Editorial

Labour leader Alfred Sant last Sunday devoted a good part of his speech at the Cospicua MLP club to the questions we posed last week. We are obviously delighted that our questions have so clearly hit home, but unfortunately the nature of his reply (which he elaborates in the article carried alongside) only confirms that the partnership option is only a very poor alternative - if that - to "full", as the MLP redundantly insists on calling it, membership of the European Union.

From the tenor of Dr Sant's long reply it is clear that the Labour Party does not have faith in the Maltese people's ability to rise to challenges, an ability which has been proved time and again in the course of the island's chequered history.

Similarly the island and its resilient people will face the challenge of EU membership, which will bring some sacrifices in its wake but certainly also long-term gains and advantages which will make Malta better able to face the ongoing challenge of competition in an increasingly globalised world economy.

But the MLP clearly does not believe that Malta can face up to the challenge because we are "different". To our questions last week as to whether the nine other countries about to join the EU, with two more in 2007, should not have taken up the "partnership" option touted by his party, Dr Sant replies, referring to all of them except Cyprus, that "none of these countries face conditions that are even remotely comparable to that of Malta", and proceeds to list the reasons why they have chosen to join the EU.

For Cyprus, of course, "the political rationale for joining the EU arises from the long-standing political target of eventual union with Greece".

Interesting, that mention of Greece. For in justifying all the 11 other accession countries' determination to join the EU as members, rather than mere partners, Dr Sant does not attempt a similar exercise in the case of Greece, which joined in 1981, and where the Socialist Party, PASOK, which staunchly opposed membership, became one of its most vociferous advocates.

Nor does Dr Sant offer a rationale for Spain and Portugal, which joined in 1986 (he would perhaps say they did it to safeguard their new-found democracy). Nor does he mention the last three countries to join, in 1995 - Austria, Finland and Sweden. Why did not they not choose partnership, rather than "full" membership? They were certainly not under Communist rule; and all of them, like Malta, are neutral states.

The fact is that all the 15 countries making up the EU now and the 12 which will be joining it in a few years' time believe in the European vision, a vision which Dr Sant and his party evidently do not share.

Besides, there are compelling economic reasons for Malta to join, reasons which were laid out brilliantly and ever so logically, by the governor of the Central Bank, Michael Bonello, last Thursday.

Mr Bonello considered the various options open to Malta: an upgrading of the association agreement which the island signed with the EU in 1970, which however means that Malta would have to make commitments over and above those it has today; membership of the European Economic Area means that Malta would have to take on a large part of the EU acquis, and to contribute to the EU's financial resources, without having any say in the EU's decision-making process. There was also the Switzerland model, where again, national laws have to be in conformity with much of the EU acquis.

Mr Bonello went on to list the severe disadvantage Maltese exporters would have if the nine other applicant countries joined on schedule while Malta did not: competition in the EU market would be so much tougher, and while they would have immediate access to and advantages in trade with so many other countries outside the Union, Malta would have to negotiate its own bilateral trade agreements with these countries.

Mr Bonello could therefore only conclude that EU membership was Malta's best option.

Dr Sant makes a brave attempt to picture "partnership" as a viable, and indeed superior, option to membership, but again he does not tell us what the European Union will expect in return for conceding all the desiderata he lists or whether it would be in much hurry to conclude such an agreement after having concluded membership negotiations with Malta, only to be rejected.

The costs of staying out, which Mr Bonello listed so persuasively - and for which he has been declared anathema by MLP finance spokesman Leo Brincat (so much for Central Bank autonomy!) - are simply too high for Malta, which is now nearing the end of a journey it embarked upon 12 years ago. We simply cannot afford to go back to where we started.