In his opinion piece of December 8, my friend Evarist Bartolo argued for the retention of the veto within the EU. He has always been anti-EU membership. In fact, while I was toiling away in Brussels between 1992 and 1996 trying to convince the EU member states and institutions that Malta belonged to the EU because our democracy, threatened during the days of the Mintoff governments, demanded the protection of a larger institution and family of nations, he was on the side of the ‘No’ vote.

Yes, it’s true that smaller member states lose much of their independence when they join a pact and sign a treaty sharing their sovereignty, as Malta did in 2004.

So, now, after 20 years of membership the EU is proposing to eliminate the EU veto as a condition for further enlargement. Malta is facing a moment of truth.

Hungary’s blackmail towards the EU by vetoing aid to Ukraine is a case in point. Hungary has been punished for flouting the rule of law and press freedom values of the EU. It has had EU funds due to it blocked. To unblock these funds Hungary should change its anti-rule of law legislation, but instead it resorts to blackmail by blocking the EU from agreeing to fund the Ukraine war effort.

Hungary is misusing the veto and there is no way around the dilemma.

Since the 27 all want the EU to grow larger in order to compete with China and the US and to face the threat of Russia together, enlargement is necessary. The ability of the EU to function smoothly in matters of defence, external relations and fiscal and financial management is a necessity. The veto with 30 plus members becomes a nightmare.

There are two ways to eliminate the veto. One is to have an agreement among all the 27 member states that all future decisions in all areas should be made by qualified or simple majority. This does not look too promising a path. The other method would be for those in favour of eliminating the veto to create a two-tier system whereby those willing to move forward will be in the first group.

Here, there will be no veto but also all the funds paid in by these members to the EU will flow back towards those first-tier members only. The second tier will still be free to join decisions of the first tier where they agree and to decline to join where they disagree but these countries will only benefit from funds collected by the EU from the tier two members. They will also have full access to the single market and to all the areas today covered by majority voting.  

Did we really join the EU to ensure access to the single market, global protection in the economic and social war that is going on between the EU and China, Russia and the US? Or did we join for more mundane and economic reasons alone?

Democracy is based on the rule of the majority and free elections within reasonable time frames. The same with the EU. It is not democratic to have a political and defence, finance and social Union if progress can be stopped by any member. The UK found this out and decided to leave the Union. If some other nations do not like the prospect of the EU eliminating the veto completely in the next five years, then it is up to those countries to decide whether to stay or to leave.

The veto with 30 plus EU members becomes a nightmare- John Vassallo

Staying has many benefits but also downsides, as we can see with the transhipment business or the huge cruise liner business, money-laundering business and, soon, the gambling business. These are under threat by directives and regulations passed for the common good, for the environment, financial and fiscal fairness and social protection.

This is what is happening on the transhipment front. Until the environment became the global threat it is today it was all well and good to invest in a freeport that attracted huge container ships for customs-free storage and transhipment across the Atlantic and Pacific towards the EU and Africa and we made lots of money from it.

But, now, whether we like it or not, the environmental damage caused by these huge sea monsters spewing heavy fuel emissions across the world has to be compensated through a tax levied on them as they enter EU waters. Of course, the answer is to have smaller container ships sailing on hydrogen motors that do not emit CO2. In fact, the Baltic Sea has already forced most ferries and cargo ships to move in this direction. We should follow in the Mediterranean.

With the Middle East war and the rerouting of transport round the Cape we will lose trade anyway. Why not turn the freeport into a tourist liner berthing zone, thus freeing the Grand Harbour from encroachment by these fuel spewing monsters? If Venice did this so can we.

Malta has been living and making a living by enacting laws that make activities that are normally illegal elsewhere within the EU to be legal in Malta and operators have been enticed to Malta to utilise the right of establishment of the EU in the internal market. With the EU of the future, a veto- free environmental super conscious area of free movement of people, finance, goods and services Malta has to come in line.

I hope we decide to come in line and learn to compete on equal terms with our friends within the EU. The other alternative is to do a Malexit, cross our fingers and hope for the best.

A coalition of small veto-friendly countries to block progress in the EU will mean the break-up of the EU into two tiers with severe consequences for those left out of tier one.

John Vassallo is a fromer ambassador to the EU.