Fenech Adami says partnership policy rejected by the EU in 1998

Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami told parliament yesterday that the referendum on EU membership would be held in March, and he intended to invite Opposition leader Alfred Sant for talks on the date of the general election.

Dr Fenech Adami was speaking at the end of the debate on a motion for parliament to authorise the government to hold the referendum.

The motion was later approved with 34 government votes in favour and 30 opposition votes against. The only absentee was Parliamentary Secretary Edwin Vassallo, who is on his honeymoon. An opposition amendment against the holding of the referendum and for the EU issue to be decided at a general election was rejected by the same margin.

Dr Fenech Adami said the government had an electoral mandate to hold membership talks with the EU and subject the results to a referendum and it would respect that mandate.

While the referendum was, legally, consultative in nature, there was no doubt that politically, it was binding. Some could argue that a referendum could be countered by another referendum, but the Labour Party was not saying that it would hold another referendum if it was elected.

He could expect that if the people voted 'yes' in the referendum, the result of the election would reflect this too. If, after a 'yes' vote in the referendum, the MLP continued to insist on its policy against membership, it was up to the people to decide if they wanted that party in government.

Malta, he said, would be among the first of the candidate countries to hold its referendum. Slovenia had said it would hold its referendum on February 9 and it was his intention to call the referendum in Malta for March.

As for the general election, the latest it could be held was January 24, 2004. He had no intention of holding on that long and the election would therefore be held at the time that was in the best interest of the people and the country.

In this context, he intended to write to Dr Sant that evening with a view to holding talks with him on when the election should be held.

In the first part of his speech Dr Fenech Adami said it was significant that in their contributions, the Opposition MPs had hardly ever mentioned the amendment moved at the opening of the debate by deputy opposition leader George Vella. Neither had they been able to spell out the details of the supposed partnership which the MLP was saying it would seek with the EU.

Dr Sant had admitted that Switzerland in the Mediterranean and the partnership policy were one and the same. He had been given a mandate in 1996 to implement the Switzerland in the Mediterranean policy but failed. Indeed, in April 1998 the EU had even told the Labour government to amend its new consumption tax to align it with the EU's requirements.

Now Dr Sant had at last said he would retain VAT, as the government had long said he would. But to say, at the same time, that VAT was inferior to the system devised by the Labour government betrayed irresponsibility.

The MLP should stop deceiving the people. The partnership it was proposing was the same one it had tried to implement between 1996 and 1998, only to have it rejected by the EU.

Much was being made by the MLP of the fact that the word partnership had been used in documents by the Popular Party, the socialist group and the Convention on the Future of Europe. It was obvious that the EU wanted relations with countries which were not its own members, but the people should not be deceived.

The partnership arrangement would be nothing more than a brushed up version of the association agreement Malta had had with the EU for the past 32 years.

Dr Sant had said that Malta did not need to join Europe because it was already part of it. That was geographically correct, but Dr Sant should not try to deceive anyone by trying to go back to the time before the EU was set up.

How could he argue that Malta did not need to join the EU because it was already in Europe?

Dr Fenech Adami said he could not understand how Dr Sant could argue that the government did not have a mandate to take Malta into the EU. The electoral programme laid down that the government should hold accession talks and submit the outcome to a referendum, and the motion was aimed at the implementation of that promise.

Dr Sant would have been right to criticise the government had it gone ahead with signing the accession treaty without holding the referendum it had promised.

The opposition was saying a general election should be held rather than the referendum.

It was unbelievable that the opposition was not recognising the important democratic instrument that the referendum was, more so when it had been Dr Sant himself and the opposition which up to some time ago had been calling for a referendum on the EU. The Research Institute of the European Movement had said it was unthinkable that any country could join the EU without first holding a referendum, and the only exception was the Malta Labour Party.

Dr Fenech Adami said he was surprised that Dr Louis Buhagiar (MLP) had said during the debate that the declaration against the introduction of abortion in Malta would not count and European law would prevail. This was absolutely not true, to the extent that Poland was now seeking the same arrangement as Malta.

On the financial package, Dr Fenech Adami said that in the first three years after membership, the EU had bound itself to give Malta what amounted to a favourable balance of Lm81 million. It was a lie for anyone to argue otherwise.

Malta would be receiving E110.8 per capita per year in the first three years. In contrast, the Czech Republic would get E28 per capita; Cyprus E32, Slovenia E42, Hungary E45, Slovakia E51 and Poland E60. So could anyone claim that the Maltese government had not been tough in its negotiations?

The only countries which would be given more were the poorer Baltic states, with Latvia getting E117 per capita, Estonia E123, and Lithuania E125.

The fact that the Labour Party was saying Malta would only be getting Lm1.5 million in cash was ridiculous and reflected panic in the Labour Party.

Dr Fenech Adami said that what the opposition was effectively saying through its amendment was that the accession issue should be shelved, and that one should forget the accession talks and await the outcome of the general election so that the MLP could, maybe, start afresh on a partnership which had already been rejected. Then if the PN won another election, it would again seek membership and the MLP would again demand an election. This was banal. It was no argument to say that a referendum should not be held because the government's term was approaching its end, more so when the government could stay on up to January 24.

Turning to other points raised in the debate Dr Fenech Adami said he could not understand how Dr Chris Cardona (MLP) could say that the government was trying to repeat the situation of 1981. It was the MLP which was trying to do this by saying it would ignore a 'yes' majority in the referendum.

Dr Fenech Adami said it was time for the members of the opposition to stand up and be counted and not to speak in one way in the House and differently elsewhere, even with him outside the House on December 18, for example.

Dr Fenech Adami asked what credibility Malta would have if it did not join the EU. Credit agencies had repeatedly underlined the fact that the country's rating depended on this fact, he observed.

Dr Sant had argued that EU membership meant adoption of EU rules which were unsuitable for Malta. But which rules should not be applied? He had mentioned plastic bottles, but this formed part of the wider waste disposal argument and those who put plastic bottles on the market would be responsible for their disposal.

The EU's rules had withstood the test of time and led to wealth. But Dr Sant felt they did not apply to Malta.

He had tried to scare farmers, but had not said that in the EU's view, the best way to develop any economic sector was through healthy competition which led to the best quality and the best prices. The farmers deserved to be assisted, and they would be, but one also needed to take into the equation the whole Maltese population. It was, after all, Dr Sant who had said that levies were a tax which should be lifted. Now that this government was lifting the levies, Dr Sant wanted to reintroduce them. The Labour Party's actions defied logic.

Dr Sant had said property prices would rise if EU nationals bought property here. Yet his Labour government had set up a commission headed by Leo Brincat to encourage foreigners to buy property here.

The present government had negotiated a unique arrangement with the EU which practically preserved the status quo. No one had said this should change.

The government would also continue to provide social housing. Indeed the Housing Authority was currently building 350 housing units for this purpose.

Reacting to Dr Sant's declaration that opposition MPs had been granted a free vote, Dr Fenech Adami said one would see the outcome of the vote to see if this right would be exercised by the opposition MPs.

Dr Fenech Adami said major disruption would be caused to Malta if it changed course away from EU membership. Labour MP John Attard Montalto in his speech on Monday had shown how three companies had considered leaving Malta after the Labour government was elected and the accession process was frozen.

On a point of order Dr Attard Montalto said he was being misquoted. At no time had he said that the problems of those companies had stemmed from the fact that the accession process had been frozen.

Continuing, Dr Fenech Adami said Dr Attard Montalto had said that those three companies had problems after the change of government and the change of Malta's direction. All this was recorded.

Concluding, Dr Fenech Adami said the people should reflect on the significance of Malta joining the EU, which meant that Malta would have a say in a major force for peace and economic wellbeing.

Earlier in the debate, Social Policy Minister Lawrence Gonzi said he had expected a decent analysis of what EU membership was about, but this was seriously lacking from the opposition. The opposition MPs had said they were not against the EU as such, but then proceeded to speak about everything imaginable which in their view, was bad in the EU. What remained for them to say was that there was the plague in the EU.

Turning to the labour sector, Dr Gonzi said the EU was Malta's biggest trading partner. Most of the output of Malta's factories went to EU countries.

Upon enlargement, the current EU market of 370 million would rise to 550 million. It was crucial for Malta's future that it had unrestricted access to this market as of right as a member state. Malta should not be made to plead for access to some of that market, as partnership would involve. Malta could not expect the same advantages as member states if it stayed out.

Many of the countries which had been invited to join the EU along with Malta were direct competitors for EU sales and investment. Rejecting EU membership would mean that Malta would be jeopardising access to its biggest export market and its ability to attract new investment and create jobs.

Indeed workers were already benefiting from the fact that Malta was an EU accession country, not only in terms of job creation, but also with regard to conditions of work. An example of this was the recently enacted Employment and Industrial Relations Act which, as aligned with EU law, substantially improved working conditions. Some argued that such changes could have been brought about without Malta joining the EU, but the fact was that had not happened.

Dr Gonzi referred to the opposition amendment where it was said that the referendum should not be held because it was too close to the general election and would cause uncertainty.

Dr Gonzi said a referendum did not cause uncertainty. It was the opposition which was creating uncertainty. The MLP did not want the referendum because it knew that its outcome was likely to create uncertainty within it since it opposed membership.

Furthermore, the people had given a mandate in 1998 for the government to hold a referendum on EU membership. Was the opposition now ignoring that as well? This was irresponsible.

Gozo Minister Giovanna Debono said Labour MPs were trying to scare Gozitans about EU membership .

Yet the government had negotiated good conditions for Gozo in the EU membership package. Gozo would be the smallest island recognised as a region. Separate statistics would be compiled for Gozo and should Malta no longer qualify for Objective One EU aid, Gozo could still qualify for that level of assistance if its level of development fell behind Malta's.

What funds would Gozo be eligible for through Labour's partnership proposal?

Another acquisition was the setting up of a committee for regional projects. Gozo would also be retaining the VAT exemption on the transport of agricultural products to Malta and the subsidy on passenger traffic subsidy.

Infrastructure Minister Francis Zammit Dimech said the opposition should respect the referendum as an expression of the will of the people and not bury its head in the sand.

Referring to remarks on the construction industry, he said the number of workers in this sector had risen by 804 in the past four years when under Labour this figure had dropped by 510.

Losses of Lm3 million under Labour had become profits of Lm4 million now.

The Labour Party in Malta, he said was the only party in Europe which did not want the decision on the EU to be taken in a referendum. This was shameful.

Nationalist MP Victor Galea Pace said that the Maltese and Gozitans had shown confidence in the Nationalist government when it worked for independence.

Since then the country had made great strides forward but the country was now again at a crossroad. In the past years, the opposition had always opposed whatever the government suggested.

The people should ask themselves a set of questions to be well informed and know exactly what they were voting for.

Such questions could include if they wanted their rights to be safeguarded, if they wanted new opportunities, if they wanted their future to be guaranteed, if they wanted access to markets, if they wanted to live in peace and security, if they wanted the country to have the highest standards in all sectors.

The people also had to take a look of the history of both parties and how along the years Nationalist governments had also shown confidence in the people.

The people would soon be deciding their future, not short-term but for life.

Mrs Dolores Cristina (PN) said the people were still waiting for answers on who the MLP would negotiate its partnership policy with and how it would be implemented.

This was very different to the fact that the Maltese knew all about the result of the government's negotiations. How could a partnership achieve the same or better results for the Maltese? Could partnership guarantee economic growth?

Probably the worst thing about the situation was that if Labour's proposals fell through, Malta would not have another chance to join the EU.

Finance Minister John Dalli asked Labour if they wanted Malta out of the EU because they did not believe the Maltese were capable of keeping up with Europe and doing what the rest of the Europeans were doing. This, he said, was an insult to the people and not in character with what the Maltese were capable of achieving.

Mr Dalli said the people were being frightened of what was new and could be a bit risky. Labour's campaign was built on fear and egoism.

Turning to the financial aspect, he described Labour's position as "wanting the county to continue receiving financial assistance for ever". Labour wanted Malta to either remain poor for ever in order to continue receiving assistance or to play it poor to extort assistance. This, the minister said, was not what the Maltese wanted. They wanted jobs and opportunities. They wanted to tender for EU jobs.

Staying out of the EU would keep investment out and foreign-owned industries would start closing down to go to EU states which were to be Malta's competitors. Malta would have to, once again, start competing with low wages.