High noon high temperature

The Malta Independent on Sunday

High noon - high temperatures

Isn`t life in Malta strange Just when society is getting more secular we are about to see three of our` nationals beatified by the Catholic Church. In two thousand years of ultra Catholicism we never got one beatification. Now it seems as we get more secular we are getting three.` Similarly as public opinion is moving away from EU membership we are getting increasing intensity of foreign dignitaries pouring EU wisdom on us.

EU is the best thing to happen to Luxembourg informed us Luxembourg`s Deputy Prime Minister Polfer. Can anyone dispute that` Luxembourg in 1958 was an economy dependant on the steel industry and it has emerged as the `offshore` financial centre in the heart of Europe. But how can this be relevant to Malta`s situation in 2001 Luxembourg is under pressure to harmonise its tax practices to EU norms and Malta has been informed, as have other applicant countries, that it will not be allowed any special privileges as Luxembourg was allowed in the past So how can Luxembourg past successes within the EU be indicative of what awaits Malta should it become a member` Also whilst the size of the two countries` is quite similar the geo-political realities could not be more contrasting. Luxembourg runs borders with Germany, Belgium, and France right in the heart of the European mainland. Malta is what it is.

The Dutch Secretary of State Benschop kindly reminded us that Social Democrats see EU as their home and feel comfortable within the EU.` But seriously, can these be real arguments to support flagging enthusiasm for EU membership The EU is not founded on a political ideology which distinguishes Social Democrats from Liberals or Conservatives.` Within the EU there` feels comfortable whoever`s geo-political realities` match the centralisation force of the EU project. So clearly Luxembourg, Belgium, France,` Germany, Netherlands, Northern Italians feel comfortable in the EU immaterial of which side of the political divide they come from. So do Spain, Portugal and` Greece who compare the` progress under their` EU membership to former stagnation under autocratic dictators. Peripheral countries with strong democratic traditions like Denmark, Sweden, UK, Ireland and Austria feel much less comfortable within the EU. Their people, much more than their politicians,` feel trapped inside and have to make the most of it.` Finland is quite an exception to the mood of peripheral countries but Finland is probably too close to Russia to feel comfortable outside the EU.

This week, members of the media were invited to the EU Directorate to meet Mr.` Patrick Brooks` who has been hired as a Consultant by the Commission to advise on the communication strategy it should adopt to ensure that the Commission does not get disappointed by Malta`s referendum decision.` Do I smell undue pressure to prejudice our sovereign right for a` free choice`

Making a free choice is the basis of democracy.` Recently we witnessed unappetising attempts for restriction of individual free choice.` The first attempt was made by the Drydocks section of the GWU. Putting on the unfitting mantel of constitutional lawyers and in the face of declaration by the Opposition for prudence even if in disagreement with the government`s view on the constitutionality of the La Salle contract, this particular Union section tried clearly to prejudice not only the workers` right to choose but also the Union`s higher organs right` to make a rational decision.

This attempt was reciprocated in kind by the Prime Minister who served each and every Drydocks worker with a stark choice. Either work on La Salle or kiss your job good-bye.

The Prime Minister and the Drydocks section of the GWU were like two western cowboys ready to shoot each other on high noon. In their firing line there were 3000 odd Drydocks employees.` Employees who in their vast majority would prefer to form part of an organisation which is efficiently run and managed` so that they give a fair day`s work for a fair day`s wage without being a burden on our tax payments. Employees who in their vast majority aspire for corporate` leadership with vision which could re-channel the vast millions mentioned by the Prime Minister to sensible re-structuring of the organisation rather than see more million continue being flushed down the subsidy drain.

Workers who detest whoever decided on that infamous Thursday to put them in the firing lines of our two newest cowboys.` It was thanks to the cool-headedness of Toni Zarb and the gentle footwork of Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici that the workers were extracted from their high noon stakes and allowed to live a normal life at work and at home without expecting a policeman knocking on the door forcing them to make the no choice decision.

Which brings me back to my initial argument. We do not need emissaries to brain-wash us how juicy life is inside of the EU.` We need arguments, hard facts and concrete realities to help us envision what life inside the EU consists of for a peripherical island in the Mediterranean under EU rules as would be applicable in 2005. It is high time for government to come down from its head in clouds approach depicting` EU membership like a religious mission to be followed with faith not reason. It is time for the Opposition to fleshen up its Switzerland in Mediterranean model and frame it within the context of existing structures like EFTA or EEA to package it` in a more understandable manner.

Such choices need to be made in an election.` The next election would be the final word on the matter.` In the national interest, not to continue giving this country more sterile leadership a general election is needed sooner not later.` People must choose between EU membership or Switzerland in the Mediterranean frame-worked on EFTA or EEA models. Then whatever we choose must be followed with unity and determination. There is life after whatever the choice.`

On the other hand in a referendum we` will be made to choose between membership and` non-membership which with assistance of EU funds could be made to look as splendid isolation. That would be as much as a choice as that offered to Drydocks workers by our high noon cowboys.

High noon high temperature

The Malta Independent on Sunday

High noon - high temperatures

Isn`t life in Malta strange Just when society is getting more secular we are about to see three of our` nationals beatified by the Catholic Church. In two thousand years of ultra Catholicism we never got one beatification. Now it seems as we get more secular we are getting three.` Similarly as public opinion is moving away from EU membership we are getting increasing intensity of foreign dignitaries pouring EU wisdom on us.

EU is the best thing to happen to Luxembourg informed us Luxembourg`s Deputy Prime Minister Polfer. Can anyone dispute that` Luxembourg in 1958 was an economy dependant on the steel industry and it has emerged as the `offshore` financial centre in the heart of Europe. But how can this be relevant to Malta`s situation in 2001 Luxembourg is under pressure to harmonise its tax practices to EU norms and Malta has been informed, as have other applicant countries, that it will not be allowed any special privileges as Luxembourg was allowed in the past So how can Luxembourg past successes within the EU be indicative of what awaits Malta should it become a member` Also whilst the size of the two countries` is quite similar the geo-political realities could not be more contrasting. Luxembourg runs borders with Germany, Belgium, and France right in the heart of the European mainland. Malta is what it is.

The Dutch Secretary of State Benschop kindly reminded us that Social Democrats see EU as their home and feel comfortable within the EU.` But seriously, can these be real arguments to support flagging enthusiasm for EU membership The EU is not founded on a political ideology which distinguishes Social Democrats from Liberals or Conservatives.` Within the EU there` feels comfortable whoever`s geo-political realities` match the centralisation force of the EU project. So clearly Luxembourg, Belgium, France,` Germany, Netherlands, Northern Italians feel comfortable in the EU immaterial of which side of the political divide they come from. So do Spain, Portugal and` Greece who compare the` progress under their` EU membership to former stagnation under autocratic dictators. Peripheral countries with strong democratic traditions like Denmark, Sweden, UK, Ireland and Austria feel much less comfortable within the EU. Their people, much more than their politicians,` feel trapped inside and have to make the most of it.` Finland is quite an exception to the mood of peripheral countries but Finland is probably too close to Russia to feel comfortable outside the EU.

This week, members of the media were invited to the EU Directorate to meet Mr.` Patrick Brooks` who has been hired as a Consultant by the Commission to advise on the communication strategy it should adopt to ensure that the Commission does not get disappointed by Malta`s referendum decision.` Do I smell undue pressure to prejudice our sovereign right for a` free choice`

Making a free choice is the basis of democracy.` Recently we witnessed unappetising attempts for restriction of individual free choice.` The first attempt was made by the Drydocks section of the GWU. Putting on the unfitting mantel of constitutional lawyers and in the face of declaration by the Opposition for prudence even if in disagreement with the government`s view on the constitutionality of the La Salle contract, this particular Union section tried clearly to prejudice not only the workers` right to choose but also the Union`s higher organs right` to make a rational decision.

This attempt was reciprocated in kind by the Prime Minister who served each and every Drydocks worker with a stark choice. Either work on La Salle or kiss your job good-bye.

The Prime Minister and the Drydocks section of the GWU were like two western cowboys ready to shoot each other on high noon. In their firing line there were 3000 odd Drydocks employees.` Employees who in their vast majority would prefer to form part of an organisation which is efficiently run and managed` so that they give a fair day`s work for a fair day`s wage without being a burden on our tax payments. Employees who in their vast majority aspire for corporate` leadership with vision which could re-channel the vast millions mentioned by the Prime Minister to sensible re-structuring of the organisation rather than see more million continue being flushed down the subsidy drain.

Workers who detest whoever decided on that infamous Thursday to put them in the firing lines of our two newest cowboys.` It was thanks to the cool-headedness of Toni Zarb and the gentle footwork of Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici that the workers were extracted from their high noon stakes and allowed to live a normal life at work and at home without expecting a policeman knocking on the door forcing them to make the no choice decision.

Which brings me back to my initial argument. We do not need emissaries to brain-wash us how juicy life is inside of the EU.` We need arguments, hard facts and concrete realities to help us envision what life inside the EU consists of for a peripherical island in the Mediterranean under EU rules as would be applicable in 2005. It is high time for government to come down from its head in clouds approach depicting` EU membership like a religious mission to be followed with faith not reason. It is time for the Opposition to fleshen up its Switzerland in Mediterranean model and frame it within the context of existing structures like EFTA or EEA to package it` in a more understandable manner.

Such choices need to be made in an election.` The next election would be the final word on the matter.` In the national interest, not to continue giving this country more sterile leadership a general election is needed sooner not later.` People must choose between EU membership or Switzerland in the Mediterranean frame-worked on EFTA or EEA models. Then whatever we choose must be followed with unity and determination. There is life after whatever the choice.`

On the other hand in a referendum we` will be made to choose between membership and` non-membership which with assistance of EU funds could be made to look as splendid isolation. That would be as much as a choice as that offered to Drydocks workers by our high noon cowboys.

Konfront

Il-Kullhadd Konfront

Dak li gara il-gimgha l-ohra rigward il-kwistjoni tal-La Salle turi bl-aktar mod car li l-gvern nazzjonalista ma fadallux soluzzjoni ghal problemi tal-pajjiz u biex jghatti il-falliment tieghu qed ifittex konfront.

Din hija tattika maghrufa. Juzawha hafna dittaturi li biex izommu l-poter ikollhom izommu lil pajjizhom fi stat ta` rivoluzzjoni permanenti biex dejjem izommu lin-nies fi stat ta` konfront. B`hekk jiggustifikaw dak li ma jkunux jistghu jiggustifikaw jekk fil-pajjiz ikun hemm il-kwiet u s-sliem.

Wara tant snin li l-problema tat-tarzna giet traskurata iqum darba fil-ghodu il-gvern u jghid daqshekk. Jew taghmlu li nghidilkom jew it-tarzna naghlaqha. Ghax hekk tfisser fic-cirkustanzi prezenti li tghid li tirtira l-ghajnuna finanzjarja lit-tarzna.` Tfisser li t-tarzna ikollha taghlaq.

Jien mill-ewwel fissirt fehmti li ma ghandniex naqghu ghan-nasba tal-gvern u nirrispondu ghall-konfrontazzjoni li l-gvern kien qed ifittex. Ghalina in-newtralita`u non-allinjament huma sagrosanti u ma ghandiex x`niddiskutu dwarhom. Il-kostituzzjoni ma tistax toqghid tibdilha u taggornaha ghal kul xejn. Ghall-gvern in-newtralita` saret irrelevanti. Dik affarih. Il-kostituzzjoni titkellem car. U altru li n-newtralita` mhix irrelevanti. Min irid jikser il-Kostituzzjoni jaghmel dan a spejjez tieghu. Kisru tant weghdiet u ligijiet in-nazzjonalisti xi hadd ha jiskanta ghax jiksru l-kostituzzjoni`

Il-Partit Laburista u l-GWU taw l-akbar risposta ta` serjeta`. Halli lil min irid jiksirha l-Kostituzzjoni. Ghandna pacenzja twila u kultant trid taccetta l-hazin biex tiskansa l-aghar.` L-ahjar protezzjoni ghal Kostituzzjoni mhix il-konfrontazzjoni li qed ifittex il-gvern li taf tkunlu id-duwa ta-maddalena.` L-ahjar protezzjoni ghal-kostizzjoni huwa li maljar kemm jista` jkun jerga` jkollna gvern laburista.

Izda ma jistax ikun li ma nisiltux xi taghlimiliet minn dak li gara.` U l-ewwel taghlima hija li issa l-gvern qed daru mal-hajt u allura ser jaqa fuq il-provokazzjoni.` Din ma kienetx l-ewwel mossa u zgur mhux ser tkun l-ahhar wahda.` Bhal ma ghamilna s`issa ma naghtux lill-gvern dak li qed ifittex.` Ma naghtuhx konfrontazzjoni.` Naghtuh twissija u nfehmu lil-poplu f`liema bassezzi waqa` dan il-gvern. Fil-bassezzi li jibghat il-pulizija wara bibien il-haddiema. Lanqas f`daru ma jhalluh kwiet il-haddiem. Il-veru kaz ta` min jitkaza U dan wara li ilhu erbatax il-sena jilghab mal-problema tat-tarzna. Erbatax il-sena li flok uza r-risorsi tal-pajjiz biex jirrigenera t-tarzna hela r-rizorsi f`sussidji li ma jwasslu mkien hlief ghal hela. U wara din it-trakuragni kollha jippretendi li l-haddiem ihallas ghaliha bl-ghezez haga li ghandu.. bix-xoghol.

Nitghallmu wkoll li biex niddefendu bl-ahjar mod dak lir rbahna hemm bzonn li nkunu fil-gvern. Mill-oppozizzjoni hemm limitu x`tista taghmel. Ghalhekk ir-rizorsi taghna ghandna niffukawhom fuq il-progett politiku li nkunu fil-gvern mill-aktar fis possibbli. Hekk biss nistghu niddefednu dak li ksibna.` Hekk biss nistghu inzommu s-sovranita ta` dan il-pajjiz. Ghalhekk meta nkunu fil-gvern nifhmu li iebsin kemm ikunu iebsin id-decizjonijiet li jkollna niehdu ahjar dixxiplina minn gvern laburista milli t-traskuragni ta gvern nazzjonalista li ghalkemm fil-bidu tkun tidher helwa maz-zmien twassal biex il-haddiem ihallas prezz mill-aktar gholi.

Il-gvern nazzjonalista llum jaf li jinsab fi sqaq. Nofs it-terminu tal-parlament ga ghosfor u l-pajjiz ghadu mifni finanzjarjament u ekonomikament. Jaf li jekk jaghmel referendum dwar l-UE dan ma jghaddiex ghax anke nazzjonalisti stess jivvutaw kontra. J af li jekk jibqa` fil-gvern ser jikkomplika `l bicca ghax ma ghandux manadat biex jaghmel dak li hemm bzonn.` Jaf li ta` l_UE qed jinstigawh biex ma jissograx itawwal u mbaghad isibu li hlew il-hin ghax gvern laburista gdid jibdel ir-rotta. Il-gvern qed taht pressjoni biex ifittex manadat halli jaghti hajja mill-gdid lil-progett ta` l-UE. Ghalhekk it-tiftix ghal-konfrontazzjoni. Ghalhekk l-attentat biex nidhru ta` eroj a spejjez tat-tarzna.

Meta tigbor dawn it-taghlimiet nitbissem meta nisma lil xi semmiegha jinstigaw fuq il-mezzi taghna li hemm bzonn inqumu, hemm bzonn naghmlu xi haga.` Naghmlu dimostrazzjonijiet u meetings kollha li hemm bzonn fil-paci u fis-sliem. Izda l-aktar li rridu naghmlu huwa li permezz tal-vot nibghatu messagg car lill-Gvern li tilef l-appocc tal-maggoranza. U l-ewwel oppurtunita` li naghmlu dan tasal fl-10 ta` Marzu. Warajaha jkun hemm opportunijiet ohra u aktar importanti.

Lessons from La salle

The Malta Independent

Lessons from La Salle

Fourteen years of` benign, probably irresponsible, indulgence regarding the Drydocks structural problems bleeding hard-earned millions out of the exchequer each year for the last fifteen years, reached` climax last week.` The government fired an ultimatum.

Most of us are thankful that the union managed to convince its militant Drydocks section to back down from its earlier constitutionally inspired rigid stand.` The nation has enough problems and can do without another confrontation at Drydocks. But for the majority of us who pay taxes without seeking any return from the state, has it been a fair deal I doubt it.

With maximum exposure on government friendly media the Prime Minister handed down a no ` nonsense ultimatum. Either work or the financial subsidy lifeline will be immediately shut off. The choice was made. The workers decided to work and leave constitutional interpretations to the politicians and legislators. Which basically gives them eternal rights to access the subsidy lifeline. The government has boxed itself into a situation where it can no longer use the subsidy lifeline as a lever to bring about real restructuring at Drydocks.

In2 months time, when His Holiness would be visiting for the third time, this government would celebrate 14 years in power interrupted only by a brief Labour interlude of 22 months. Fourteen years ago Gorbachev was still philosophizing about perestroika. Reagan was still President of the United States, and Margaret Thatcher was still in her glory as Britain`s Prime Minister.` All these leaders have been assigned to the history books. Their successors have been succeeded.` Countries which were once communist are now truly re-structured into market economies. Two Germanies have become one, communism has disappeared from Europe but the Drydocks problem is still with us.

Was fourteen years not a time long enough for the Drydocks problem to be resolved.` The horrendous millions mentioned by the Prime Minister in his ultimatum` which the Drydocks owes to the government and to Banks earning interest from these government guaranteed dead loans should have made the prime Minister blush.` All these millions have been drained down the budgetary black hole through sheer and utter financial irresponsibility. Long gone are the days when Prime Ministers have the courage to look the workers in the eyes and challenge them on their genitals regarding their ability to run the Drydocks in a commercially sound manner.` Instead for fourteen years the Drydocks tree has been over-watered with easy money which has damaged its commercial roots, withered its leaves and left it with an aged trunk.

Was this part of a political project to melt down the bedrock of laboursim in Malta` Is the sudden change of heart versus the Drydocks related to government`s` failure to get the GWU to toe its line on the EU issue So many millions politically invested without any return`

For honest tax paying citizens last week was a sad week.` It was the week when government thought it had a check-mate situation to break union militancy at Drydocks only to find itself checkmated into eternal subsidies without serious re-structuring.

A la carte

The Malta Independent

A la carte

I have been` consistently arguing that the country cannot face a monumental decision as EU membership when it is split on it right down the middle. The question whether it is good, bad or the best in the circumstances is hardly the issue.

The issue is that economic re-structuring needs much more urgent priority and using EU membership as a catalyst to impose such re-structuring will back-fire as it will lead voters to choose` against the EU at the crucial referendum stage. In voters` mind the unavoidable pain of re-structuring will be pinned on the EU project and EU membership would be rejected for the wrong reasons.

This will put off a smart decision regarding EU membership for at least the next ten years and even a newly elected labour government will be forced to negotiate the special relationship agreement without` the possibility of playing the membership card during negotiations.` Having alternatives and making your adversary know it is a crucial ingredient for successful negotiations.

A referendum on the EU before a general election is consequently not in the national interest.

Results are showing. Opinion polls conducted by non-partisan mechanisms are clearly showing public opinion drifting away from membership. Such opinion polls in their absolute results carry a margin of error which could falsify their findings. But if conducted with consistency and regularity the trends are not subject to similar error margins. And the trends are clear. The Prime Minister may wish to continue fooling himself to his heart`s content believing that there exists a 57% majority in favour of the EU. Reality is different.

This explains the government`s attempt to use the visit of Commissioner for Enlargement Verheugen` firstly to desist EU-doubters` from forming an opinion before the end of negotiations and secondly to explain that there is no real alternative to membership. Now these two positions are inconsistent with each other and mutually exclusive. If there is no real alternative why should we be expected to wait till the end of negotiations to form an opinion`

In reality there are alternatives and waiting till the end of negotiations will not disclose any new elements except to find out in which areas has Malta been allowed transitory arrangements and how long such transitions will be. We may also find out by then that our residual symbolic power within EU decision mechanisms will continue to be eroded by the new Inter Governmental Conference called for 2004.

So one can understand the emphasis made by Verheugen that the EU does not offer membership a la carte.` This very uttering shows how little informed the Commissioner for Enlargement is about Labour`s policies for the EU and about Malta in general. Labour is not seeking membership period. Neither in full nor la carte. Labour is seeking to negotiate a free trade agreement which will grant mutual rights and obligations and to enter into co-operation agreements on other areas of mutual interest to both parties.

The Switzerland in the Mediterranean motto is meant to reflect similar agreements reached between Switzerland and the EU.` The content will clearly be different though the structure will be the same. This is no a la carte solution. This is a solution where Malta can use its` geo-strategic position giving us international importance much greater than our size, to re-structure ourselves with positioning, differentiation, flexibility and leverage. And this` until one day` can make a smart decision on EU membership should the country ever find enough internal` common ground to consider such a step to be in its own interests.

Alfred Mifsud

Duwa tal-maddalena

Il-Kullhadd Duwa tal-maddalena

In-nazzjonalisti jinsabu min taht. Qed jaraw il-holm taghhom jisfaxxa fix-xejn. Il-poplu Malti aktar ma jifhem u jersaq lejn il-mument li jaghzel dwar is-shubija ta` Malta fl-UE aktar qed jitbieghed minnha. Nazzjonalisti konvinti stess qed juru li mhux lesti jimxu fit-triq ta` shubija fl-Unjoni Ewropeja.

U l-gvern nazzjonalista, minghajr success fil-politika ta` shubija fl-Unjoni Ewropeja, jispicca gvern bla mandat. Gvern li jkun qed jahli z-zmien tal-pajjiz billi joqghod jilghab il-loghba tal-poter meta jaf li ma jistax iwassal il-poplu ghall-vizjoni tieghu.

U allura n-nazzjonalisti qed jigu kostretti jghaddu ghal-mizuri ta` min huwa ddisprat biex jipprova jsalva s-sitwazzjoni.` Kellna ezempju car dan l-ahhar. Ir-rizoluzzjoni tal-GWU li xaqilbet favur il-pozizzjoni tal-Partit Laburista u kontra shubija fl-UE mill-aktar fis possibbli inzertat ittiehdet fl-istess jum taz-zjara tal-Kummissarju ghat-tkabbir tal-UE Verheugen.

Verheugen seta` jara b`ghajnejh li f`Malta m`hawnx qbil fuq shubija u dan mhux biss bejn il-politici izda fis-saffi kollha ta` l-elettorat. Zjara li kienet intenzjonata li taghti mbuttatura lil pozizzjoni tal-gvern spiccat minflok ittimbrat f`mohh l-UE li ma Malta qed jahlu l-hin.

U Verheugen wera wkoll li l-UE ma jkollha l-ebda diffikulta` li tinnegozja ma Gvern Laburista elett demokratikament wara l-elezzjoni li jmiss relazzjoni specjali skond kif qed jipproponi l-partit laburista. Dan ma jfisserx arrangament a la carte li niehdu dak li jaqbilna bla ma nroddu lura xejn. Din ta` l-a la carte giet inventata biex tghatti ftit il-krizi tan-nazzjonalisti biex jikkonvincu li morra kemm hi morra t-triq tas-shubija ma tezistix triq ohra.

Gvern laburista irid jinnegozja arrangament reciproku li jkun fl-interess taz `zewg nahat. Dak li nippretendu li niehdu irridu nkunu ippreparati li ntuh. Izda dan l-arrangement fuq il-mudell Svizzeru jippermetti li nhallu barra settur bhall-agrikoltura li la ma jaqbilx li nghatu lanqas nippretendu li niehdu. Dan l-arragament jippermetti li l-process ta` l-implimentazzjoni` jiehu zmien itwal milli huwa possibbli taht il-mudell tas-shubija. U b`hekk ma johloqx skossi u tbatija ghall-ekonomija u ghal-poplu Malti.

U f`din il-krizi in-nazzjonalisti ghandhom bzonn xi duwa tal-maddalena biex tfejjaqhom mill-mard kroniku li jinsabu fih. U din id-duwa qed jippruvaw isibuha fil-kaz tat-tiswija tal-bastiment navali La Salle fit-tarzna taghna.

Jekk din tiksirx il-kostituzzjoni hemm opinjonijiet diversi. Mhux la kemm tarmi opinjoni u ssostni l-ohra. Il-Gvern ihoss li ma tiksirx il-kostituzzjoni u jrid jibqa` ghaddej.

L-Oppozizzjoni ghandha rizervi dwar dan izda espremit il-hsieb li f`dan il-kaz ser tuza prudenza bla pregudizzju ghal x`taghmel meta tkun fil-gvern.

Kienet soluzzjoni li ghogbot lil kullhadd inkluz lil haddiema tat-tarzna li jridu jaraw il-post tax-xoghol taghhom imfawwar bix-xoghol halli jaqilghu izjed u ma jibqghux piz finanzjarju fuq in-nazzjon.

Fic-cirkostanzi il-bicca missa waqfet hemm. Jekk hawn xi hadd irid jinterpreta l-kostituzzjoni b`mod differenti milli qed jinterpretawha iz-zewg nahat tal-parlament jista jaghmel dan biss permezz tal-Qorti Kostituzzjonali.

Zgur ma ghandux jiehu l-ligi f`idejh, jinterpretha kif jidhirlu u jgerrex xoghol mit-tarzna taghna li dwaru l-Oppozizzjoni uriet li ser tiehu pozizzjoni prudenti anke jekk ma taqbilx. Xoghol il-GWU mhux li tinterpreta l-Kostituzzjoni izda li tizgura li l-haddiema jiehdu l-ahjar kundizzjonijiet f`ambjent fejn iwassal ghat-tkabbir kummercjali ta` l-azjenda fejn jahdmu .

Jekk it-taqsima tat-tarznari tal-GWU ser tiehu rwol li mhux taghha taf tkun bla ma trid id-duwa tal-maddelna li qed ifittex il-gvern biex iregga lura fi hdanu lil dawk li ga abbundunawh.

Il-poplu Malti ma jaccettax l-argument tal-Prim Ministru li n-newtralita ta` Malta ma ghadix rilevanti. Izda l-poplu Malti jhalli dawn l-argumenti ghall-Oppozizzjoni ghax hi taf meta, kemm` u kif l-ahjar li ghandha tinfurzhom fl-interess tan-nazzjon kollu inkluz tan-nies tat-tarzna.

Irish Stew Recipe

The Times of Malta



The Editor,

Dear Sir,

Clearly Dr Austin Bencini and I have very different views on Malta`s application for EU membership. But do we have to disagree even where we agree`

My reference to the La Salle case in my piece Irish Recipe (The Times 15th February) was to emphasise the point that the fact that La Salle contract should proceed, in spite of reservations on its constitutional congruence,` should not lead to the argument that our constitutional neutrality is an expired concept.` Basically this is same thing Dr Bencini argued in his reply.

The argument that neutrality of our constitution has been rendered irrelevant and is an expired concept has been made by influential government components and its frequency increased with the unfolding of the La Salle story. Dr Bencini seems to has missed them.

Dr Bencini makes a strong assertion. `Malta alone (is) to decide the extent and the meaning of what Malta`s neutrality means or should mean since no foreign interference of any sorts exists on this debate.` Whilst this is perfectly true in the present circumstances I ask for reflection if this assertion would hold in the context of membership in the EU which is envisioned as follows my EU Commissioner Prodi: "Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power` In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity,"

Dr Bencini seems to have missed my argument` that pooling of sovereignty in certain areas inevitably leads to loss sovereignty in other areas even where it was not intended. The Irish are finding that pooling of monetary sovereignty is forcing them to subject also their fiscal policies to de facto pooled sovereignty. Similarly Malta will eventually find that even if allowed to opt out` of CSFP arrangements initially,` it would only be a question of when, not if,` that it will have to succumb to the pressure of turning the EU into the political project envisioned by Prodi.` `EU membership is a long term contract and cannot be judged purely by the honey-moon years.

The main point of my article (hence Irish Recipe) was however another.` Our economy needs a social contract based on tax reductions. This has proved so successful in Ireland that the EU is trying to slow down their success. Unfortunately we are going in a totally different direction.

Sincerely,

Alfred Mifsud

Irish Stew Recipe

The Times of Malta



The Editor,

Dear Sir,

Clearly Dr Austin Bencini and I have very different views on Malta`s application for EU membership. But do we have to disagree even where we agree`

My reference to the La Salle case in my piece Irish Recipe (The Times 15th February) was to emphasise the point that the fact that La Salle contract should proceed, in spite of reservations on its constitutional congruence,` should not lead to the argument that our constitutional neutrality is an expired concept.` Basically this is same thing Dr Bencini argued in his reply.

The argument that neutrality of our constitution has been rendered irrelevant and is an expired concept has been made by influential government components and its frequency increased with the unfolding of the La Salle story. Dr Bencini seems to has missed them.

Dr Bencini makes a strong assertion. `Malta alone (is) to decide the extent and the meaning of what Malta`s neutrality means or should mean since no foreign interference of any sorts exists on this debate.` Whilst this is perfectly true in the present circumstances I ask for reflection if this assertion would hold in the context of membership in the EU which is envisioned as follows my EU Commissioner Prodi: "Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power` In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity,"

Dr Bencini seems to have missed my argument` that pooling of sovereignty in certain areas inevitably leads to loss sovereignty in other areas even where it was not intended. The Irish are finding that pooling of monetary sovereignty is forcing them to subject also their fiscal policies to de facto pooled sovereignty. Similarly Malta will eventually find that even if allowed to opt out` of CSFP arrangements initially,` it would only be a question of when, not if,` that it will have to succumb to the pressure of turning the EU into the political project envisioned by Prodi.` `EU membership is a long term contract and cannot be judged purely by the honey-moon years.

The main point of my article (hence Irish Recipe) was however another.` Our economy needs a social contract based on tax reductions. This has proved so successful in Ireland that the EU is trying to slow down their success. Unfortunately we are going in a totally different direction.

Sincerely,

Alfred Mifsud

Irish recipe

The Times of Malta



The headlines of European press reports on 13th February read

Prodi urges fundamental debate on future of the EU Romano Prodi, the European Commission president, urged a fundamental appraisal of the purpose of the European Union, going well beyond the agenda for the next four years agreed by EU leaders at December's Nice summit. ` "Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power` In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity," Mr Prodi said.

"Do we realise that our nation-states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage`"

He cautioned against the temptation to hide behind "fuzzy undertakings and conflicting hidden agendas".

Mr Prodi urged a "no holds barred" constitutional debate on the fundamental nature of the Union, which would look at several central questions, including how best to co-operate on internal and external security and to what extent the EU should seek to enforce its basic values.

Stanley Crossick, chairman of Brussels-based think-tank the European Policy Centre said Mr Prodi was anxious to avert a repeat of the laborious process leading up to the Nice deal. "Nice was clearly not a comprehensive review of how the EU works, although the heads of government claimed it was. Mr Prodi disagreed with the progress made at Nice but chose not to voice this disagreement. Now he is showing his overall position, which is integrationist and aims to minimise the role of inter-governmentalism."

This is a clear reply for whoever thinks that Nice has laid a foundation solid enough to take on EU enlargement which could happen in 2003. This is neigh impossible.` And not only because an Irish referendum on the Nice Treaty risks re-opening the tortuous Nice negotiations.

Why are the Irish being so pig-headed` Have we not heard that Ireland is the model for all that`s good in the EU` Why are the Irish feeling irked by Brussels interventionism. Ireland is the first country to whom the EU book is being thrown regarding operation of their fiscal policy in the context of their membership in the European Monetary Union (EMU).

Some background is needed to understand why the Irish feel offended and short changed. Twenty years after joining the EU in 1973 Ireland was still struggling with low growth, high unemployment and a shaky currency. Following the substantial devaluation of the Irish Punt in 1993 the Irish Government reached a social contract with the trade unions.` In return for accepting the devaluation without seeking compensatory wage increases and in return for moderating wage demands the Irish Government pledged to reduce taxation to protect the average living standards. The recipe worked liked magic. Irish international competitiveness attracted a deluge of (mostly American) foreign direct investment in financial services and the technology` sectors.

Economic growth well in excess of the EU average meant that the government could finance tax reductions whilst turning a 7% budget deficit into a 5% budget surplus in the space of 7 years.

With the economy showing signs of overheating the Government has proposed a further tax-cutting budget for 2001.` `Brussels interpreted this as a pro-cyclical fiscal policy which compromises the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)of the Monetary Union. In reality this SGP was meant to discipline countries that run budget deficits exceeding the 3% of GDP target and taking advantage of low interest rates generated by the single country. The book is being thrown at Ireland for being too successful not for being deceitful.

The argument runs like this. If Ireland were not in the monetary union the Irish Punt would harden against the Euro as Ireland would have to increase domestic interest rates to cool its economy and the economic growth above average would also help to strengthen its currency. Once this is no longer possible as Ireland is part of the monetary union, it has to take other measures to control its growth and bring it in step with the monetary union partners. Tax cuts goes against this need and therefore the partners feel they have a right to dictate Ireland`s fiscal policy. Which highlights the realism that a country cannot operate an autonomous fiscal policy once it has agreed to pool its monetary sovereignty.

What Euro countries are saying to Ireland is to scrap its highly successful social pact with the Unions so that the Irish Unions can demand high wage increases which in itself would render the country less competitive and reduce its rate of economic growth in line with the Euro average.

The lesson from this comes in two parts. Firstly is that once a country pools its` sovereignty it cannot expect to keep its neutrality, its defence and its foreign policy. One can understand why one is hearing the argument that our neutrality is an expired concept.

Whilst I do not agree that anyone outside parliament can give his own interpretation to the Constitution to accept or refuse work on the basis of` personal interpretations, it is not quite the same as saying that the government has any unilateral right to ignore the neutrality provisions of the constitution. It means that if in the La Salle case the Opposition has declared it will act prudently nobody else has a license to act imprudently;` if not to go to the Constitutional Court for a ruling, which is hardly the right thing to do at this delicate stage where Drydocks need work to reduce its claim for permanent state subsidies.

The second lesson is that` the Irish recipe is a model for the economic strategy` which` our country needs to get us out of this economic rut. We need a social pact to render this country again internationally competitive against a pledge to reduce taxes to stimulate economic growth. The Irish are finding that the EU is stopping them in their tracks because they have been so successful. We should be focussing on this rather than on the mad-rush` to increase taxes to achieve early EU accession which will prove as elusive as it is proving for Prodi to reform the EU in a manner which can really take on the enlargement project.

Alfred Mifsud

Irish recipe

The Times of Malta



The headlines of European press reports on 13th February read

Prodi urges fundamental debate on future of the EU Romano Prodi, the European Commission president, urged a fundamental appraisal of the purpose of the European Union, going well beyond the agenda for the next four years agreed by EU leaders at December's Nice summit. ` "Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power` In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity," Mr Prodi said.

"Do we realise that our nation-states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage`"

He cautioned against the temptation to hide behind "fuzzy undertakings and conflicting hidden agendas".

Mr Prodi urged a "no holds barred" constitutional debate on the fundamental nature of the Union, which would look at several central questions, including how best to co-operate on internal and external security and to what extent the EU should seek to enforce its basic values.

Stanley Crossick, chairman of Brussels-based think-tank the European Policy Centre said Mr Prodi was anxious to avert a repeat of the laborious process leading up to the Nice deal. "Nice was clearly not a comprehensive review of how the EU works, although the heads of government claimed it was. Mr Prodi disagreed with the progress made at Nice but chose not to voice this disagreement. Now he is showing his overall position, which is integrationist and aims to minimise the role of inter-governmentalism."

This is a clear reply for whoever thinks that Nice has laid a foundation solid enough to take on EU enlargement which could happen in 2003. This is neigh impossible.` And not only because an Irish referendum on the Nice Treaty risks re-opening the tortuous Nice negotiations.

Why are the Irish being so pig-headed` Have we not heard that Ireland is the model for all that`s good in the EU` Why are the Irish feeling irked by Brussels interventionism. Ireland is the first country to whom the EU book is being thrown regarding operation of their fiscal policy in the context of their membership in the European Monetary Union (EMU).

Some background is needed to understand why the Irish feel offended and short changed. Twenty years after joining the EU in 1973 Ireland was still struggling with low growth, high unemployment and a shaky currency. Following the substantial devaluation of the Irish Punt in 1993 the Irish Government reached a social contract with the trade unions.` In return for accepting the devaluation without seeking compensatory wage increases and in return for moderating wage demands the Irish Government pledged to reduce taxation to protect the average living standards. The recipe worked liked magic. Irish international competitiveness attracted a deluge of (mostly American) foreign direct investment in financial services and the technology` sectors.

Economic growth well in excess of the EU average meant that the government could finance tax reductions whilst turning a 7% budget deficit into a 5% budget surplus in the space of 7 years.

With the economy showing signs of overheating the Government has proposed a further tax-cutting budget for 2001.` `Brussels interpreted this as a pro-cyclical fiscal policy which compromises the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)of the Monetary Union. In reality this SGP was meant to discipline countries that run budget deficits exceeding the 3% of GDP target and taking advantage of low interest rates generated by the single country. The book is being thrown at Ireland for being too successful not for being deceitful.

The argument runs like this. If Ireland were not in the monetary union the Irish Punt would harden against the Euro as Ireland would have to increase domestic interest rates to cool its economy and the economic growth above average would also help to strengthen its currency. Once this is no longer possible as Ireland is part of the monetary union, it has to take other measures to control its growth and bring it in step with the monetary union partners. Tax cuts goes against this need and therefore the partners feel they have a right to dictate Ireland`s fiscal policy. Which highlights the realism that a country cannot operate an autonomous fiscal policy once it has agreed to pool its monetary sovereignty.

What Euro countries are saying to Ireland is to scrap its highly successful social pact with the Unions so that the Irish Unions can demand high wage increases which in itself would render the country less competitive and reduce its rate of economic growth in line with the Euro average.

The lesson from this comes in two parts. Firstly is that once a country pools its` sovereignty it cannot expect to keep its neutrality, its defence and its foreign policy. One can understand why one is hearing the argument that our neutrality is an expired concept.

Whilst I do not agree that anyone outside parliament can give his own interpretation to the Constitution to accept or refuse work on the basis of` personal interpretations, it is not quite the same as saying that the government has any unilateral right to ignore the neutrality provisions of the constitution. It means that if in the La Salle case the Opposition has declared it will act prudently nobody else has a license to act imprudently;` if not to go to the Constitutional Court for a ruling, which is hardly the right thing to do at this delicate stage where Drydocks need work to reduce its claim for permanent state subsidies.

The second lesson is that` the Irish recipe is a model for the economic strategy` which` our country needs to get us out of this economic rut. We need a social pact to render this country again internationally competitive against a pledge to reduce taxes to stimulate economic growth. The Irish are finding that the EU is stopping them in their tracks because they have been so successful. We should be focussing on this rather than on the mad-rush` to increase taxes to achieve early EU accession which will prove as elusive as it is proving for Prodi to reform the EU in a manner which can really take on the enlargement project.

Alfred Mifsud

The right to disagree

The Malta Independent on Sunday

The right to disagree

The increase in frequency with which this administration and the judiciary attempt to remove the individual`s right to disagree is disconcerting. This last month we have had at least three examples which cannot but be a symptom that this administration is losing its sense of balance and that its malaise` is infecting the judiciary.

A democracy is built on checks and balances. The government`s right to administer is not unfettered.` It has to account for its actions to` parliament where it faces a vigilant opposition ready to expose the government`s demerits and to paint itself as a real alternative to government. Out of parliament the government is subject to court rulings if it acts outside the law promulgated by parliament and in certain cases to autonomous review by the offices of the Auditor General and the Ombudsman who respond to parliament not to the government.

All these are then subject to public opinion which is primarily expressed in and influenced by the Press and the Media whose freedom is a very substantial test of a true democracy.

It was therefore wrong for one of our judges to protest against media criticism of a judgement he handed down and proceeded to warn the media to desist from such criticism.` Immaterial of whether the media criticism was justified or not, the right of the media to express concern or disagreement with court judgements is inalienable and should not be contested. At best the Judge could explain why his judgement was correct and why media criticism is unfair,` but should never seek to place himself` beyond reproach. In many cases once a Judge is comfortable with his conscience it is best to brush off criticism and move on.` God forbids the day when judges can hand down decisions without being subject to the scrutiny of public opinion.

The second case is far more serious. A newspaper editor and a columnist get summoned and investigated in the middle of the night. Their offence is` publication of` a strong article expressing belief that it is unacceptable in a truly democratic society, for a person to be held in preventive custody for more than 4 ` years without being brought to trial. That this case has connotations that could embarrass the administration makes it even more serious.

If this country has fallen into this sad level where freedom of the media is being checked through high handed methods then the arrogance of the administration has reached proportions typical of an uninterrupted third term in office which were last seen in Labour`s 1981-1987 term.` If there is anything worrying about this case it` is not that the columnist wrote as she did, but that only this` one` columnist` had the audacity to bring this point out forcefully and demand explanations; why in this case it seems the person concerned is being presumed guilty;` why this person is not being given the same treatment for pre-trial conditional freedom that is now routinely offered` to criminals with much more serious charges.

The third evidence of gross intolerance is the government`s reaction to the GWU report on the impact of the government`s plan to seek Malta`s early accession to the EU.` Without as much as discussing the contents of the report itself a barrage was opened from all fronts within government`s control or influence, including sectors of the media that claims autonomy, to insult and denigrate the GWU for reaching the conclusions it did.

These last few years we have had endless chorus of organisations that without attempting as much as a half-baked study` have been lauding government`s intentions to seek early membership. They have never been as much as half-censored.

But if the GWU`s conclusions from the Report criticises the government`s stand and leans` more towards` the opposition`s` project of a special relationship, which does not exclude membership in the fullness of time when Malta is prepared for it,` all hell breaks loose.`

The GWU` report has a very solid story to tell even though one may criticise it for evident gaps regarding impact of EU membership on taxation, cost of living,` service sector and a comparative study of how the special relationship is superior to membership.` The GWU report focuses almost exclusively on the fact that government has not restructured the economy, has no serious plans to do so, and is relying solely on the EU to force on us its own style of re-structuring. This may be likened to performing keyhole surgery with` a butcher`s knife.

In its conclusion the GWU report is much in line with a book I published in 1999 where I maintained that economic re-structuring and EU membership should be handled in series and not in parallel. Otherwise in the electorate`s mind the pain of the former will be pinned on the latter and support for EU membership will be missing when most needed i.e. in a referendum.

The government is free to disagree with this simple logic but only if it wants to persist on the illogic of self-destruction by insisting that the country faces such irreversible decision as EU membership when it is split on it right down the middle.

If the answer to such logic is the arrogance of denigrating one`s opponents than the road to self-destruction could be shorter than I would have imagined a few weeks back.

The right to disagree

The Malta Independent on Sunday

The right to disagree

The increase in frequency with which this administration and the judiciary attempt to remove the individual`s right to disagree is disconcerting. This last month we have had at least three examples which cannot but be a symptom that this administration is losing its sense of balance and that its malaise` is infecting the judiciary.

A democracy is built on checks and balances. The government`s right to administer is not unfettered.` It has to account for its actions to` parliament where it faces a vigilant opposition ready to expose the government`s demerits and to paint itself as a real alternative to government. Out of parliament the government is subject to court rulings if it acts outside the law promulgated by parliament and in certain cases to autonomous review by the offices of the Auditor General and the Ombudsman who respond to parliament not to the government.

All these are then subject to public opinion which is primarily expressed in and influenced by the Press and the Media whose freedom is a very substantial test of a true democracy.

It was therefore wrong for one of our judges to protest against media criticism of a judgement he handed down and proceeded to warn the media to desist from such criticism.` Immaterial of whether the media criticism was justified or not, the right of the media to express concern or disagreement with court judgements is inalienable and should not be contested. At best the Judge could explain why his judgement was correct and why media criticism is unfair,` but should never seek to place himself` beyond reproach. In many cases once a Judge is comfortable with his conscience it is best to brush off criticism and move on.` God forbids the day when judges can hand down decisions without being subject to the scrutiny of public opinion.

The second case is far more serious. A newspaper editor and a columnist get summoned and investigated in the middle of the night. Their offence is` publication of` a strong article expressing belief that it is unacceptable in a truly democratic society, for a person to be held in preventive custody for more than 4 ` years without being brought to trial. That this case has connotations that could embarrass the administration makes it even more serious.

If this country has fallen into this sad level where freedom of the media is being checked through high handed methods then the arrogance of the administration has reached proportions typical of an uninterrupted third term in office which were last seen in Labour`s 1981-1987 term.` If there is anything worrying about this case it` is not that the columnist wrote as she did, but that only this` one` columnist` had the audacity to bring this point out forcefully and demand explanations; why in this case it seems the person concerned is being presumed guilty;` why this person is not being given the same treatment for pre-trial conditional freedom that is now routinely offered` to criminals with much more serious charges.

The third evidence of gross intolerance is the government`s reaction to the GWU report on the impact of the government`s plan to seek Malta`s early accession to the EU.` Without as much as discussing the contents of the report itself a barrage was opened from all fronts within government`s control or influence, including sectors of the media that claims autonomy, to insult and denigrate the GWU for reaching the conclusions it did.

These last few years we have had endless chorus of organisations that without attempting as much as a half-baked study` have been lauding government`s intentions to seek early membership. They have never been as much as half-censored.

But if the GWU`s conclusions from the Report criticises the government`s stand and leans` more towards` the opposition`s` project of a special relationship, which does not exclude membership in the fullness of time when Malta is prepared for it,` all hell breaks loose.`

The GWU` report has a very solid story to tell even though one may criticise it for evident gaps regarding impact of EU membership on taxation, cost of living,` service sector and a comparative study of how the special relationship is superior to membership.` The GWU report focuses almost exclusively on the fact that government has not restructured the economy, has no serious plans to do so, and is relying solely on the EU to force on us its own style of re-structuring. This may be likened to performing keyhole surgery with` a butcher`s knife.

In its conclusion the GWU report is much in line with a book I published in 1999 where I maintained that economic re-structuring and EU membership should be handled in series and not in parallel. Otherwise in the electorate`s mind the pain of the former will be pinned on the latter and support for EU membership will be missing when most needed i.e. in a referendum.

The government is free to disagree with this simple logic but only if it wants to persist on the illogic of self-destruction by insisting that the country faces such irreversible decision as EU membership when it is split on it right down the middle.

If the answer to such logic is the arrogance of denigrating one`s opponents than the road to self-destruction could be shorter than I would have imagined a few weeks back.

Huma biss bravi

Il-Kullhadd Huma biss bravi!

Mil-mod kif jirraguna dal-gvern bilfors tasal ghal konkluzjoni li huma biss bravi u li kull min ghandu opinjoni differenti huwa cuc.

Dan hareg b`mod mill-aktar car mir-rejazzjoni patetika u miskina li kien hemm ghar-rapport tal-General Workers Union dwar ir-relazzjonijiet futuri ta` Malta ma l-UE.` Il-ministru wiehed wiehed ghamlu konferenza stampa kuljum biex jghajjru lil GWU bla ma lanqas biss jirribattu fis-sostanza il-kontenut tar-rapport ippublikat.

Il-gazzetti bl-ingliz u l-media nazzjonalista lkoll rikbu fuq krucjata biex ipingu lil GWU bil-kuluri l-aktar mudlama sempliciment ghax il-GWU ma ghandiex l-istess fernezija li ghandu l-gvern biex jissieheb fl-UE maljar kemm jist` jkun, ikunu x`ikunu il-konsegwenzi. Skond il-gazzetti bl-ingliz la l-GWU ma taqbilx mal-gvern allura ma ghandiex vizjoni u hija politikament servili ghal Partit Laburista.

Il-livell ta` intolleranza li lahaq il-gvern fir-rejazzjoni tieghu ghar-rapport tal-GWU johrog fil-berah il-paniku li jinsab fih il-Gvern hekk kif qed jirrejalizza li l-platform li jinsab fuqha hija maghmula minn` silg li qed jiddewweb mis-shana ta` l-argumenti ta` min ma ghandux l-ghamad.` Ta` min l-UE jhares lejha b`mod objettiv u jirraguna ta x`jaqbillu l-aktar pajjizna u niesu u mhux x`jaqblilhom il-politci li jmexxuh u dawk li jisquhom bl-ilma tal-hajja.

Ghaliex dan il-gvern qed f`paniku` Qed f`paniku ghax dal-gvern issa dahal fi sqaq li ma ghandux triq ohra hlief l-UE. Il-pjan wiehed tal-gvern huwa li dan isir qabel ma tintemm din il-legizlatura li trid xxolji sa Novembru 2003.` Izda ma kull jum li jghaddi il-gvern qed jirrejalizza li dan mhux aktar possibbli.

Mhux possibbli ghax it-tkabbir ta` l-UE ma jistax isir qabel l-1 ta` Jannar tas-sena 2004 u anke din id-data hija ottimista ghax probabbli li l-affarijiet ikaxkru. Allura hemm cans tajjeb, kwazi certezza, li Gvern laburista jerga jiehu tmun fil-hin biex idawwar ir-rotta lej ir-relazzjoni specjali ta` Svizzera fil-Mediterran.

Mhux possibbli wkoll ghax in-nazzjonalisti qed jikkonvincu ruhhom li jekk jaghmlu referendum f`din il-legizlatura` dan mhux ser jghaddielhom. Ma jghaddilhomx ghax ser jivvotaw kontra jew jastjenu mhux biss il-laburisti izda corma nazzjonalisti li llum jew imdejqin bil-gvern jew addirittura ma jaqblux mas-shubija fl-UE. U jekk il-Partit Laburista bir-ragun jibbojkotja ir-referendum ladarba ma jkunx marbut bir-rizultat tieghu x`ser jaghmel il-Gvern`

Illum il-Gvern qieghed bhal wiehed f`karozza miexja kemm timxi lejn precipizzju u jrid jiddeciedi jekk jaqbizx minn fuqha issa li ghadu `l boghod mil-precipizzju jew jibqa fuqha sat-tarf net` u jitfarrak bil-karozza b`kollox. Jaghmel dan biex` ma jhammarx wiccu billi jaghmel U-Turn u jibqa` jittama li flok precipizzju jsib motorway sabiha. Kull min jurih ir-ritratti tal-precipizzju flok jghidlu grazzi il-gvern jghajjru giddieb u mixtri.

Mhux ta` b`xejn beda sew id-diskors ta` elezzjoni qabel ir-referendum. Elezzjoni tippermetti lill-Gvern jaqbez mil-karozza qabel din titfarrak u ta` l-inqas isalva hajtu anke jekk jinbaraxx.

Aktar importanti ghal Malta illi elezzjoni qabel ir-referendum tippermetti li l-karozza jibda jsuqha gvern laburista li ma jiddejjaq xejn bibdel ir-rotta u jibqa` jinnegozzja ma l-UE b`mod miftuh bla ma jghalaq l-ebda alternattivi.

It-triq taghna ta` Svizzera fil-Mediterran tista` tigi attwata fi zmien qasir u ma talghaqx il-bieb biex fil-futur jekk jinbidlu ic-cirkostanzi, Malta terga thares jekk ikunx jaqblilha li tissieheb bil-kundizzjonijiet li jkunu japplikaw fil-futur. Il-Partit Laburista ma jghalaq bibien ghal xejn` izda zgur li ghal futur li wiehed jista jara l-interess ta` Malta jkun moqdi ahjar b`arrangament specjali addattat ghac-cirkostanzi taghna. L-enegija taghna trid tiffoka fuq li nimmodernizzaw kif jaqbililna u mhux kif jordnawlna.

Izda ffacati minn din ir-rejalta` qarsa in-nazzjonalisti jippreferu li jkomplu joholmu u bl-arroganza jippretendu li huma biss bravi!

No pipe dream

The Malta Independent

No pipe dream

The more honest believers in the case for Malta`s EU membership do not follow the government tag line that the EU is the easy solution to all our problems and that we need` do no further than proceed full speed ahead without need for much thought or analysis except to learn the meaning of such technicalities as acquis communitaire, derogations, Chapter One funding etc etc.

The more honest believers make the case that Malta cannot` survive as a truly independent nation and that in the 36 years of independence` we have brought the country to the verge of economic collapse with mountains of public debt and unrecycled waste. Foremost amongst the proponents of this line of argumentation is this newspaper`s editorial line.

Although it is more honest it is still both wrong and dangerous.` The progress made by this country since independence need no PH D`s to identify. Standard of living has lept in multiples. The benefit of economic growth permeated down to the lowest levels of society. Net migration has shifted from largely outwards to thinly inwards and such luxuries as travelling holidays, two-car family units and air-conditioning, if not the norm are not uncommon.

True our public finances have been in structural fault practically since the economic benefit of the last devaluation in November 1992 evaporated some 24 months later. True over-development and incompetent waste management has created an environmental problem quite difficult to unwind. True short-termism and lax purse policy has meant millions of liri have gone down the drain in useless subsidies and patchy infrastructure jobs which get done and re-done many times over.

But he country has progressed in spite of its incompetent administrations.` Just imagine what sort of potential awaits` to be explored if our creativeness is linked to strong political leadership which can impose serious discipline in the way this country administers its resources.

Rather than consider independence as a failed experiment it is an experience which has shown that we can do much better if we have the possibility to position our economic case differently from the priorities of former colonial masters.` It is of course unfortunate` that this potential has been blunted firstly in the first half on the 1980`s through political instability of a perverse election result, and again in the last half of the 1990`s through reckless spending policies meant to perpetuate the term in power of an expired administration that is now prepared to sacrifice our sovereignty to cover its mismanagement faults.

The ability of this nation to survive as a sovereign open economy trading its competences with the rest of the world without forming an integral part of an economic or military block is not a pipe-dream.` It is a pleasant reality we have lived for 36 years in spite of being administered incompetently by extremes for the last` twenty years. Firstly by the incompetence of whoever put more priority on saving rather than investing in a dormant economy and then by whoever thought it possible to continue spending our way out of structural problems.

If` this country gets serious leadership that` believes in our inner strengths to survive and prosper` we would need no Swiss, Singapore or Hong Kong benchmarks to envision our potential.` We will in a matter of a handful of years turn our potential into a pleasant Maltese reality which would be a model for other countries to benchmark against.

Criteria for choice

The Malta Independent on Sunday

Criteria for choice

The national debate regarding the sort of relationship with the EU which Malta should opt for entered a new interesting phase this last week.

The argument long sustained by the government that there exist no real alternative to` EU membership crumbled through the disclosure of a document subscribed to by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Nationalist party, whereby the Popular Parties of Europe (the conservatives) urge the EU to develop special relations with countries neighbouring the EU that choose` not to go for membership.

So the choice is now no longer between apples and no apples but between apples and oranges.` The possibility for Malta to negotiate a specific agreement tailored to our conditions on the same model as that negotiated by the Swiss is not only possible but is indeed being promoted by influential forces within the EU itself with whom the governing party in Malta shares ideas and ideals.

The second important development was acceptance by the Prime Minister to accept, at least in principal, postponement of the EU accession referendum till after a general election which must occur before the` effective date of the next enlargement.

So the first decision the Maltese electorate will have to make is not one of apples or no apples but to choose either apples or oranges.

The next election will make an irrefutable pronouncement whether to elect a Nationalist government with a mandate to conclude accession negotiations and hold a final referendum to take Malta into the EU through an` irreversible decision. Or it will decide` whether to elect a Labour Government which will be mandated to negotiate a Swiss style special relationship agreement with which Malta will have to live for the next 10 years before reconsidering the membership option on the conditions then prevailing.

So finally we can discuss which is the best route and not just` the merits or demerits of the only route. An it must be emphasised that the choice is one of route not one of destination.

The destination is common. It is the giving to this young nation and its people the best standard of living and sovereign self-esteem in a ferociously competitive world become smaller through unstoppable globalisation. Which routes gets us there quicker and with the least possible pain` Which criteria are most suitable to enable evaluate the options and choose the better one`

I have selected for myself four criteria on which I have formed and continue to evolve my opinion.

My first criterion is positioning. Which route takes account of Malta`s geographical position which is a given fixed point Which relationship is suitable for Malta`s reality of being a small island in the middle of the Mediterranean on the southern periphery of the European continent on the border to the great African continent Which route best protects the advantages of this position and minimises its disadvantages` Can the models created to suit much larger countries on the continental mainland cause problems if adopted by a small peripheral island state or can we adjust to them`

The second criterion is differentiation. Can we get to our destination quicker and better if we position ourselves differently or if we just adopt the same models of other countries If you are a small island with limited physical resources do you compete for tourism with neighbouring countries with long stretches of sandy beaches,` on a sun sea and sand proposal or do you differentiate yourself by proposing a tourist product based on quality of service, the advantages of your smallness to see the country in just 3 days and on your unique archaeological treasures`

The third criterion is flexibility.` The small guys run under the feet of the big giants I learnt long ago to explain how small and medium sized business can survive against the might of the big corporations. Does the EU membership option preserve the flexibility our country needs to grasp evolving opportunities as they emerge or will we be stifled by the bureaucracy of a mammoth organisation` Is the flexibility better preserved by the Swiss model option which permits us to tailor it to take account of our peculiarities` Or would we use these peculiarities to perpetuate our resistance to change and move the economy to a truly efficient level`

The last criteria is leverage. Which option will permit us best to leverage our geographically strategic position, a national asset par excellence, to extract maximum economic benefit` Will it be through skilful and tough negotiations of special purpose agreement or will it be through membership with limited and shrinking` veto rights and three votes out of 340`

A route is as good as the vision and ability of the leader which is calling the nation to follow him. The nationalist party has totally lost my confidence to use positioning, differentiation, flexibility and leverage to extract a reasonable deal for Malta under the membership option. It is time to give labour a chance to test these criteria for the Swiss model. It would not be irreversible and does not exclude membership at some distant future point in time if circumstances so demand.

Criteria for choice

The Malta Independent on Sunday

Criteria for choice

The national debate regarding the sort of relationship with the EU which Malta should opt for entered a new interesting phase this last week.

The argument long sustained by the government that there exist no real alternative to` EU membership crumbled through the disclosure of a document subscribed to by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Nationalist party, whereby the Popular Parties of Europe (the conservatives) urge the EU to develop special relations with countries neighbouring the EU that choose` not to go for membership.

So the choice is now no longer between apples and no apples but between apples and oranges.` The possibility for Malta to negotiate a specific agreement tailored to our conditions on the same model as that negotiated by the Swiss is not only possible but is indeed being promoted by influential forces within the EU itself with whom the governing party in Malta shares ideas and ideals.

The second important development was acceptance by the Prime Minister to accept, at least in principal, postponement of the EU accession referendum till after a general election which must occur before the` effective date of the next enlargement.

So the first decision the Maltese electorate will have to make is not one of apples or no apples but to choose either apples or oranges.

The next election will make an irrefutable pronouncement whether to elect a Nationalist government with a mandate to conclude accession negotiations and hold a final referendum to take Malta into the EU through an` irreversible decision. Or it will decide` whether to elect a Labour Government which will be mandated to negotiate a Swiss style special relationship agreement with which Malta will have to live for the next 10 years before reconsidering the membership option on the conditions then prevailing.

So finally we can discuss which is the best route and not just` the merits or demerits of the only route. An it must be emphasised that the choice is one of route not one of destination.

The destination is common. It is the giving to this young nation and its people the best standard of living and sovereign self-esteem in a ferociously competitive world become smaller through unstoppable globalisation. Which routes gets us there quicker and with the least possible pain` Which criteria are most suitable to enable evaluate the options and choose the better one`

I have selected for myself four criteria on which I have formed and continue to evolve my opinion.

My first criterion is positioning. Which route takes account of Malta`s geographical position which is a given fixed point Which relationship is suitable for Malta`s reality of being a small island in the middle of the Mediterranean on the southern periphery of the European continent on the border to the great African continent Which route best protects the advantages of this position and minimises its disadvantages` Can the models created to suit much larger countries on the continental mainland cause problems if adopted by a small peripheral island state or can we adjust to them`

The second criterion is differentiation. Can we get to our destination quicker and better if we position ourselves differently or if we just adopt the same models of other countries If you are a small island with limited physical resources do you compete for tourism with neighbouring countries with long stretches of sandy beaches,` on a sun sea and sand proposal or do you differentiate yourself by proposing a tourist product based on quality of service, the advantages of your smallness to see the country in just 3 days and on your unique archaeological treasures`

The third criterion is flexibility.` The small guys run under the feet of the big giants I learnt long ago to explain how small and medium sized business can survive against the might of the big corporations. Does the EU membership option preserve the flexibility our country needs to grasp evolving opportunities as they emerge or will we be stifled by the bureaucracy of a mammoth organisation` Is the flexibility better preserved by the Swiss model option which permits us to tailor it to take account of our peculiarities` Or would we use these peculiarities to perpetuate our resistance to change and move the economy to a truly efficient level`

The last criteria is leverage. Which option will permit us best to leverage our geographically strategic position, a national asset par excellence, to extract maximum economic benefit` Will it be through skilful and tough negotiations of special purpose agreement or will it be through membership with limited and shrinking` veto rights and three votes out of 340`

A route is as good as the vision and ability of the leader which is calling the nation to follow him. The nationalist party has totally lost my confidence to use positioning, differentiation, flexibility and leverage to extract a reasonable deal for Malta under the membership option. It is time to give labour a chance to test these criteria for the Swiss model. It would not be irreversible and does not exclude membership at some distant future point in time if circumstances so demand.

Lejn rebha kbira laburista

Il-Kullhadd Lejn l-akbar rebha laburista

Mela n-nazzjonalista ma ghadhomx jghixu f`din id-dinja` Mela maghluqin kif inhuma fit-tempji ta` l-avorji jigbdu l-ispag ta` dawk li jghalfu bi flus il-poplu jinsabu maqtughin ghal kollox mill-ughieh, mid-dwejjaq u mir-rabja li qed tingemgha fil-kotra tal-poplu Malti` Bilfors li hekk,` la hadu daqshekk ghalihom ghax fissert fhemti waqt il-konferenza generali tal-hadd li ghadda li l-Partit Laburista miexi lejn l-akbar rebha elettorali li qatt kellu.

Ninsabu bejn wiehed u iehor nofs triq ta` din il-legislatura.` Il-poplu issa jista` jibda jaghmel gudizzju.` U fil-fatt il-poplu qed jiggudika. Qed jiftakar f`min fis-sajf ta` l-1998 kien jichad li l-pajjiz kellu xi problema finanzjarja u f`min kien jghid li din kienet biss invenzjoni ta` Alfred Sant. Jiftakar f`min kien jitkaza li l-gvern laburista kien tilef il-kuxjenza socjali.

U jara il-fatti u jiggudika. Jara l-gvern mghaffeg mill-problema finanzjarja tal-pajjiz li issa m`ghadiex michuda. Bil-wicc tost jghidu li din holoqha Alfred Sant fit-22 xahar li kien Prim Ministru. Lanqas kieku ried jaghmel dan ma kien ikun possibbli. Alfred Sant sab il-problema ma wiccu u harigha fil-berah u kellu jiehu mizuri mhux sbieh biex jindirizza l-problema. Izda l-problema finanzjarja kienet hemm. Holoqha gvern nazzjonalista bejn 1987 u l-1996 meta minn pajjiz bla dejn u mimli rizervi gabu pajjiz midjun u b`rizervi fjakki.

Bhal prostituta titkaza bil-vergni li tilbes skullat in-nazzjonalisti ghanlu 22 xahar taparsi ma jafux bid-deficit, taparsi ma jafux li hemm bzonn issikkar tac-cinturin biex jaghmel tajjeb ghall-irresponsabbilita` finanzjarja taghhom. Illum minn xarrbu qed jieklu l-bakkaljaw. Illum il-problemi finanzjarji huma kbar u indiskuttibli. Illum it-taxxi ( u t-tariffi) hergin minn kullimkien u f`kull gimgha tas-sena.` Illum hemm bzonn li kullhadd ihallas it-taxxa anke fuq dak li sa ftit ilu kien bla taxxa.

Illum sirna nisimghu li mhux sewwa li kullhadd jippretendi s-servizzi socjali b`xejn mill-gvern. Anzi llum kemm jista` jkun skond ir-religjon il-gdida ta` dan il-gvern li issa waqghetlu l-maskra, kullhadd ghandu kemm jista jkun ihallas tas-servizzi kollha li jiehu minghand il-gvern. Illum il-flus saru l`alla l-gdid. Jekk ghandek` flus timxi u tmexxi` jekk ma ghandekx ikkriepa.

U l-poplu jara, ihoss u jifhem li Alfred Sant kellu kull ragun f`dak kollu li kien jghid meta kien Prim Ministru.` Jifhem li l-problemi holquhom in-nazzjonalisti u Alfred Sant kien biss qed jipprova jsalava l-pajjiz minn rovina finanzjarja.` Illum il-poplu fehem li n-nazzjonalistui dahqu bih. Qaluli li ma hemmx ghalfejn sagrificcji li Alfred Sant kien qed jaghmilhom ghax bniedem negattiv u kapriccjuz u issa qed ibellghu lil poplu is-swat tat-taxxi u t-tariffi.

Il-poplu ma jafx ghada x`hemm jistennih. Jaf li l-ekonomija mhix tikkreja gid u jekk jintlaqat minn xi nuqqas ta` xoghol jista jitlef postu u ma tantx se jsib iehor.` Jibza li jqum fil-ghodu u jsib ma wiccu `xi taxxa jew tariffa gdida.

U ghalhekk il-poplu jibza ,` jirtira u jkompli jghaffeg l-ekonomija b`nuqqas ta` nfieq u inizjattiva. Il-poplu jara madwaru kollox iggamjat. Il-progetti jezistu biss fil-paroli u meta u jekk jibdew jitwettqu il-progetti huma fil-parti `l kbira spekulazzjoni ta` propjeta` mhux progetti li jhaddmu u jrendu b`mod kontinwu.

U f`cirkostanzi bhal dawn il-poplu jerga` jdur lejn il-partit laburista. Jitolbu li darba ohra jfissirlu b`mod aktar car, fi kliem aktar semplici il-problemi tal-pajjiz. Jitolbu li darb`ohra jisma aktar l-ugiegh u l-krib li kien qed isofri minn ingustizzji ta` min dera l-poter u jahseb li l-ligijiet jista` jgebbdihomn kif irid u kif jaqbel. Jerga jdur lejn l-patit laburista maghqud ponn wiehed` waqt li jahres lejn il-partit nazzjonalista f`sakra ta` poter. Partit maqtugh mir-rejalta tat-triq u fejn l-esponenti principali aktar imexxu l-agenda persunali biex jaraw kif jahtfu l-post li fi ftit xhur jew snin ohra` jitbattal mill-leader taghhom.

U allura f`cirkostanzi bhal dawn trid tkun xi professur biex tikkonkludi li l-Partit Laburista ghandu l-ahjar soluzzjoni ghal problemi ta` pajjizna` Li anke jekk ma taqbilx mal-Partit Laburista f`kollox xorta joffri tamiet aktar sodi ghal futur ahjar ghalina lkoll.

Li allura il-partit laburista rega jinsab b`maggoranza ta` l-elettorat warajh jistennew l-ewwel cans biex jaghtu l-aktar mandat car li l-partit laburista qatt kellu.

At last!!

The Malta Independent

At last!

The nationalist party and the labour party have found some common ground. Last weekend the Prime Minister revealed for the first time that EU referendum may be held after elections.` This was a totally new revelation going against all previous pronouncements which consistently` indicated government`s determination to proceed to EU accession within the term of this legislature in 2003 following a referendum in 2002.

This change of position is in line with a weighty resolution approved by the MLP general conference held over the weekend which clearly underlined Labour`s policy regarding the EU. The resolution also affirmed that a decision by the electorate regarding future relations with the EU can only be sourced from a new electoral mandate and not from a referendum decision which could easily be neutralised in a subsequent general election result due within less than 12 months.

What has led to the Prime Minister`s sudden and substantial` shift in the Government`s position` One cannot be too sure about what goes on in the corridors of a person`s mind but I am positive` the following reasons were not too far from the Prime Minister`s mind when deciding to shift position. `Firstly it is clear that the electoral mood regarding EU membership is drifting away from membership. The more rhetoric propaganda is dished out to support the membership option the less convinced people grow about it and the more willing to consider other alternatives. The Opposition has forcibly won the argument that alternatives to membership do in fact` exist.` The revelation of a document of European Popular Parties recommending an alternative route to membership for certain countries that do not opt for membership, a document subscribed to by the Prime Minister himself, seals the argument in a definite manner.

Secondly the Prime Minister cannot ignore soundings from the EU itself that membership during the current legislature which runs out by November 1993 is becoming an increasingly unlikely scenario.` Realisation is sinking in that the` Nice Treaty makes a poor foundation for enlargement and that further changes are needed through a further IGC called for 2004 to negotiate further treaty changes to simplify the decision making process in an enlarged community.` The EU must be putting pressure on the Prime Minister to seek a fresh electoral mandate so that it can negotiate with the comfort of a full term electoral mandate rather than risk wasting years of negotiations which are then thrown down the drain by the electorate.` The EU must be discreetly warning the Prime Minister that a poor turnout in a referendum unsubscribed by the Opposition will not constitute a sufficient mandate to proceed with membership.

Thirdly there is the worsening economic scenario which makes a poor setting for achieving the result desired by the government in a referendum.

Which leaves open the question:` Now that there is common ground that a referendum has to be preceded by a general election does this mean that we could face early elections or that the whole EU project is to be` postponed by a couple of years Your guess is as good as mine. The EU would prefer early elections so that it can negotiate with a government enjoying a clear mandate for its EU relations and with a term long enough to bring the project to its conclusion.` The economic scenario on the other hand argues against government acceding to EU pressures.

The Prime Minister has clear choices to make. The national interest demands an early election but personal and party interest could demand otherwise. This is not unlike the` position Alfred Sant found himself in summer 1998. Alfred Sant sacrificed himself and the party and history will acknowledge and reward him for it. So far history will judge the Fenech Adami as placing party consistently` before national interest.` To prove the point one need just look at the national debt mountain which artifically financed a feel good factor that` sustained government`s term in power. Will Fenech Adami clinch this one last chance to rise to the national occasion`