Sant expects a gigantic national act of faith

As I foresaw, Dr Alfred Sant took strong exception to my article, "The MLP and the EU: the politics of creative illusion" (The Sunday Times, December 29). After all, home truths often raise the ire of the recipient. Even though Dr Sant picked and chose what points of criticism in my article to attempt to answer, he did at least make clear, as I will show later, what he expects from the Maltese electorate.

Dr Sant sarcastically thanked me for my statement that his opposition to the EU is born of conviction and that he is entitled to his view and to propagate it. The point I was making went beyond the democratically obvious. I was making clear that anyone who hopes that if Dr Sant is returned to power he will change his anti-EU membership stance would be disappointed. EU membership is not analogous to the 1996 cash-register scenario. In this case what you see is what you'll get.

Left unanswered

But to the gist of my article and Dr Sant's reaction. Let us first look at the points that he so conveniently overlooked. I wrote that: 1) in the past Dr Sant first stated that the government had a mandate to take Malta into the EU but later changed his mind; 2) he has always used the meaningless term "full membership" in an effort to mislead people into thinking that there is some other form of membership; 3) Malta as an EU member will help to shape policy rather than simply be at the receiving end of it; 4) Switzerland-in-the-Mediterranean had metamorphosed into partnership because in today's world it is meaningless; 5) the MLP continually plays the underdog with regard to the mass media, conveniently forgetting that it has very adequate means of conveying its message, including the ample space provided regularly to it by the English-language media that Dr Sant so disparages; 6) in spite of repeatedly speaking of democracy and transparency as if he owned both, he refuses to accept the people's verdict, on Malta's EU membership, as expressed in a national referendum, and that this implies that he is expecting a 'Yes' vote; 7) if the MLP order a boycott of the referendum this will be done to coerce pro-EU Labour voters into not being seen to go against party directives; and 8) that this is tantamount to depriving such voters of their right to the secrecy of the ballot.

Dr Sant attempts no answer to any of the above. However, it is an acknowledged debating tactic that when one has no answer to an argument one conveniently overlooks it in the hope that listeners or readers will forget about it. It is, however, an indirect but clear concession that one has no effective answer. Let the readers judge.

Denying the obvious

Now to the points to which Dr Sant attempts an answer. I accused him and the MLP of targeting individuals and mentioned the people working at the MIC as an example. Dr Sant retorts that I want the MIC to "remain outside the pale of criticism by the Opposition. How convenient!"

Nothing of the sort. I spoke of individuals, not publicly funded institutions. What I was saying is, don't turn your party hate machine on individuals who are merely guilty of doing their job to the best of their ability as they have every right to do. The instances of individuals so targeted by the MLP are numerous and well documented. Readers can judge for themselves.

I wrote that the Switzerland-in-the-Mediterranean concept was of 1959 vintage, was Mr Mintoff's creation and that it was meaningless in today's geopolitical reality. (Incidentally the latter has been admitted publicly by Mr Mintoff himself).

Dr Sant's answer is simply to state that this is "untrue". He then cites two MLP policy documents as proof. Proof of what? That Switzerland-in-the-Mediterranean has any geopolitical reality? Then why suddenly drop it and squirm when it's mentioned? Proof that it was not lifted from Mr Mintoff? I am prepared to accept this, but Dr Sant should at least acknowledge how great the coincidence is.

As to my contention, supported by every EU official of standing who has been asked about it, that Romano Prodi's statements with regard to partnership with the EU are not aimed in Malta's direction, Dr Sant quotes Giuliano Amato as writing that, once Malta will no longer be in contention as a member, the EU would be prepared to negotiate with a Labour government over partnership.

Of course it would. But since when has negotiating meant that one side picks and chooses what is to its own advantage, carefully discarding any possible burdens, and the other merely concedes?

I hope Dr Sant is not going to claim that I am stretching this. The constant MLP spots about partnership leave no room for doubt. Having offered Malta membership and a place at the decision-making centre, why should the EU be over-eager, should we be foolish enough to reject the offer, to go to any trouble to accommodate Malta by fulfilling Dr Sant's wish-list?

No misinterpretation

With regard to my quotations, from the minutes of the 10th meeting of the EC-Malta Association Council in 1998, underlining the clear stand taken by the EU that Malta will not be able to pick and choose an agreement weighted in Malta's favour, Dr Sant asks where I got this idea from?

If the agreement the MLP seeks in lieu of membership is not going to be weighted in Malta's favour, where are the advantages that the MLP have been trumpeting for so long and which we are to await with bated breath?

He also accuses me of choosing to misread the text saying that the EU accepted to give Malta a breathing space. Breathing space means, I take it, transition periods, or am I misreading again? A transition period during which, I quote Dr Sant, "the obligations and benefits would be introduced after a reasonable period of years". This, he adds, "had been Labour's intention right from the start".

Two questions: Where was this emphasis on obligations (Dr Sant even puts it before benefits) ever publicly put by the MLP? How is it that now that the government has successfully negotiated a number of transition periods that will accompany the obligations and benefits of membership, Dr Sant cannot see any advantage in them?

Dr Sant refers to my quotation from the above-mentioned document regarding "certain Community programmes" that in the case of Malta would be "considered on a case by case basis, under the conditions provided for in these programmes for third country participation". This is so clear that there's little Dr Sant can say besides that "under full membership... Malta will in practice be financing its participation in 'certain Community programmes' ". How convenient of him to overlook that Malta will participate in all programmes; and that Malta will have a determining say (I know this phrase will upset Dr Sant, but truth will out) in fashioning the next EU budget.

My contention, amply illustrated, of the MLP's doom and gloom approach to membership, is "for the sake of brevity", answered by regurgitating the claim regarding the threatened swoop of EU citizens fighting over each other to get at our land, ignoring completely the special arrangement negotiated in this respect.

Not that this wilful oversight is surprising. We have been witnessing the misinterpretation of this successful element of the accession negotiations as part of what has been described by Lino Spiteri as a pre-prepared reaction. This includes the risible claim that Malta will be getting only Lm1.5 million annually under the agreement reached.

The partnership option

I stated that Dr Sant has no answers to the inconvenient questions he is asked about partnership. He directed us to various written replies he has given. However, once we read them we are back were we started. He speaks of objectives and desires in contrast to textually spelled out conditions already negotiated. Yet he accuses me "of playing the game that Labour's alternative is unknown" when the end product is totally unknown. What we do know, and I have never denied this, is what the MLP would like to achieve.

Dr Sant is kind enough to lecture me that "as a professor of international relations [I] should know that governments and international organisations do not negotiate with Oppositions". My point exactly. The MLP can only present the Maltese electorate with what they optimistically hope to achieve, which in the light of all we have heard and read, amounts to mere pie in the sky.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. I am not contesting the MLP's right to present partnership as a viable alternative to membership. The problem lies in the fact that it will result in putting the clock back. Let me elaborate.

In 1998 the present government was elected on a platform to seek EU membership. We knew that in essence this meant that the EU would put before us its membership conditions, as it has done in relation to all states seeking accession, past or present. Negotiations are then held during which the candidate country tries to strike a deal in relation to the acquis that is as advantageous to it as possible. Malta has gone through this process, the deal has been struck and we know the result.

Today the MLP is in exactly the same position as the PN was in 1998. They have an objective: partnership with the EU. They hope to start negotiating and finally reach a deal which, they claim, will be superior to the one we have. What, in practical terms, does this mean? It means that the MLP cannot offer anything concrete to the electorate for years to come.

In the meantime Malta will endure a long period of uncertainty as to what will finally be agreed, while the rest of a united Europe will pass us by as we try to negotiate a partnership that is already on offer to countries who cannot be members of the EU. Yet Dr Sant persists in advising 'people to know the facts'. Exactly which facts, may I ask?

Malta and Switzerland

Finally, Dr Sant lauds the successful alternative arrangements negotiated by Norway and Switzerland with the EU. This "has allowed them to stay ahead in the competitive game, and to maintain rates of economic growth and living standards that surpass those of the EU". I understand the use of "maintain" as an acknowledgement that their living standards and economic growth had always surpassed those of the EU.

Besides making one wonder how Malta can be compared to Norway and Switzerland in this respect, I think it is worth reproducing some of the statements made by the present Swiss Ambassador to Malta, Alexis Lautenberg, in an interview he gave to The Times (November 22).

Mr Lautenberg prefaced his remarks by stating that the Swiss government remained in favour of EU membership but that negotiations had been shelved because the people had expressed themselves against. "In Switzerland," he said, "when the people speak in a referendum the verdict is always respected."

Membership for Malta, he said, made sense because Malta would participate in the decision-making process. "It is difficult nowadays to advocate even from a medium-sized country the compatibility of totally different rules in a set-up of continental dimensions. You can stay out, but then don't believe that you don't have to adhere to the rules."

With regard to his own country he states: "In many cases we adopt those rules without participating in the decision-making process." With direct reference to the MLP's alternative he stated: "I wouldn't say what has been negotiated with the EU can be transposed to another country... there is a tendency for the EU to reduce the number of models. The only institutionalised model that exists is the European Economic Area agreement that presupposes the acceptance of the entire acquis." He added: "What I can say is that there is a tendency from the side of the EU to harmonise third country relations in one way or another precisely to avoid having an à la carte solution with any particular country."

With regard to the agreements Switzerland negotiated with the EU (negotiations began in 1994 and the agreements entered into force in June 2002), Mr Lautenberg said that "they cover the area of free movement of persons, where we accepted to take on board the full acquis together with a certain mechanism to reduce the risk of an influx of workers".

There was a great fear in this regard that Switzerland would be swamped by foreign workers but, he said, "the effect has been absolutely negligible. On this account I can be very frank. I don't think that in Europe there is a major threat on this front."

I need hardly add that Mr Lautenberg has no EU axe to grind and that he was careful throughout to remain diplomatically correct. I sincerely hope that Dr Sant is not going to tell us not to take Mr Lautenberg's words at face value.

National act of faith

The situation in Malta today is this. The MLP has declared itself against EU membership and Dr Sant has repeatedly emphasised that he will not recognise the people's will expressed through a referendum. He seems to hope that even if the majority votes in favour of EU membership they will still vote him into office knowing that he will withdraw Malta's candidature. To many people, including a number I know who, the EU issue apart, sympathise with the MLP, this amounts to a determination by Dr Sant that if he goes down he will take the ship with him.

If the MLP is returned to power they will begin to negotiate. It took the Swiss seven years. Other negotiations are still taking place. If we start to negotiate in 2004, which is highly unlikely since the EU will be taken up with the mechanics of enlargement, we would be lucky if we were to find out what the deal will entail, as Ranier Fsadni so cogently argued (The Times, December 19), before 2010.

In the meantime we will continue to stew in our own juice knowing that if in another 15 years' time we might again have the chance to join the EU, we will only do so on conditions that have become progressively tougher with each succeeding enlargement. We will face an expanded acquis in whose formation we had no say.

The choice before us is a stark one. Either EU membership in 2004 on terms that are clear and agreed upon, or accept Dr Sant's word that he should be given the chance to negotiate a nebulous partnership deal that will be more advantageous to Malta than membership, although membership gives us a say in EU policy, in the EU budget and in the formulation of and participation in, all EU programmes.

Put another way. We are being asked either to decide to be part of the movement towards European unity on known terms and conditions, or to make a gigantic national act of faith by putting our trust in Dr Sant's self-proclaimed superior negotiating skills. It is so solely because Dr Sant says it is. Whose words are we being asked to take at face value?

Professor Pirotta is head of the Department of International Relations at the University of Malta