Politics of exclusion

When the history of Malta's democracy is written, the Malta Labour Party will not receive many honourable mentions. The dark years of their minority rule, of official and unofficial thuggery, are seared in the national memory.

So are the burning to the ground of The Times building and the other unsavoury events that are the permanent legacy and shame of the party. With this luggage and with their dependence on a new image, you would think that they would go the extra mile to gain democratic credentials, or to create at least the aura of openness and inclusion. Hardly!

"Anyone who does not conserve unity in the Labour Party will find me and all the Labour Party against him." Last Sunday those were the stern words of Opposition Leader Alfred Sant, apparently setting the parameters for the debate that is supposed to determine the party's position on VAT.

Since the VAT issue will be put to the party delegates' vote, we had hoped for a free exchange of opinions culminating in an unencumbered vote. For the sake of the country, the Labour Party must look at VAT in a dispassionate way, free of the old obsessions. Dr Sant's summons to party unity should come after the vote, not before. Why the attempt to cut down the dissent now, before the debate or the vote?

Look at it from another angle. From the point of view of the Leader of the Opposition, who is not conserving party unity? Is he referring to those who are speaking out for VAT? Why not those speaking out against VAT? After all, why should the expression of any view on tax matters get you blamed for damaging party unity?

One would hope that Dr Sant's Labour Party should be a big enough tent to hold different opinions, where errant views on such matters as tax systems or EU membership are persuaded back into the fold once the party has decided on an issue. Not one where the dissidents have to face Alfred Sant, metaphoric sword in hand, standing in the way with a retinue of Party stalwarts behind him.

More exclusion

Last week's parliamentary debate about extending voting rights to Maltese who are living abroad showed further that participatory democracy does not sit well with Dr Sant's Labour Party. There is something about the politics of inclusion that is alien to the party.

That is why it is so natural for the Opposition to block missionaries abroad from voting in our elections. Labourites used the excuse that National Insurance should be necessary for the right to vote. What about the thousands of housewives and others who are not on the social security rolls? Are they any less committed to the nation?

The Government side offered to concede on the issue of missionaries, in the interest of not leaving out other categories, such as students and workers. But the Opposition would not budge. Therefore, those who are abroad for medical, study or work-related reasons will stay disenfranchised. Apparently, the Labour Party is turning paranoid.

On the EU referendum, Dr Sant stated again during the week that the Labour Party was uninterested in the results. It just goes to show how responsive the Labour Party is to the voice of the people.

The Freeport

As soon as he became Prime Minister in 1996, Alfred Sant stopped bad-mouthing Marin Hili. Indeed, he actually retained Mr Hili as Freeport chairman for the entire Labour term.

However, the Labour leader is so set in his ways that he tends to revisit the past. Labour is now claiming that the Freeport chairman has a conflict of interest, because his private company has recently bought shares in a port in Venice. They stretch their argument to suggest that it is the Freeport that should have bought those shares!

The truth, however, is something else. Our Freeport and the Venice port operate in different markets. The Freeport is into transhipment whereas the Venice port is not. Venice is located over 700 miles off the normal hubbing routes, making it absolutely not feasible for it to enter the transhipment circuit.

Secondly, it is unable to cater for vessels that require a seawater depth of more than 12 metres. This logistical limitation rules out the servicing of the vast majority of ships operating in the transhipment field. Mr Hili will not have to choose between what is good for Venice and what is good for the Freeport.

One more point. Labour's charge is proof of crass hypocrisy. Because when the last Labour government correctly chose to retain Mr Hili as chairman, he already had private interests in another port, that of Latvia.

Back then the Labour government saw no conflict of interest. Now they do.

EU and external trade

Noel Farrugia wrote recently in a Labour party medium that "one of the most regrettable features of the Nationalist government's obsession with the European Union has been the way in which Malta's relationship with the countries of North Africa has been relegated to the sidelines."

Not true. The absence of trade agreements between Malta and the North African states is not a new phenomenon. While Malta has had an Association Agreement with the EU since 1970, we have no trade agreement with any North African country. However, the prospects for our North African trade will improve dramatically with EU membership. As EU members we automatically become party to all the EU's trade agreements. To suggest that EU membership will hurt our export business in North Africa is the opposite of the truth.

In fact, no other bilateral trade agreement was finalised by Malta after 1970. The explanation is that the very small Maltese internal market presents few opportunities for exporters in other countries. These other countries are generally larger than Malta, and they will feel that the cost of opening up their own markets to Maltese exporters is not compensated by increased opportunities that Malta can offer to their exporters. This is a fact of life!

EU membership would allow Malta to tap not only the entire EU market, which upon enlargement is deemed to become the largest market of the world, but also the markets of other countries with whom the EU has drawn up preferential trade agreements.

Around us, the EU has such agreements with Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. The EU is also negotiating agreements with, among others, Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Not included in these lists are the EU's trade agreements with countries in other parts of the world.

Upon EU membership, our access will improve immediately in the countries with which the EU has trade agreements. What is the Labour Party offering instead? According to Mr Farrugia, "through Labour's EU partnership policy (Malta) can develop optimal ties with all Mediterranean countries, both European and Arab. The Mediterranean free trade area as from 2010 will consolidate economic co-operation between Europe and North Africa."

Thus, the Labour Party's alternative to membership in 2004 is a 2010 target for agreements with a much smaller number of markets. This translates itself into six years of missed opportunities for better trade relations with our North African neighbours.

To get to the Labour Party's target, Malta would have to negotiate free trade agreements on its own with each Mediterranean country, without the benefit of the EU bargaining strength. What Malta has not done in 30 years will be accomplished by Dr Sant in no time at all.

To top it all, compared to the other Mediterranean neighbours, Malta is one of the richest, meaning that we will be ineligible for most EU funds destined to the countries participating the Euro-Med process. None of the benefits of EU membership, with just some of the gains from Euro-Med participation. What a deal!