Why GWU should not have taken anti-EU stand

Peter Paul Barbara is one of the many experts commissioned by the General Workers Union to draw up reports which analysed the impact of EU membership on its members. In a telephone interview with Ariadne Massa, Mr Barbara voices his opinion on the GWU's anti-EU slogan Int Ma Jaqbillekx and without spelling out how he will vote in the referendum, expresses his belief that Malta's future lies in the EU.

What was and is your current role within the GWU?

I have been employed as the GWU EU desk officer since 1999 but last March I changed jobs and I now work there on a part-time basis. Besides setting up an EU-related library and updating other officials on EU affairs, on several occasions I represented the GWU at the Malta EU Steering Action Committee.

When did the GWU commission the reports?

From time to time the union commissions reports on every subject which it feels concerns its members. This takes place on an ad hoc basis. If I remember correctly, the reports currently being referred to in the media were commissioned between the second half of 1999 and 2000.

How many reports were drawn up and why so many? How many different people were responsible for drawing up the reports?

There were a number of reports commissioned by the GWU and the idea of each one was to gauge the impact that each chapter of the EU's legislation would have on GWU members.

I do not think it is ethical to mention or indicate the people who drew up the reports. Besides those splashed in the media and others I know of, the reports were compiled by experts in their field.

I can only show and express my sympathy with those unlucky few, whose name, like mine, has been dragged into the political arena. The least I can do at this stage is to protect those who still wish to remain anonymous.

There were other reports commissioned to other people on different parts of the acquis communautaire, but to my knowledge some of them never materialised since the authors failed to complete them. In any case, since the union had decided on its anti-EU membership campaign there was no point in completing such reports.

How many reports did you draw up and on which topics?

The reports I drew up were those relating to the impact of the EU's Foreign and Security Policy and Regional Policy and Structural Funds on Maltese workers.

Now that the negotiations are over I still stand by my reports. Moreover, in most cases the outcome of the negotiations confirm what I have in fact written or concluded. One has to remember that besides the benefits of structural and cohesion funds, there are still a good number of action programmes which Malta could avail itself of.

For example, the EU's educational programmes include those relating to life-long learning, vocational training and education programmes and the vast funds allocated to member states under FP6.

What was the conclusion of the majority of the reports - for or against membership?

The conclusions of the reports which I know of were generally positive, that is if one puts them in a national perspective. On the other hand, one cannot generalise.

If, for example, a worker employed in a particular sector was going to be negatively affected through membership, that same person might be positively affected through another chapter of the acquis.

On a more individual level, the reports, particularly those dealing with the environment and competition, do indicate that certain pockets of the working population in various sectors might be hard hit, even to the extent of causing unemployment. I guess this influenced the union's final decision GWU against membership.

Did the GWU ever intend to publish the reports? If so, why did it change its mind?

To tell you the truth, this issue was never discussed, and if there was such a decision I am not aware of it. When I asked I wasn't given an answer, but I am under the impression that the reports were commissioned for internal consumption.

How do you feel about the stand taken by the GWU that workers will be at a disadvantage because of EU membership? Do you feel it took a fair stand?

I never thought the union would adopt such a stand for the simple reason that it is a multi-sectoral, so some members are going to be affected negatively and others positively. I would have preferred it if the union directed its members according to sector.

Back to your question, it would be utopian to say or think that there will not be workers who will not be negatively affected, so I can understand the GWU's stand in relation to these workers.

Whether it is a fair stand, I do not know, especially since trade unionism is moulded around the principle of solidarity. On the other hand, I do not think such a stand is fair to GWU members who stand to gain from EU membership.

I believe that the first slogan put forward by the union - "stop, think and decide" - would have been a better one, a slogan which in effect was put forward by the central administration with the support of the section secretaries.

The union's current stand is only looking after the interests of those who will be negatively affected by EU membership. In the end I believe political parties and institutions should not tell people how to vote. I think people have a mind of their own and are able to make a choice without any guidance!

What was the sequence of events within the union between the conclusions of the reports, the motion adopted and the conference?

I cannot answer this question, because at the time I was conducting research with the European Trade Union Institute in Brussels. However, I was informed over the phone that another report was being compiled and that the union's final stand will be taken on the basis of this report. I do not know who conducted the report and I really don't care, but I have to say I do not agree with most of its contents.

What do you personally believe about EU membership?

I have been writing on EU membership in Union Press publications since 1997. I always said, and wrote, that this issue should be tackled on a national level. I did not want the issue to be politicised and I tried to bridge the gap between the two political sides on a number of occasions between 1997 and 1998. But nobody wanted to budge an inch.

I belong to the school of thought which advocates a federalist type of Europe. I am a firm believer that the EU should, in future, become a United States of Europe with a federal government and a federal President or leader, one currency and one law.

I believe that the EU has been a huge success. Europe has never witnessed so many years of uninterrupted peace, save the Balkans conflict, and I cannot see why Malta should not form part of this success story. Every country that joined the EU has made progress in all spheres. So I guess that answers your question.

Is partnership a better option for workers?

What is partnership? Partnership in reality is a political catch-phrase. There isn't a relationship such as partnership in terms of relations between the EU and third countries.

You either have an Association Agreement (like the one Malta has with the EU), a Customs Union (similar to what Turkey has at the moment), belong to the European Economic Area like the ex-EFTA countries such as Norway and Switzerland, or membership.

So I guess what the Malta Labour Party is advocating is one of these options. I think that the mistake the MLP made over the years has been that in promoting its partnership slogan it never indicated which one of these arrangements it would opt for.

What is the general feeling among the GWU delegates on EU membership?

What do you mean by delegates? As far as the delegates of the National Conference is concerned, I think the feeling is quite obvious, especially considering that the delegates of this conference approved the motion put forward by the National Council for approval on the stance that the GWU adopted on EU membership.

As far as GWU members are concerned, I do believe that there are those who are in favour of Malta joining the EU. I guess that at the end of the day, a good number of people will be voting according to how they believe they would be personally affected.