One for EU birds coming home to roost

There was a strong doze of glibness, deliberate fudging and spin in the campaign in favour of Malta joining the EU that is now coming home to roost in the form of the application of the union's Birds Directive to Malta. The to-do over the spring hunting demonstrates the foolishness of Nationalist Party and government officials who concocted the dose, as well as some of the merits of being part of the EU.

Hunting has always been an issue in Malta, both as regards the extent of it as well as the way some hunters abused of this controversial but age-old sport. The hunting lobby is a pressure group numbering several thousand votes. Politicians have always had a job to balance the way they talked to passionate hunters and to concerned environmentalists, and also with their personal feelings.

Hunting was one of the issues at the heart of the controversy as to what relations Malta should have with the EU. The controversy itself ended with a clear decision in favour of membership. In due course, farmers and hunters, as well as - paradoxically - environmentalists, began to feel they had been misled by those among the pro-marketers who did not speak straight about the advantages and disadvantages that gave a positive balance - I continue to believe - in favour of EU membership.

The chickens of veiled half truths always come home to roost. They are certainly doing so with regards to the Union's Birds Directive. The government has permitted spring hunting in each year since Malta joined the EU in 2004. It claims Malta had a derogation from the directive.

The EU Commission is making it clear, through its Environment Commissioner, there is no such thing.

Commissioner Stavros Dimas said the EU had (only) agreed that Malta had a right to ask for a derogation, but the island had to fulfil the applicable conditions. Mr Dimas said Malta did not apply, "it just went ahead with it". The Commission initiated infringement procedures and claims that Malta has responded to them.

To date, the government has maintained that it has acted properly. It intends to fight the Commission every step of the way, even in court. This attitude, call it determined or dub it brazen, as you will, has added a fresh facet to the controversy about hunting within Malta itself. Those against hunting insist that, should Malta end up being fined for not adhering to the Birds Directive, the euros we would have to churn out should not come out of the people's taxes.

Some hope! The people do not always call the tune. But they always end up paying for it. In this case, the Nationalist government and the PN are having to pay in political terms, through a further loss in credibility. It is incurring a double payment, losing out with both hunters and environmentalists. It is also losing face with the EU. Commissioner Dimas is shown smiling in some of the photos that have appeared of him. His words, however, cannot be grimmer: They are words of warning which, he assures all and sundry, will be matched by action if Malta remains in breach of the Birds Directive.

When the issue was discussed in the European Parliament last week, Malta's MEPs did not come out in the best of colours, the two Nationalists by going against the stream and the three from the Labour side by abstaining on the vote.

The time it will take to resolve the stand-off with the EU will be long, but finite. The controversy between hunters and environmentalists, exacerbated by the way too many politicians fudge and spin, will go on indefinitely. Meanwhile, being members of the EU offers all sides the opportunity to take the issue beyond Malta's tiny stage. There's more to Union membership than filthy lucre.