The Times of Malta
By pressing ahead for early accession into the EU before the next general election with the very real prospect of this being turned down in a referendum there are only losers and few pious victors.
The most obvious winner could be the Labour Party but as explained in the previous contribution this would be a short-lived win crippling the evolvement of future policies for an elected Labour Government. In any event it is certainly not the Labour Party that is pressing for accession to the EU on this side of the next elections!
The big loser would be the Nationalist Party which in such an eventuality would need to re-invent itself after seeing the major platform upon which it has founded its domestic and foreign policy dissolve under its own feet.
The EU itself would be a loser seeing its relations with Malta being aborted by the accelerated pace which was forced onto a project which needed more time. The EU has a real interest in maintaining a healthy and progressive relationship with Malta and a referendum rebuff would set the relations quite a few steps back.
So where is the winner and for whose sake are these risks being taken` Obviously there could be niches who harbour extreme insularity who can consider themselves winners of such an outcome but it is hardly imaginable that such risks are being taken for their benefit.
The simple truth is that the whole accession to the EU project is being subjected to the personal ambitions of one man. One person who is seeking to crown the end of his successful political career with the achievement of a premature objective. A man who has developed an obsession to enter the history book waving the membership document.
The time frames of the project are not being developed in the interest of the nation. Nor are they being forced upon us by the EU.` The EU has made it clear that the next enlargement will not be a short term window of opportunity but will be a long term process where countries could join upon achievement of sufficient congruence to render membership a salutary experience. The time-frames are being dictated by the personal needs of the Prime Minister.
Following the gift on a silver platter restored by Mintoff in the summer of 1998 to compensate for the moral deprivation caused by the 1981 electoral result, the Prime Minister has been running the country as if by divine inspiration.
It is easy to believe that the hand of God was behind the events of summer 1998 and therefore logical to extend the reasoning to believing that the hand of God is also behind the accession to the EU project.` Some even went as far as describing EU membership as a religious necessity for the defence of faith.
Though logical such behaviour from our political leader is putting in danger the whole economic and political progression of the country.` It is putting at risk all the political evolution which this country has acquired in the post war years.
Why should the country be put so much at risk for the personal agenda of just one man Can`t somebody please explain to our Prime Minister that his place in the history book is already reserved and he should not emulate Mintoff in tarnishing history`s judgement by follies committed at the end of a brilliant career.
This country desperately needs to restore a state of normality in the relationship between its main political parties. This can only happen following the next general election.` If Labour wins they can continue where they left off with the only difference that the 5 to 7 years for the free trade zone would be nearing its end of term so they would need to put forward the next steps for up-grading our relations with the EU.` If the PN wins then Labour would definitely have no choice but to review the whole concept of their model for Malta-EU relations.
Convergence on the concept of the best model for Malta-EU relations would then be possible also because by then the EU would have decided on what rights and obligations small member states like Malta would have within an enlarged EU. It would be the time to move forward in confidence as one nation with differences of opinion capable of being democratically debated without anyone trying to twist the rule of democratic play. The unhappy episode opened in the 1981 would be closed by the same person who opened it. It would be time to look the EU in the eye and decide the best way forward together as one nation without extreme bitterness between our political leaders and with the background of a healthy re-structured economy.
Political leaders should place the national interest before their personal agenda. History would repay them with kindness and esteem.
Alfred Mifsud
By pressing ahead for early accession into the EU before the next general election with the very real prospect of this being turned down in a referendum there are only losers and few pious victors.
The most obvious winner could be the Labour Party but as explained in the previous contribution this would be a short-lived win crippling the evolvement of future policies for an elected Labour Government. In any event it is certainly not the Labour Party that is pressing for accession to the EU on this side of the next elections!
The big loser would be the Nationalist Party which in such an eventuality would need to re-invent itself after seeing the major platform upon which it has founded its domestic and foreign policy dissolve under its own feet.
The EU itself would be a loser seeing its relations with Malta being aborted by the accelerated pace which was forced onto a project which needed more time. The EU has a real interest in maintaining a healthy and progressive relationship with Malta and a referendum rebuff would set the relations quite a few steps back.
So where is the winner and for whose sake are these risks being taken` Obviously there could be niches who harbour extreme insularity who can consider themselves winners of such an outcome but it is hardly imaginable that such risks are being taken for their benefit.
The simple truth is that the whole accession to the EU project is being subjected to the personal ambitions of one man. One person who is seeking to crown the end of his successful political career with the achievement of a premature objective. A man who has developed an obsession to enter the history book waving the membership document.
The time frames of the project are not being developed in the interest of the nation. Nor are they being forced upon us by the EU.` The EU has made it clear that the next enlargement will not be a short term window of opportunity but will be a long term process where countries could join upon achievement of sufficient congruence to render membership a salutary experience. The time-frames are being dictated by the personal needs of the Prime Minister.
Following the gift on a silver platter restored by Mintoff in the summer of 1998 to compensate for the moral deprivation caused by the 1981 electoral result, the Prime Minister has been running the country as if by divine inspiration.
It is easy to believe that the hand of God was behind the events of summer 1998 and therefore logical to extend the reasoning to believing that the hand of God is also behind the accession to the EU project.` Some even went as far as describing EU membership as a religious necessity for the defence of faith.
Though logical such behaviour from our political leader is putting in danger the whole economic and political progression of the country.` It is putting at risk all the political evolution which this country has acquired in the post war years.
Why should the country be put so much at risk for the personal agenda of just one man Can`t somebody please explain to our Prime Minister that his place in the history book is already reserved and he should not emulate Mintoff in tarnishing history`s judgement by follies committed at the end of a brilliant career.
This country desperately needs to restore a state of normality in the relationship between its main political parties. This can only happen following the next general election.` If Labour wins they can continue where they left off with the only difference that the 5 to 7 years for the free trade zone would be nearing its end of term so they would need to put forward the next steps for up-grading our relations with the EU.` If the PN wins then Labour would definitely have no choice but to review the whole concept of their model for Malta-EU relations.
Convergence on the concept of the best model for Malta-EU relations would then be possible also because by then the EU would have decided on what rights and obligations small member states like Malta would have within an enlarged EU. It would be the time to move forward in confidence as one nation with differences of opinion capable of being democratically debated without anyone trying to twist the rule of democratic play. The unhappy episode opened in the 1981 would be closed by the same person who opened it. It would be time to look the EU in the eye and decide the best way forward together as one nation without extreme bitterness between our political leaders and with the background of a healthy re-structured economy.
Political leaders should place the national interest before their personal agenda. History would repay them with kindness and esteem.
Alfred Mifsud
No comments:
Post a Comment