The Malta Independent
Things are looked at more objectively when seen from a distance. Thirty-six years ago Malta`s first election as an independent state was most undemocratic when one committed a mortal sin in reading, listening and voting Labour.` For all the division it caused at the time, there is, at a distance, general agreement that that was bad and condemnable.
`Arguments that Malta would be able to veto decisions not in our national interest are fallacious`
How will we look at the current debate about Malta`s EU membership 10 or 20 years down the road`
When deciding on the issue the long-term considerations cannot be neglected.` It is an irreversible decision that will bind successive governments. Arguments that Malta would be able to veto decisions not in our national interest are fallacious. Throughout its existence the EU has been on an unstoppable journey to impose uniformity throughout the Union. What started as an economic community was turned into a general community with co-operation well beyond the economic field and eventually turned into a Union with a common currency.
The momentum to turn the Union into a political one with a common defence and foreign policy takes little imagination to identify. The sustainability of a monetary union without a fiscal union, uniformity or at least harmonisation is in the long term, at best, doubtful.
`would Malta be able to resist the demand of the Union to put its military and defence values at the disposal of the Union
`What would Malta as a member of such Union look like in 10 or 20 years time` Consider this scenario.` As the Union gradually develops into a political force it has to do what every political force normally does.` It strengthens its frontiers especially where it is most vulnerable. With Russia now embracing capitalism and willing to consider even a partnership with NATO, the most vulnerable front remains its southern flank with a swelling number of Muslims feeling under-privileged by their rich Christian northern neighbours.
In this scenario would Malta be able to resist the demand of the Union to put its military and defence values at the disposal of the Union` And if this happens what fate would tourism and industry have on a small island without internal market which would look like a fully armoured air-craft carrier`
And if we have to be economically obliged to use our defence and strategic values to earn our living would it not be more economically expedient to go for a rent agreement model 1972-1979, rather than giving up our sovereignty leaving us no chips to negotiate with`
`The scenario I dream is that of` a disciplined nation with a Singapore style economy trading with the whole world as a competitive island state whilst preserving its own identity`
Contrary to what many think MLP was not against independence in 1964. Quite the contrary! The MLP wanted an unconditional independence to be able to negotiate a defence and financial agreement as a new sovereign state. The PN on the other hand accepted a conditional independence that was packaged with a defence agreement that took away in practice much of what was given in theory.
Do we have to put the clock back to pre-1964 by denying this young nation the only card (it strategic and defence values) it has to leverage a decent living in a highly competitive and globalised world`
The scenario I dream is that of` a disciplined nation with a Singapore style economy trading with the whole world as a competitive island state whilst preserving its own identity and keeping its strategic properties as a card to leverage value in making deals which its richer neighbours.
Looked at from a distance my conviction grows.
Alfred Mifsud
Things are looked at more objectively when seen from a distance. Thirty-six years ago Malta`s first election as an independent state was most undemocratic when one committed a mortal sin in reading, listening and voting Labour.` For all the division it caused at the time, there is, at a distance, general agreement that that was bad and condemnable.
`Arguments that Malta would be able to veto decisions not in our national interest are fallacious`
How will we look at the current debate about Malta`s EU membership 10 or 20 years down the road`
When deciding on the issue the long-term considerations cannot be neglected.` It is an irreversible decision that will bind successive governments. Arguments that Malta would be able to veto decisions not in our national interest are fallacious. Throughout its existence the EU has been on an unstoppable journey to impose uniformity throughout the Union. What started as an economic community was turned into a general community with co-operation well beyond the economic field and eventually turned into a Union with a common currency.
The momentum to turn the Union into a political one with a common defence and foreign policy takes little imagination to identify. The sustainability of a monetary union without a fiscal union, uniformity or at least harmonisation is in the long term, at best, doubtful.
`would Malta be able to resist the demand of the Union to put its military and defence values at the disposal of the Union
`What would Malta as a member of such Union look like in 10 or 20 years time` Consider this scenario.` As the Union gradually develops into a political force it has to do what every political force normally does.` It strengthens its frontiers especially where it is most vulnerable. With Russia now embracing capitalism and willing to consider even a partnership with NATO, the most vulnerable front remains its southern flank with a swelling number of Muslims feeling under-privileged by their rich Christian northern neighbours.
In this scenario would Malta be able to resist the demand of the Union to put its military and defence values at the disposal of the Union` And if this happens what fate would tourism and industry have on a small island without internal market which would look like a fully armoured air-craft carrier`
And if we have to be economically obliged to use our defence and strategic values to earn our living would it not be more economically expedient to go for a rent agreement model 1972-1979, rather than giving up our sovereignty leaving us no chips to negotiate with`
`The scenario I dream is that of` a disciplined nation with a Singapore style economy trading with the whole world as a competitive island state whilst preserving its own identity`
Contrary to what many think MLP was not against independence in 1964. Quite the contrary! The MLP wanted an unconditional independence to be able to negotiate a defence and financial agreement as a new sovereign state. The PN on the other hand accepted a conditional independence that was packaged with a defence agreement that took away in practice much of what was given in theory.
Do we have to put the clock back to pre-1964 by denying this young nation the only card (it strategic and defence values) it has to leverage a decent living in a highly competitive and globalised world`
The scenario I dream is that of` a disciplined nation with a Singapore style economy trading with the whole world as a competitive island state whilst preserving its own identity and keeping its strategic properties as a card to leverage value in making deals which its richer neighbours.
Looked at from a distance my conviction grows.
Alfred Mifsud
No comments:
Post a Comment