Let's not become a loony fringe

Charlemagne's article in The Economist called 'Happy Families' with the subtitle "A letter from a participant at a European summit in Athens has fallen into our hands" should perhaps serve as an eye-opener, although now it is too late for those Maltese who have been draping themselves in the EU flag over the past few months.

Writing about the countries who have just joined the EU, among them Malta, Charlemagne muses: "Still, if there is one bright spot; it's our new boys and girls. They're a little worried that the rest of us secretly look down on them. And of course we do. But overall they are just so pleased to be in the family. It's sweet, it really is. And despite all the grumbling from the likes of Jacques about how much it is going to cost to do up their wing of our great European bungalow, we should be grateful to have them. At least they've got a bit of life and energy about them. And they've been through so much that they relish a spot of turmoil."

It is still too early to see the impact of the EU decision-making structures on our life. We have been promised a new spring of prosperity. We now wait for it to happen. The Labour Party is a democratic party and it made it very clear both before and after the April 12 general elections that it will respect the choice of the majority.

The electorate was given a clear choice. Both parties wanted excellent relations with the EU. The Nationalist Party wanted Malta to be a member of the EU. The Labour Party wanted Malta to be a partner of the EU. In its campaign the PN insisted that the only possible institutional framework in the future between Malta and the EU was that of full membership.

The PN spent months trying to persuade the public that Labour's option of partnership, even if desirable, was not even possible for the simple reason that the EU does not offer any partnership agreements with any country.

Partnership alive and kicking

The Labour Party insisted that a partnership agreement with the EU was possible and that the EU was proposing partnership agreements to neighbours like Malta if the majority of the electorate were to choose not to assume the obligations of full membership for the simple reason that they are not appropriate for them.

The Labour Party's strategic and historical project of partnership was built on the core idea that in today's interdependent world no country can act alone. The crucial issue for a small state like Malta is how to design its interdependence with the rest of the world. The crucial issue is how to co-operate with other countries and blocs of countries as much as possible on an equal basis.

The PN has locked Malta into the EU's membership framework, which means that Malta now has to take on all the full obligations of membership without being compensated by being given the full rights of membership. Small states have been given a very small say in the EU's decision-making institutions.

Malta has lost the right to run its own affairs without gaining the right to shape meaningfully the affairs of the EU. In dismissing Labour's partnership policy with the EU, many truths were manipulated. Well known facts were distorted. Base racist attitudes were appealed to as membership was packaged as "European" and partnership as "African".

Isn't life ironic that on April 17, 2003, partnership came into its own in Athens, the same day partnership was declared passé in the Republic of Malta? On that day the Maltese Prime Minister, full of self-importance, was explaining to a PBS reporter: "We discussed at the European Conference the opportunity and necessity of offering our neighbours greater participation in the formulation of economic and social policy of the Union."

It was rather amusing to see the Prime Minister squirming and contorting to avoid mentioning the dirty word "p-a-r-t-n-e-r-s-h-i-p".

Waking up to the new reality

Commissioner Chris Patten has been explaining the EU Commission's new Neighbourhood Agreements within the concept of a 'wider Europe': "Transforming the vision into reality depends on the interest of our Eastern and Southern neighbours in signing up to the approach. If needed, the costs - e.g., for increased assistance to help countries in designing and implementing reforms - will be met by Commission, proposals to reallocate funds within the existing Community budget."

According to Patten, these Neighbourhood agreements would take the shape of "Action plans (that) would be qualitatively different: they could be agreed for a variable time frame, tailored to the interests of the EU and the country in question, rather than a fixed four years, they would be prepared and designed to reflect greater partnership with the country; they would be designed to work towards a clear objective - concrete progress towards greater integration and liberalisation; they would include defined benchmarks and indicators by which both the EU and the neighbouring country could judge progress."

In Athens the 15 current members and the 10 newcomers endorsed a strong declaration extending the hand of friendship and co-operation to 15 new neighbours. The declaration included a pledge to promote trade and investment, open up markets, fight organised crime and terrorism, build up energy and transport networks, and respect human rights.

Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, said the EU wanted to offer its neighbours all the benefits of membership, even though they would not have voting rights and would not participate fully in its institutions. But this would allow them a margin of autonomous decision-making that is lost to member states.

This is exactly what the Labour Party's project of partnership consisted of. The project started taking shape in 1998 during the 1996-1998 Labour administration. Had that government served its full five-year term, there would have been enough time to conclude a partnership agreement with the EU. But this was not to be.

Labour leader Alfred Sant was right last Sunday when in his Torca column he wrote that it would be a mistake if we now embark on street adventures full of strong and empty gestures to try and get round the people's decision. Dr Sant is right to say that Labour should work within the new circumstances that have emerged after the April 12 general elections.

The Labour Party should promote its principles of freedom, social justice and economic growth in the best interest of the working people. If the Labour Party allows the EU issue to remain a national controversy at the top of our political agenda, it risks becoming a loony fringe protest group rather than an alternative government expressing the hopes and aspirations of the majority of our citizens who are fed up of long years of PN government.

They have allowed the country to sink into inefficiency, mismanagement, cronyism and corruption. The country needs a fresh start if is to become viable and prosperous, and to improve the quality of life of Maltese and Gozitan families in the 21st century.

evaristbartolo@hotmail.com.