The other Option

The Malta Independent on Sunday

The Other Option

Typical of the way the government is losing its information battle in the run-up to the supposed referendum on the EU is that recently we seem to be discussing more the merits and demerits` of the Swiss model rather those of EU membership.

I say supposed referendum because I do not see much likelihood of the referendum being held on this side of the election. Presumably the only potential winners from holding a referendum during this legislature would be the Labour Party. If the referendum fails, as most indicators are pointing that it would , than the government would have its mandate and political platform wiped away from under its feet. The nationalists could thus be forced to early election without a solid political platform.

So unless the Nationalists would wish to return Labour`s compliment of sacrificing everything for the obsession of just one man, I see no prospect for a referendum until after a general election which will come in its due time in 2003 latest Feb 2004.

Even though many are still totally unsure as to which is the best option between membership and special arrangement Swiss style, yet at least these many know that the choice is not what they` were led to believe.` It is not a choice between being totally in or totally out; between being part of the global world or being isolated. They know there are other routes to have optimum relations with the EU without going for the entire obligation of membership and yet still be competitive in the globalised world.

One should therefore delve deeper into the other option ` the bilateral agreement route just concluded by the Swiss. The argument as to whether or not` this is possible is now dead. The Swiss made it and there is no reason why we should fail as we have as many negotiating cards as the Swiss to strengthen our hands.

Critics to this option sound hollow when they argue it is` isolationist. That argument is dead too. Switzerland is not isolated as neither for that matter are Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein Andorra, Channel Islands, and Monaco.

So they argue that this option offers the obligations of membership without the benefits.` Now the Swiss have been offered membership and refused it, have been offered the EEA and refused it. They have however whole-heartedly approved the bilateral agreements. Now either the Swiss have lost their mind,` which is certainly not the case, or they can tell a good deal when they see one.

So the argument continues that Malta is no Switzerland as Malta would net a net fund beneficiary` from membership whereas Switzerland would have been net contributors to the coffers of Brussels given their high standard of living.

Now this matter of funding has been over-used and abused and so far no one has brought the tiniest shred of evidence about our being entitled to funding. So this hypothesis of our being entitled to a lot of funding remains a pie in the sky ready to be used in the next elections.` I have been making two questions about this matter which met with dead silence.` I bet my bottom dollar that on purchasing power units basis Malta would exceed the 75% EU average GDP as recalculated to include the 10 east European candidates and Cyprus. Once we go over this threshold our entitlement to funding dilutes itself substantially.

Secondly by losing the privilege of acquiring our food and raw material supplies from the cheapest international sources are we not paying indirectly for the funds we will receive` So its our own money after all!

Put in this context the question of accepting all the burdens without the benefits loses conviction. What` about the benefits of being able to establish free-trade arrangements with other economic blocs like the Euro-Med area and NAFTA. What about the benefit of modelling our financial services differently from all the rest`

This is no invitation to rush into the conclusion that the Swiss option is better than membership.` Just to accept that it is a viable alternative to be considered alongside membership. Indeed our negotiators should pounce on such an alternative as it gives them a strong hand to negotiate with the Brussels bureaucracy.

But then they hardly need it. They don`t seem to be negotiating anything. They are just taking notes of which laws we need to change.` Brussels keep reminding them that it is not so` much a simple exercise of changing laws but a much more complicated one to enforce them. We don`t even seem to be getting the simple ones right and keeping sending to parliament half-baked contradictory laws which are not discussed before even if they effect such matters as broadcasting and communications.` Just imagine when we come to the enforcement hard bit!

Alfred Mifsud