Is this the new beginning?

For those who missed it, here is a verbatim transcript of what the Malta Labour Party leader, Alfred Sant, said during an interview on TVM last week with journalist Reno Bugeja.

Bugeja: In that clip you said that you will safeguard the interests of the shipyards, breeders, fishermen, farmers, works etc... What do you intend to do? Will you reopen the membership package that was negotiated?

Sant: I will do all that is necessary ...

Bugeja: ...because these are categories that may have been hurt by membership...

Sant: Some things are crucial for the national interest. It is crucial for the national interest that the shipyards are safeguarded. It is crucial for the national interest that farmers, our breeders and our fishermen are given the space to be able to retain their activities.

Bugeja: Agreed. But how?

Sant: By negotiating within the framework of EU rules, so that we can give them the space they need and justify it.

Bugeja: This was already agreed in the membership package ...

Sant: If this is not proving sufficient for the Maltese circumstances we can talk in that context...

Bugeja: Do you think that the Europeans will be prepared to accept to reopen the package?

Sant: I'm convinced.

This is a verbatim, unedited, extract. It is not hearsay.

Here we have it from the horse's mouth that what we all thought was a closed chapter is, in fact, not quite closed.

Here we have it in no uncertain terms that a Labour government would be prepared to reopen the EU membership package, taking us back to pre-referendum days.

For the package is one. And if you reopen it, you reopen everything. This is not an à la carte menu. This is a package that was crystallised four years ago in a treaty and that binds not just us but another 25 countries. It's in the treaty. This is part of the treaty by virtue of which we joined the European Union.

So if you reopen the package you do not just reopen the agreement on shipyards, the agricultural sector or the fisheries sector. You reopen everything. You reopen the entire membership package.

Now allow me to take you through some of the implications.

First and foremost the use of the term "national interest" is as spurious as it is vague. Why is it in the national interest to reopen the package? Whose interest exactly?

Is it the interest of taxpayers who have been subsidising the shipyards for decades? Or is it the interest of consumers who can now choose between Maltese and foreign products?

Neither of them fit in this brand of "national interest".

Secondly, there is no need to drag the country through this at all because the sectors in question have already been the subject of very tough negotiations before the referendum. And the deal that we obtained was lauded as one of the best membership packages.

Take shipyards. We negotiated very hard to win an extra five years to be able to return them to viability by implementing a restructuring programme. That is five years more than what would otherwise have been allowed under EU law. Five extra years to allow us to put in place a restructuring programme to help the yards back to viability.

Incidentally, the restructuring programme has cost us, you, me, as taxpayers, a sum to the tune of Lm420 million or just under one billion euros. That's one billion, not one million. And that is our money, our taxes, not EU funds.

The billion-euro package includes a write-off of the yards' accumulated debt of some €700 million or around Lm300 million. The remaining aid has been paid in the form of subsidies for the purposes of investment, training, compensation for social costs and working capital.

Now the Labour Party now wants us to take more time and taxpayers to pay more.

Take agriculture. It is true that, by joining the EU, we have exposed this sector to competition in order to allow consumers to benefit from a better choice and better food safety standards. And it is also true that this forced many in the sector to rethink their strategy and reinvest, with some even losing out to the challenge.

But the sector was not left to fend for itself. A generous financial package, paid also out of EU funds, was made available and many have invested heavily and are reaping the benefits.

Indeed, the agricultural sector is far from being wiped out as Labour had forecast before the referendum.

Much the same, if not more so, applies to the fisheries sector which is still alive and kicking despite Labour's prediction of its demise.

Thirdly, reopening the membership package also has significant political implications and it is a luxury that this country cannot afford.

For four years since membership we have worked hard to establish ourselves as a country that had overcome its internal divisions over Europe. We have worked hard to become a credible and reliable partner in Europe. We earned respect. We sought to play by the rules and all of us, as an entire country, made sacrifices to get there. We have shown that we know what we want and that we are willing to press hard for our country's interests. We have put Malta from the fringes to the centre of European unity.

In four years since membership we have turned this country from a follower in Europe to a front-runner, as the Belgian Prime Minister aptly put it during our recent euro celebrations.

The results are there for all to see.

Why should we throw all this away by asking the European Union to reopen the membership package? Why should we turn the clock back and give up our credibility?

To boot, Dr Sant now tells us that "the EU should not be used as a political football" (The Times, February 5). That's rich.

Is this Labour's new beginning?

Is this what we want?

Ask questions to be published in this column or get regular updates on my work by sending an e-mail to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu