Updated: Malta should take firmer stand on migration - Muscat

Updated - Adds PN reaction - Labour leader Joseph Muscat insisted today that the government should take a firmer stand with regard to illegal migrants and safeguard the national interest, as other countries were doing.

He criticised the EU for not showing solidarity with Malta on immigration. Human dignity, he said, should be respected, but national interests had to be safeguarded. One could see how, when push came to shove, the Italians sought their interests and blocked a Maltese patrol boat from berthing in Lampedusa. They had also handed out documents which enabled migrants to travel. Then France posted guards on its borders with Italy to stop migrants crossing over.

Germany too was failing to recognise the documents issued by Italy.

Malta too should stand firm and national interest should come before any 'spirit' of European Union interests. Put simply, Malta should do what suited it, as other countries were doing.

There also needed to be clear rules of engagement with regard to the rescue of migrants.

Dr Muscat said it was not enough that Germany had said it would take 100 migrants from Malta. That was tokenism.

One also had to wonder what Frontex was doing.

Asked what he would have done differently, Dr Muscat said that for starters he would not have signed the immigration pact because it was not worth the paper it was written on. That pact was only a form of appeasement by the EU aimed at delaying the problem.

VOTING RIGHTS

Earlier, Dr Muscat insisted again that the Electoral Commission had actually agreed to put off the publication of the President's writ for the holding of the divorce referendum, and only changed its mind after pressure by the prime minister on the commissioners nominated by him.

Replying to journalists' questions, Dr Muscat avoided a direct reply when asked whether he could have worded his resolution in parliament differently, saying the issue could have been easily tackled had the PN really wanted young people to exercise their vote.

The resolution for the holding of the divorce referendum had given the President 15 days - up to the end of March - to sign the writ. Dr Muscat said the resolution said nothing on when the writ was actually published.

He said a majority of the Electoral Commissioners, including one nominated by the Prime Minister, had initially agreed to delay the publication of the writ - thus ensuring that the April electoral register was used for the referendum instead the October one.

It was a no-brainer, Dr Muscat said, that had there been a willingness by the PN for the young people to vote, the publication date of the writ could have been delayed to April 18.

The majority of the members of the Electoral Commission had agreed that was the way forward.

Legal adviser Prof Ian Refalo had seen no problem in this arrangement.

Yet the Prime Minister, who had not amended the motion moved in Parliament, was claiming that this arrangement would have set a precedent. But he had no such qualms when polling time at the last general election was extended by an hour.

Because of the prime minister's objections, 2,800 young people who turned 18 after the October register was published, had lost their right to vote in the referendum, Dr Muscat said.

If the PN ever was the party of young people, it had now lost that title. Instead of keeping the writ in the drawer for some days, it had put the voting rights of 2,800 young people in the freezer, Dr Muscat said.

Dr Muscat in other parts of his interview said the people, particularly those in the middle class, felt cheated by the government because electoral promises were not being honoured. Notable among them was the promise to cut income tax, even though the government boasted that the economy was doing well.

What the government had done was to give its ministers a raise of €500 weekly almost exactly three years ago.

The government claimed the economy was doing well. The people could not say the same for their living standards.

LIBYAN CONFLICT

On the impact of the Libya conflict, Dr Muscat said companies who had been active in Libya and were now facing problems should be supported by the government. It was not good enough for the government to argue that it could not directly assist business.

Hadn't the banks in Britain, Ireland and elsewhere been helped? Indeed, even Maltese taxpayers' money was used to bail out Ireland. He was not suggesting a bailout for the Maltese companies, but they should be helped in their cash flow such as by giving them a moratorium of some months on payments due to the government.

The banks, too, had a duty to help these companies.

In the same way as we helped the Irish and the Greeks and how we will be helping the Portuguese, we should find ways to help these companies, and at least show good will, Dr Muscat said.

PN REACTION

PN General Secretary Paul Borg Olivier, speaking in Tarxien, said Labour was solely to blame for the fact that 2,800 young people had lost their voting rights. He had insisted when moving his resolution in Parliament that the President's writ should be issued within 15 days. He was now realising his mistake, trying to remedy, and blaming others for it.

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi pointed out that Labour had actually wanted the writ to be issued within a week, and it was Dr Muscat himself who later extended it to two weeks, to give time for the President to return from Australia. In the same way as he extended it by another week, he could have extended it by two weeks and more.

Had Dr Muscat opted to go back to parliament before March 30 to correct the mistake, the government would have agreed, Dr Gonzi said.

The government, he added, had also drawn Dr Muscat's attention to serious mistakes in the referendum question, but there too, Dr Muscat ignored advice. The referendum question was misleading, promising guarantees in divorce which could not be given.

In a statement later, the PN referred to Dr Muscat's comments on immigration. It said the Maltese patrol boat had saved the lives of 171 near Lampedusa. The case showed how illegal immigration was a human tragedy which needed to be tackled with sensitivity, not populist speeches as was Dr Muscat's.

While Malta would be firm and would work with the EU, it could not ignore the plight of people who were about to lose their life as implied by Dr Muscat.

This too, was an issue of values.

The PN said that while Dr Muscat had spoken of the national interest, he had actually boosted what other countries had done.