Twenty years after Malta joined the EU, some of the key players interviewed for a Times of Malta documentary tell Mark Laurence Zammit about the tension and excitement in the air as those historic events were unfolding.

A sizeable movement of people within the Labour Party wanted Alfred Sant to turn in favour of Malta joining the EU after the 2003 referendum and just before the election that year, according to Joseph Muscat.

“It was not just a few people, and they were arguing that the PL should acknowledge that the Maltese wanted to join the EU and that the party should change its policy ahead of the general election a few weeks later,” he recalled.

“The opposing movement within the PL was arguing that would be too radical of a U-turn and would lose us all credibility. I was among those insisting we should recognise what the people wanted but at the same time acknowledged our credibility would have taken a hit with such an overnight change in policy.”

Muscat, who then worked for the PL media arm and was part of the party’s administration, was speaking in an interview for a documentary on the 20th anniversary of Malta’s accession into the EU.

In the 18-minute Times of Malta documentary, former prime ministers Alfred Sant, Lawrence Gonzi and Joseph Muscat, then journalist Miriam Dalli and then campaigner Simon Busuttil, and Times of Malta editor-in-chief Herman Grech recall the intense yet exciting historic referendum and election campaigns, while psychology professor Gordon Sammut and economist Marie Briguglio look back on how Malta has changed in its 20 years as an EU member state.

Much of the intense fight over whether Malta should join the EU was about people’s desire to feel European, as opposed to Arabs, former country leaders, key campaign players and analysts have said 20 years on.

This was not necessarily right or even true, but it was a major driving force nonetheless, they told Times of Malta when interviewed for a 20th anniversary documentary on one of the most intense periods in Malta’s history.

Former prime minister Lawrence Gonzi said when people voted for Malta to join the bloc, they were strongly declaring that they felt European and wanted to be part of Europe’s values and principles.

“For some moments there were people who wanted us to be part of the Arab world,” he said. “But that vote closed that debate once and for all.”

Researcher and associate professor of social psychology Gordon Sammut is convinced that what drove us to that decision was “our desire to be anything other than Arab”.

“Our attitudes were more positively inclined to what was happening in Europe, which was made up of developed, democratic and capitalist countries, rather than to what we were seeing in dictatorial regimes, authoritarian systems and developing countries [in Africa],” he said.

“Countries to our north were more affluent and it doesn’t hurt to be on the side of the ones who have the means.”

‘Europeans already’

For the man who spearheaded the entire partnership campaign, however, that should have never been made the issue.

Reminiscing on those times, Alfred Sant told Times of Malta the Maltese did not need to join the EU to be Europeans – they were Europeans already.

“That’s why back then we would fight the rhetoric that was being pushed, that we would be ‘joining Europe’. We would not. We would be joining the European Union, we used to say,” he recalled.

“The inferiority complex in some sections of society back then drove the population’s enthusiasm to join the EU.”

‘Below the belt’

Former prime minister Joseph Muscat – who back then worked for the PL media and was in the party administration – said the PN’s strategy was leading people to believe they were choosing whether they wanted to be Europeans or Libyans, even though that was not what the choice was about – a tactic he described as “genial”, but “below the belt”.

“In the minds of many people the choice was between a Christian Europe with liberal values or something else, and many people needed to be in the EU to feel European,” Muscat said.

“It’s part of a post-colonial mindset, I believe, where people feel like they need to be part of something to feel that they are someone.”

But the PN wrongly sold EU membership as a utopia and failed to acknowledge the problems it would create, he added.

Gonzi said irrespective of the arguments for or against, history proved the Nationalist Party right 20 years on.

“Today we look back, smile, and say, ‘You see? We were right’. The country got all that it was promised from its full membership in the EU and even more,” he said.

“That historic moment 20 years ago might have been as significant as gaining independence in 1964.”

‘Partnership better’

Sant is not at all convinced, and 20 years on, he still believes Malta would have been in a much better place had it negotiated a partnership deal.

He wanted to make Malta a Switzerland in the Mediterranean, and look at Switzerland now, he said – it is doing better than the EU.

“The EU is not the only benchmark of success. It has done some great things, such as unite global economies and eradicate war from central

Europe, but let’s not delude ourselves that’s it’s some Nirvana,” he said.

“I was never against the EU. It’s a good concept and we need to have the best relationship with it, in a way that would give us the greatest benefit without forcing us to abide by rules that just don’t work for small island states like us.

“Just look at what we’re doing best at – financial services, gaming and tourism – the sectors that are least regulated by the EU. Then look at agriculture and industry, for instance, where EU regulation is heaver. Those sectors are ailing. I think that argument stands on its own.”

‘PN offered vision’ – Joseph Muscat

Joseph Muscat admitted, however, that the PN was stronger than Labour because it was offering people a vision into the future – a vision “that couldn’t be challenged”.

“It’s no surprise, then, that the last time the PN got a majority of votes in any election was in that year. It hasn’t managed to get a majority of votes since then,” he said.

“Back then, Labour also miscalculated the economic effect of EU membership. The party was too focused on how much money we would get from the EU and how much money we would need to fork out, but that’s not a good argument. EU membership attracts investment to the country, and that’s what matters. Labour did not give that enough importance, Sant was mistaken there.”

‘Divisive, intense’

Anyone who was involved, even in the slightest way, in campaigning and reporting at the time admits it was a very intense and divisive period in history, but exciting nonetheless.

Times of Malta editor-in-chief Herman Grech had just joined the organisation as a reporter when Sant rose to power in 1996 and froze Malta’s application to join the EU.

“We were witnessing one drama after another, especially when, two years later, he was kicked out of government and the PN was re-elected to power,” Grech recalled.

“We were close to journalists from other newsrooms – I remember Miriam Dalli and Julia Farrugia Portelli back then – but as the years went by and the campaign got more intense, the atmosphere became increasingly emotional and it was harder to find issues on which we agreed. For the first time I began to notice cracks in journalists’ friendships.

Minister Miriam Dalli – back then a ONE news reporter – also recalled the intense atmosphere and said the emotions were “a bit charged, on both sides”.

“It was very intensive. I was never against Malta joining the EU, I was simply unconvinced the we were prepared for it,” she said.

“In hindsight, we joined, we’ve been through our own journey and I must say that from my time there I could observe that all Maltese MEPs punch way above their weight, compared to the other MEPs.

“Just look at the president of the EU parliament – she’s Maltese. I think that speaks volumes about what the Maltese can do, no?”

‘Needlessly divisive’

Former PN leader and MEP Simon Busuttil was a young, avid campaigner for the ‘yes’ camp back then and said that period was needlessly divisive.

“People were divided on an issue that should have never divided them. So much so that today, everybody accepts that it was a good decision to join the EU,” he said.

“Our country made strides forward, not least because our families are now also EU citizens. We have a better economy, better infrastructure and so many more rights and opportunities.”

Muscat said the period leading up to the referendum was one of the few times people in the streets and in their homes were genuinely engaged and interested in a political discussion that went beyond the politicians.

“It was one of the only times when politics really went to the people,” he said.

Referendum split

Grech and Dalli also recalled where they were when they heard both parties had declared victory in the EU referendum in 2003.

“It was a very long night in the counting hall and when the results started to come out it was clear that the ‘yes’ vote had won. But as I drove back to the newsroom from the counting hall I got a call from my editor who told me to rush to Marsa where Sant was going to declare victory,” Grech said.

“I was very confused as to what was going on. The atmosphere in Marsa turned intense and it could have become very dangerous.”

Dalli had just returned home from the counting hall and was watching television with her mother.

“I began to hear that both the sides won, and I thought to myself, ‘this cannot be true, right? One side must have won. They couldn’t have both won,” Dalli recalled.

Sant explained why he had declared victory.

The party was an underdog, he said. All resources were controlled by the government and the situation was stacked against the partnership campaign, as the PN designed the referendum question unfairly.

“The referendum asked people: this is the package the government negotiated. Do you want it or not? Whereas the question should have been – do you prefer PN’s membership or PL’s partnership? That’s different,” he said.

“So, we argued that for the ‘yes’ vote to be valid, the PN had to obtain, not the majority of votes cast, but the majority of all the votes there are. That is why I, for instance, did not vote and made it public. Those who did not vote or spoiled their vote were declaring they were not in favour of the PN membership package.”

The PN did obtain the majority of votes cast, but not the majority of all votes that could have been cast, and that’s why Sant decided it was fair to call it a win.

Looking back, Muscat said he was not surprised that it happened. Labour had long been warning it would interpret the result this way and Eddie Fenech Adami was wise enough to ignore those arguments and call a general election immediately after the referendum result.

That is when a sizeable movement in the PL began to push Sant to acknowledge the people’s will and change its policy, while an opposing movement feared the overnight U-turn would be too radical and would lose the party all credibility.

“I don’t regret any of it because after the election, Labour was not heard-headed, accepted the people’s decision and moved forward. And this was credit to Alfred Sant,” he said.

“Labour was seriously risking being deeply divided had it not been steered in the right direction back then.”

He added that for the PN, however, steering Malta into the EU was – as professor Joe Friggieri described it – opening a window into a new era and getting swept away by the wind that enters.

“Steering Malta into the EU brought about a wave of liberal ideas that created deep, existential conflicts within the PN that the party is still struggling to resolve,” he said.

20 years on

Professor Gordon Sammut said 20 years on, the social fabric has greatly changed, but in many ways has not changed at all.

“We’re still stuck in traffic but the roads aren’t broken. A lot of people are at the bottom end and were struggling, and are still struggling in different ways today. The difference in the past was between the ‘have’s’ and ‘have nots’, whereas today it is between the ‘have’s’ and the ‘have mores’,” he said.

“We have leapt from developing to developed, but we haven’t necessarily espoused the values of developed countries. And this is creating a discrepancy between what we value as Maltese Europeans and what the rest of Europe values.”

Economist Marie Briguglio, who back then ran a series of TV programmes on the EU, said “there is nothing that remained untouched by the EU, because when you’re affecting the way a country is governed, you’re affecting everything.

“You can really appreciate what the EU does by looking at what it doesn’t do. In those areas where the EU doesn’t have a remit, you feel the difference,” she said.

“The EU regulates air and water quality monitoring and treatment of sewage water, for instance, and in all those areas we’ve seen a huge positive change. Conversely, an area the EU does not have a remit over is noise, for instance, and we still struggle with it. We still have loud petards, neighbourhood noise, industry and households trying to co-exist... it’s a very noisy country.”

Sammut said the Maltese have a good understanding of their past and where they are at the moment, but do not really know where to go from here.

“We’re still a very young nation who are still trying to build ourselves from the calamities of our colonial history. One day or another we’re going to have these issues. How we resolve them determines what kind of people the Maltese are going to be 20 years from now.”