I take on the presidency of the Malta Federation of Industry on the eve of a decision of major importance that Malta will be taking regarding accession to the European Union. This Government has decided to hold a referendum so as not to tie any other issue with our country's foreign policy.
Last Monday and Tuesday I had the privilege to represent the Malta Federation of Industry at a conference in Poland organised by the Polish Confederation of Private Enterprises entitled "Together in New Europe - Referenda and Beyond".
Representatives of the employer federations of all ten accession countries were present in Warsaw, together with representatives of employer organisations from the EU member states Austria, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Ireland. A representative from Norway gave an inspiring presentation on why his country's two attempts to obtain a positive result in referenda on joining the EU failed.
As the title of the conference indicates, there were two main issues on the agenda: the referenda that at least nine of the ten countries will be holding and the lobbying strategies that should be pursued upon membership. As expected, the referenda issue was the one predominantly debated, and it is on this issue that I would like to share some of the comments that arose from the conference.
Firstly, Malta will be the first country to hold a referendum on Saturday with the referendum in Latvia being the last on September 20. It is clear that there is a measure of agreement between the major players of the other countries that they should join.
All participants at the conference were fully aware that the race in Malta will be the closest of the nine (I am excluding Cyprus as a referendum may not be held there at all). Whereas on the one hand the result of Malta's referendum can have an effect on voters in other accession countries, on the other hand what Malta's industry is concerned with is that the period of uncertainty is not doing the country any good.
On the contrary, certain decisions on investment are being held back. The sooner this country gets both the referendum and general elections out of the way the better. We need to return to work in full rhythm and tackle the problems that are reducing our competitiveness.
Secondly, the referendum will be non-binding in only three countries, Estonia, Slovenia and Malta. What came out very clearly at the Warsaw conference is that a 50%+1 majority should be respected by all. In Austria, all parties had agreed that accession to the EU was of such national importance that, although there was disagreement between the political parties on a number of other issues, the two main parties had agreed to put away their differences for a period of four months to work together to convince the electorate to go for a Yes vote (eventually 64 per cent voted Yes in Austria).
Sitting around the table, you realise that the same concerns regarding EU membership voiced in Malta are the same as in the other nine accession countries. Indeed, some of these concerns were listed in the presentation by Finland's representative.
Will there be a reduction in the price of foodstuffs? Will membership of the EU bring about more investment, more jobs, and more wealth in general? Will the agriculture industry survive? To what extent will the countries be part of the decision-making process?
These are all justifiable concerns that need to be addressed.
Ironically, the Norwegian delegate, having the experience of two unsuccessful referenda, was in the best position to give advice on how to win the referendum.
Firstly, be honest. Membership of the EU is not entirely good or entirely bad. If the government feels that there are weak points in the membership agreement it will sign in April, then it is better to be honest about it. Thankfully, in Malta, on a number of occasions the prime minister did state that membership will bring along a number of challenges and difficulties that need to be overcome.
The Norwegian Yes campaign lost credibility when Gro Harlem Brundtland, then PM told reporters that even if she was turned upside down she could not find one single negative point about Norwegian membership of the EU.
Secondly, do not underestimate people. The people's ability to think for themselves is much more developed than leaders of a Yes - or No - campaign tend to believe. Give people the opportunity to take their own decision based on facts. If you provide them with facts, it could be the best way to win.
The FOI has done its best to present the information to its members in an honest way and based on facts. We have stated, in no uncertain terms, that the final package is beneficial to Malta as a whole. However, we emphasised the need for more assistance to be given to the food and beverages processing industry to enable it to restructure. The FOI believes that honesty will result in more credibility. The final decision was taken with the comfort of a number of studies commissioned by the FOI on various aspects of EU membership. Even before Malta presented its application for membership in 1990, the FOI conducted a study entitled "The EC: Malta at the Crossroads" that took into consideration the status quo at the time involving a "special" relationship, a customs union and full membership. The conclusion was in favour of full integration even at the time.
In 1991, the FOI commissioned Coopers & Lybrand Brussels to conduct a report on "The effects of EU membership on industry in Malta". Again the results pointed towards the same direction.
We had other reports since then in which we were involved. We had the Ramboll Report that pointed the way for the restructuring of Maltese-owned industry in preparation for liberalisation of the market and that had eventual EU membership in mind.
This important development led to the setting up of IPSE; and the government assistance being given to firms for restructuring is a direct result of the FOI's efforts to convince two successive governments.
We had another study drawn up by the director of the Malta Business Bureau (MBB) that again weighed the pros and cons of EU membership and that of staying out. Again, the results pointed towards membership as the best option. The latest study in which we, the FOI through the MBB, participated, tackled the economic impact assessment of EU membership.
The report by Professor Ali Bayar, a Turkish economist held in high esteem at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the World Bank, again pointed towards EU membership as a positive development without which the economy will languish in very slow development levels.
The FOI has also backed its final opinion by facts obtained from the very members it represents. A survey was conducted by visiting all our members. The results of the survey showed that out of the 72% of the FOI members who took part in the whole exercise, 58% considered EU membership to be beneficial to their company, 23% considered membership to be neutral, while only 13.8% thought that EU membership would be harmful.
This was mostly in the case of the food and beverage sector - although this was not the view of the majority of firms in this same sector. No politician can know the status and the underlying restructuring of a company more than the people managing that concern and this is why we obtained the information from the member firms themselves. It is for this reason that we have pleaded with the politicians to let industry work. The referendum will come and go. But the damage that is being done to particular firms and to their employees will remain.
The logical conclusion must thus be: If EU membership is beneficial to the company, will it not naturally be beneficial to the worker? Which company manager in his right mind would state that EU membership is beneficial to his company if he is looking at reducing his workforce after membership?
I was recently asked by someone who is opposing membership whether, based on the survey results, the Federation believes that its members have done their homework. As I stated above - do not underestimate people. They have done their homework for the good of their enterprise.