Why Europeans favour EU

I was recently in Malta and listened to an address by Mr R. Matrenza delivered to members of CNI and broadcast on a local TV station. Mr Matrenza urged his audience to talk to Germans, Spaniards, Italians, French, etc., to realise how unhappy they are with the European project. Presumably this proposal would entail travelling to each country in a quest for truth.

Well, this is precisely what an ex- British Conservative minister has recently done. A British TV programme showed Michael Portillo, a confirmed Eurosceptic, on a tour of several European countries interviewing people prominent in their professions and trade, and ordinary men and women from all walks of life.

To his embarrassment and poorly concealed astonishment, Mr Portillo could not find one person who spoke against Europe. He was gently rebuffed by some who found it difficult to understand his opposition to European integration and others thought that his views, considering his Spanish-British parentage, were rather odd.

The two overriding reasons which explained the pro-Europe attitude of the people interviewed were the availability of a free market guaranteed by political union for over 350 million people and the cessation of the deep rivalries and devastating conflicts of the past.

Mr Portillo's beliefs were visibly shaken and must have received another knock recently by the statement from the TUC General Council calling for Britain to join the euro. BBC News announced recently the closure of the Massey Ferguson tractor factory because Britain is not in the Eurozone and Toyota have chosen France instead to build a new engine factory for the opposite reason. Perhaps this explains the concern of the TUC.

Mr Matrenza then turned his attention to the Brussels bureaucracy and apparently chose to label the European Commissioners, dignitaries, MEPs, as "fat cats", a term he borrowed from rabidly right-wing British Eurosceptic Conservatives, a dying breed, who are in the habit of condemning anything that emanates from Brussels, presumably even Belgian chocolates.

According to some economists and leading US commentators, Europe looks much like America in 1992 - poised for a "productivity miracle". It has been described as the most dynamic region in the world in the past decade and the European economic and political miracle is unstoppable. The emerging European economy is now more populous than the US and nearly as wealthy. The euro is the issuing currency for one-third of all bonds sold worldwide.

The political impetus to unite received a further boost in April. The World Economic Forum invited 1,000 Europeans aged 18 to 25 to Copenhagen to introduce the voice of youth into the constitutional debate. They proposed a "full-fledged European government with a directly elected President and an open welcome to all aspiring EU members, including Muslim Turkey."

If the above is the result of the work of the "fat cats" in Brussels, which unquestionably it is, then let us have as many "fat cats" as possible in any administration rather than "lean cats".

Mr Matrenza complained that Maltese young people are being lured into Europe. I see no reason why they should not be. Their future lies in Europe, as Malta is part of Europe. Together with other European youths, unburdened by the fossilised views of the old, they perhaps will be able to take part in directing the future course of the Continent.

At present they are handicapped by paying twice the costs for their postgraduate studies abroad as their European counterparts and having to obtain permits to work in Europe. If, by misfortune, Malta is hit by a deep economic recession, unemployment figures may soar and the young may feel caged in without an outlet for possible employment abroad.

The issue of full sovereignty came to the fore in the CNI meeting. The fear that foreigners may govern Malta is a real or imagined one depending on one's views of Europe. There is no indication that the large nations of Europe are engaged in bullying the smaller ones. The success of Europe has been essentially due the collective way of dealing with problems, a willingness to meet the basic requirements of each country and the provision of help, financial or otherwise, to those that are in need of it.

In the British referendum of 1975 to test the willingness of the British people to remain in Europe and which the pro-Europeans won by two to one, one of the Yes campaign documents read as follows: "Sovereignty is not a dry legal theory but had to be tested in the wider context of British interest in the world. The best way is to work with our friends and neighbours. If Britain now said No, the Community would go on taking decisions which affect us vitally but we should have no say in them. We would be clinging to the shadow of British sovereignty while its substance flies out of the window." These words would not be amiss in the context of the Malta referendum.

It is interesting to note that different polls conducted at the time put the sovereignty or national independence issue well below the other priorities deemed important by the public.

In today's Europe there is a greater sense of community spirit between countries than at any other time in European history. One has only to compare the Europe of today with the one before World War Two. To regulate a vast market it was important to lay down certain rules and regulations by which every country has to abide and the introduction of some form of political union was essential for the European project to survive. Giving up part of one's sovereignty or prerogatives means also that there is a willingness to co-operate.

EU legislation covers what are loosely termed cross-border laws. Competition law, e-commerce and labour laws have an international dimension and are essential elements in regulating free trade between European nations. It is up to the Maltese electorate to decide once the terms of entry to Europe are known. What is important is that the information given to the public should be the correct one and not clouded by political leanings.