Verheugen makes powerful case for EU membership

The European commissioner responsible for enlargement, Günter Verheugen, said it would be a profound mistake for the Maltese to postpone the country's EU membership in the hope that the conditions of accession would be better at a later stage.

Speaking during his one-day visit to Malta, Mr Verheugen made it clear that some form of partnership with the EU would be an inferior option to membership.

He said the concept of partnership was only developed for those regions and countries that could not become members. Other forms of partnership "do not exist". Partnership, he added, would entail adopting the rules and regulations without having a say.

He said it was not a realistic alternative and in that scenario the EU's relations with Malta would be based on the association agreement the country signed more then 30 years ago and the Mediterranean partnership programme which Malta was already part of.

"That's it. All the EU membership benefits would disappear. Partnership is the second option. Countries take it only if the number one option of membership is not offered to them."

Mr Verheugen stressed that if Malta does not take up membership, the relationship offered would be similar to that offered to Morocco, Syria and Tunisia.

His visit included meetings with the prime minister, businessmen, workers and the parliamentary foreign affairs committee. He also had a working meeting with Foreign Minister Joe Borg.

Mr Verheugen demonstrated a graph to emphasise that in terms of funding, Malta would get "nothing" under the so-called partnership option when compared to what the country would receive as an EU member.

Under the partnership option Malta would receive Lm400,000 annually. "In the present situation, as part of the pre-accession process, Malta is getting Lm4 million annually. After accession, Malta will get Lm27 million annually, which means Lm81 million in three years as a net gain."

Under membership, he said, Malta would get 60 times as much in funds as under a partnership.

Asked to comment on the Labour Party's message that Malta had only been offered Lm1.5 million in cash, Mr Verheugen stressed it was absolutely legitimate to be against membership. "What is not legitimate is to do a cover-up of the truth. Arguments should be based on facts."

When addressing Maltese businessmen at the Chamber of Commerce, Mr Verheugen said he could definitely not see an enlarged EU offering a membership package to Malta as good as the one it was offering now.

"Malta would also lose the opportunity to influence in its favour the new financial budget 2007-2013, the new structural funds regulations and the new agricultural policy. So the choice in favour or against membership has to be made now, in the interest of the Maltese people. It would be a profound mistake to postpone it with the hope that the conditions of accession could be better at a later stage. This, I can clearly tell you, is an illusion."

Mr Verheugen said the negotiations with Malta had been particularly challenging. "It has been very demanding for all of us because we had to tackle the problems arising from the specifics of a very small country and to address issues linked to special sensitiveness or perceptions. One after the other, we managed to address all important problems successfully."

He said Malta was worried by the potential influx of EU foreign workers upon accession. But he did not believe there was a serious risk of this taking place. Nevertheless, the EU had taken into account Malta's concerns and the island had obtained safeguards to regulate the flow of workers.

"At the same time there will be no restrictions on the access of Maltese workers to the EU labour market. No other candidate country has managed to obtain a similar arrangement."

He said Malta was also worried that EU citizens might decide to buy secondary residencies in Malta and therefore induce distortions in the property market.

"We acknowledged that there could be a problem because of Malta's particular circumstances and have accepted to breach a fundamental principle of the EU, the Free Movement of Capital, to allow Malta to regulate the acquisition of property by EU citizens. This is the only permanent derogation to the acquis that has been granted in the whole accession negotiations with the 10 acceding countries."

On the issue of funding, Mr Verheugen said the EU had ensured a package that would give Malta a net benefit of €190 million (Lm81 million) between 2004-2006. Per capita, he said, only the Baltic countries got more even if they were much less developed than Malta. All the other countries got less.

"I know that the question is being asked: what will happen after 2006? I wish to say that the new financial perspective 2007-2013, the new structural funds regulations and the new agricultural policy will be discussed after 2004 when Malta will be at the negotiating table. In any case, it is hard to see how a member state with a GDP per capita far below the EU average - which will remain so for some time - would not be a net beneficiary from the EU budget."

On the final package obtained by Malta, Mr Verheugen said: "I could still mention many other issues where Malta has obtained results that many other accession countries would envy. I want to stress that as the commissioner responsible for enlargement I have one big source of satisfaction - that the EU, its institutions and its rules have proved flexible enough to accommodate the specifics of such a small and unique country as Malta."

As to the options for Malta if it decides not to join the EU, he said: "Let's be pragmatic. If Malta does not join, the starting point, the basis of its relationship with the EU, will be the existing association agreement. It could be progressively extended to establish, in particular, as it was foreseen from the beginning, a free trade area and possibly a customs union.

"A lot of effort and negotiations would be needed to achieve in the coming years those objectives that have not been achieved during the 30 years of the existence of the association agreement. But it should be clear that, whatever the development of such a relationship between Malta and the EU would provide, and whether we call it partnership or by a different name, the benefits of this relationship could never match the benefits of membership.

"So what is preferable for Malta? To join the EU in 2004 with this clear accession package or to enter into a long and uncertain process of developing an association agreement whose benefits can, in any case, not match those of membership? I think that the answer is clear but I obviously leave it to the Maltese to decide."

He concluded by remarking that it was up to the Maltese to decide what avenue to take. "I made my case. Now I let you decide whether or not this package is good enough. You know what I think. The choice, of course, belongs to you."

Mr Verheugen described the concept of partnership as vague. "The concept has been recently widely publicised, the concept of partnership as a substitute to membership. The problem is that this concept, which remains vague, has a different content and meaning, depending on who uses it.

"In Malta, there is even the idea that partnership would bring all advantages of membership without any of its obligations. Reference was made to a speech made by President Romano Prodi, laying down some of the characteristics of the partnership that the enlarged EU could establish with a ring of neighbouring countries. Indeed, Mr Prodi developed with good reason a vision whereby the enlarged EU would seek to stabilise and strengthen its relationship with its immediate neighbours.

"In this concept, partner countries would eventually adopt our values, our legislation and our standards, establish a complete free trade area and the use of the euro as reserve and reference currency. But they would not have the key benefits of membership such as the access of structural funds, agricultural support, full access to community programmes nor, most importantly, the possibility to shape and participate in the elaboration of its standards, rules and policies and to have an influence which goes far beyond the one it could have while remaining outside the EU."

Mr Verheugen said he was convinced that after EU membership, Malta would be a much better place for investment. He said that earlier this week he met the top executives of the 20 largest multinationals worldwide and discussed with them prospective investment in the 10 acceding countries.

"I want to stress that in this meeting Malta has been particularly mentioned and it is clear that many decisions which had been withheld so far will be made following membership."

He said he had heard that in the local campaign on the referendum Maltese companies were being named and workers were being warned that they might lose their jobs upon membership. He said he was very surprised with this move because not only did he not foresee this happening "but I believe that the business community in Malta is very prepared and well equipped for membership and to enjoy its benefits as well as to create better jobs for the Maltese workers. I am extremely confident that the Maltese will not only survive as members of the EU but that you will be extremely successful."

Mr Verheugen said Malta was very close to his heart. "I mean, what I am saying is not a diplomatic lip service.