Pros and cons of EU membership

Labour's proposal for a binding referendum if it obtains 60 per cent approval or more to follow the election was a suggested compromise between a simple majority and a two-thirds majority, Labour Party deputy leader George Vella said yesterday.

Speaking at a debate under a marquee at the Floriana car park organised by IVA, the Yes to Europe movement, Dr Vella said to subordinate the Maltese Constitution to EU regulations, a clear two-thirds majority was required. A 60 per cent majority would be the people's approval of this and the referendum would not just be consultative but also binding.

A referendum now, he said, could not be followed up by this government as its term would expire before next January.

But Foreign Minister Joe Borg said that the Nationalist Party was respecting the mandate it had been given by the people which was to revive the country's application for membership, negotiate the best possible package and hold a referendum.

He said that at the beginning he had had reservations about how much the EU would understand the country's position but when the EU saw that Malta's case was genuine, the country made unique acquisitions.

Now the Labour leader was calling on the government to ignore its mandate. What kind of argument was this?

Also taking part in the debate, chaired by Dr Alec Lapira, were Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Harry Vassallo, IVA spokesman David Casa and Campaign for National Independence chairman Professor Albert Leone Ganado, who walked out towards the end of the meeting because of constant heckling and booing directed at him by the audience.

Dr Borg said that the highest standards had been established by the EU in all sectors and at all levels, and if Malta needed to change to form part of this Union, it should change.

He said he was still confused on what the alternative could be.

Malta could be in a situation similar to that enjoyed by EFTA countries which formed part of the internal market, with all this brought with it, including the free movement of workers.

Switzerland, he said, had also embraced the idea of having a special package when it lost the European Economic Area referendum but it now realised that instead of the 16 agreements it wanted, it only reached seven, most of which burdened it with disadvantages.

Could this be why Labour had done away with its slogan "Switzerland in the Mediterranean", Dr Borg asked.

The option of having a treaty similar to that enjoyed by other Mediterranean countries was not a bad one but was very limited.

If Malta remained where it was, Dr Borg said, other countries which were becoming members would advance while Malta would lag behind.

Dr Vella said that the EU issue in Malta had not been tackled as it should have but was politicised. Instead of making the issue a national one and considering all options, the government took one route and the Opposition another.

He said that it was not easy to understand what membership was all about.

The PN's objective was EU membership so it had to bring Maltese legislation in line with the EU's in its bid to square the circle.

The MLP, on the other hand, analysed the sectors of the Maltese economy and away from ideology built a policy which, contrary to what was being said, did not just give the country advantages.

The MLP, Dr Vella said, knew that unless it was ready to carry burdens, it could not expect benefits from the Union. But unless certain EU rules, especially the Common Agricultural Policy, were changed, it could not move towards membership.

Labour, he said, wanted to get as close to the EU as possible without being affected negatively.

He referred to claims by Commissioner Verheugen that the partnership option did not exist. While Mr Verheugen said this, he also said that very little money would be obtained for Malta with the partnership option. Which was the correct version?

Dr Vella said he did not know what Mr Verheugen's interests were, but the Commissioner had once pointed his finger to Dr Vella's face and told him that unless Labour changed its policies he would see to it that the party lost both the referendum and the general election.

Dr Vella challenged Mr Verheugen to deny making such an arrogant threat.

Labour, he said, did not want to be in or out of the EU; it wanted a different relationship with the Union.

Dr Vassallo said AD believed in internal democracy but Labour wanted the people to trust it with a blank cheque rather than hold a referendum.

For many years, he said, the people had been divided on all issues with one side saying one thing and the other saying the opposite.

The PN, Dr Vassallo said, was proposing to the people to make the country part of a Union which safeguarded people's rights but the MLP was afraid of foreigners.

AD wanted EU membership as this would provide the country with a framework in which any Maltese government would have to operate. As a result, the people would know exactly where their tax was going.

He strongly criticised the parties for trying to strike off the names of elderly and other Maltese working abroad from the electoral register. These included AD's spokesman for EU affairs, Arnold Cassola. This, he said, was a stupid move which lacked democratic sentiment and which was shunned by all Green parties in Europe.

Dr Vassallo said that AD wanted Malta to be part of the EU so that it would never have to suffer from such hysteria. It wanted membership for participation in a civil society. He said the party had now written to the President asking for his intervention on the case.

Dr Vella said he personally did not agree with the MLP's court application against Dr Cassola. But there was an electoral office in every party which issued such applications.

He said it was a shame that there was no agreement between the parties on who could and could not vote.

Dr Borg said the PN had had the courage to withdraw its applications. It had also proposed that Maltese working abroad would not lose their right to vote but the Opposition had not agreed with this.

Mr Casa said that contrary to what had been claimed by Labour leader Alfred Sant, Coca Cola and Marsovin had already declared that, rather than dismiss workers, they would require more once Malta joined the EU.

He said that, irrespective of EU membership, companies had to compete and it was not true that factories would close with membership.

This, he said, was confirmed by Labour MP John Attard Montalto on Super 1 radio during a recent programme.

Mr Casa said that Mr Verheugen had confirmed that Labour's partnership option was impossible. The most it would get was a treaty similar to that enjoyed by Morocco, Libya and Egypt. The Maltese, he said, deserved better.

Professor Leone Ganado said that the package obtained by Malta was miserable and this was because of the EU's stinginess with new members. This, he said, confirmed there would be first, second and third class members within the EU.

He said there was no real spirit of sacrifice within the EU for new members to be given the impetus they required to spur investment.

Professor Leone Ganado said that it was very unfortunate that in Malta only a handful of people, like him, opposed the route taken up the party they supported.