial exports;

In the context of a free trade agreement, there will be mutual concessions on farm exports to be given by both sides. This will be compatible with the 1994 Marrakesh Agreement of the World Trade Agreement and will allow Malta to retain protection for its farm produce considered to be of a strategic importance to our society. Also, Malta will retain its ability to source food goods it does not produce, from international suppliers, at competitive prices. The EU will retain its extensive system of levies and reference prices vis-à-vis a number of Maltese products.

Co-operation agreements in the economic, technical and financial sectors, as well as co-operation in the social sphere, such as for the Environment, Education (including University training and exchanges) and Health;

Co-operation in such security areas as money-laundering, gun-running, drug-smuggling and illegal migration that are all of major concern in the central Mediterranean; and

Political co-operation between the Maltese government and the EU authorities, as well as between the Maltese and the European Parliaments.

Partnership is not only a concrete and feasible option designed according to Malta's circumstances. It also allows for future adaptation and developments according to progress in Malta-EU relations.

In March 1998 the EU agreed to hold talks and conclude such an arrangement with Malta. Since then, major representatives of EU member states have stated that if a Maltese government presents a request to conclude a partnership arrangement on these lines, they would proceed to negotiate. Among those who have spoken in this way in recent years and months were the French, German and British ministers for European affairs, as well as the Luxembourg and Greek prime ministers.

Indeed, there is nothing out of the way in the partnership agreement that I have just profiled. Its features occur in agreements that the EU has already concluded with Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Israel, among others.

Meanwhile The Sunday Times editorial excitedly asks whether Labour expects "the electorate... to give up a package which will bring about immediate tangible benefits, not to mention incalculable medium and long term advantages to our economy (etc.)", as a result of full membership of the EU.

Of course we have been played this song for long years now. Yet at the end of the negotiating process, it has become all to clear that the "immediate tangible benefits" are nowhere to be seen. The editor of The Sunday Times might wish to list them for us.

On a straight partnership to full-membership comparison, here are some of the benefits/disbenefits of both options contrasted:

Both options give Maltese industrial exports full contractual access to EU markets;

Partnership preserves the local market for Maltese agriculture and allows us to continue to buy food at international prices. Full membership removes all protection for our agriculture, which will only survive, if at all, by the infusion of millions of liri to be funded by the Maltese taxpayer. We would also have to buy our food at high EU prices;

Under full membership, self-employed people will be able to come and work in Malta freely, and with regard to European workers who wish to come and work here the Malta government will be able to maintain, for a short transitional period, only vestigial control over the labour market. The matter does not arise under the partnership option;

Under full membership, EU citizens can freely buy up Maltese agricultural land, and can set up companies here to freely buy land and property in Malta. The issue does not arise under the partnership option;

Under full membership, the assertion of Maltese rights over a 25-mile fishing zone outside our shores has been seriously breached in favour of EU fishermen. This issue does not arise under partnership;

Under full membership, Malta has been obliged to accept EU norms, such as for the use of plastic bottles for soft drinks that will create huge new expenses to be funded by Maltese taxpayers and consumers. This issue does not arise under partnership;

Under full membership, we had been promised the arrival annually of some Lm100 million every year by way of EU grants, admittedly a tangible benefit if ever there was one. Now we are told that under EU rules, Malta would have to pay in more to Brussels than it would be getting, but that for an initial three years, the EU will make sure to send in enough monies for a net surplus to result in Malta's favour.

In effect, this will mean that the already highly burdened Maltese taxpayer will be expected to fork out more taxes to fund agencies and regulations required merely to implement Brussels regulations. This issue, one way or the other, does not arise under partnership.

Do I need to go on? It is not about time that the full-membership-at-all-costs-brigade comes clean with the people, especially young people. The time for dewy-eyed mysticism is long past. They need to be clear on the concrete issues involved.

Is it Labour, which is crawling under the table for crumbs, as the Sunday Times editorial pretends? Come on. When a government negotiates under the banner that there is no alternative, it ends up having to accept crumbs all over - which is what is happening now.

At the end of the day, the choice we all face is between two programmes of government. That of the PN which is uniquely centred on full membership of the EU and nothing but that - a real blind alley. And that of Labour, based on a revitalisation of our society and economy, through a partnership strategy that will cover not just our future relations with the EU but also other major countries with whom we should strive to build close and privileged relations.

Only an election can lead us to this decision at this point in time, since it is constitutionally defined, is much less subject to manipulation by the government of the day than a referendum (which remains a tool of government), and allows all sides to explain their programme in more than a yes-no position.

The Sunday Times editorial asks: "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...?"

With all respect, this question itself with its sanctimoniousness, highlights the fundamental flaw at the heart of the arguments advanced by the join-the-EU-at-all-costs-brigade. Between 1996 and 1998, Malta had a democratically elected government whose policy was to push for partnership with the EU. This did not stop the Editor of the Sunday Times from lobbying against the partnership policy and arguing in favour of full EU membership. I for one never imagined, and never argued, that he was doing this out of pique. Why should he then - if he wishes to be considered as a reasonable analyst and commentator - try to instill the belief that those who disagree sincerely with his preferred option are acting out of pique?

There might come a day when the paid-up members of the join-the-EU-at-all-costs brigade will bitterly regret the poison they are unnecessarily injecting into our society over the still controversial debate regarding the future of Malta's relations with the EU.

But to go back to the final question posed in the editorial: I consider myself to be as European as anybody one might care to name in Malta. I cherish the European tradition and way of life. And I consider that the best contribution I can make to Malta and to Europe is to go on pushing as hard as I can within the Labour Movement, for Malta to have a partnership with the EU.

My huge responsibility and the huge challenge is to ensure that such a partnership is achieved in the best interests of Malta and of Europe, as I believe it can and should and will be achieved.