The Malta Independent
The reality is different. At the very least, without need for lengthy negotiations, our country could go for the European Economic Area model chosen byNorway Iceland
Pro-membership movements would criticise this model on two fronts.
Firstly, they argue it would exclude us from EU funding programmes available to members. Secondly, it would impose on us EU standards and economic decisions without actually having the chance to influence such decisions from inside.
In theory they are right. In practice, however, our qualifications for EU funding, net of our own direct and indirect contributions, are pie in the sky. And our ability to influence decisions from inside is a figment of our imagination considering that the EU is embarking on an irreversible journey to render all decision-making based on a qualified majority system.
So the points which should be carefully debated are whether the two objections to the EEA, which in practice are also applicable under the membership option, are a price worth paying to preserve our agriculture and fisheries sector and our ability to leverage our strategic political importance, far greater than our geographical size, to gain economic benefits as we have been doing since time immemorial.
And then the EEA option is the worst possible alternative from a myriad of other possibilities. An ad-hoc bilateral agreement as negotiated by the Swiss could enhance this agreement and add value to our relationship with the EU by including co-operation in other areas tailor-made to our realities. SoMalta
The go-it-alone syndrome is deceptive spin pushed by those who are afraid to consider alternatives outside membership, less the defects of the membership option become over-exposed.
The other spin is the question of the referendum. The government maintains the right to hold a referendum without explaining the alternatives. It wants the people to believe that the choice is between the EU and post-warAlbania
I challenge professors of history, who are quick to criticise whatever Labour says or does, to tell us in which country in the democratic world has any government held a referendum on a matter on which there is strong contrasting views by the party in opposition when:
The government’s campaign to take us blindfolded into the EU is founded on two particularly deceptive spins
The first spin is that no matter how problematic and painful such a decision could be, the alternative is going it alone into the wilderness of an Albanian-style economic barren desert that will exclude Malta
“Okay, I should not complain about others pouring wisdom – point taken - but this is no complaint, it is a statement of fact.”
|
The reality is different. At the very least, without need for lengthy negotiations, our country could go for the European Economic Area model chosen by
Pro-membership movements would criticise this model on two fronts.
Firstly, they argue it would exclude us from EU funding programmes available to members. Secondly, it would impose on us EU standards and economic decisions without actually having the chance to influence such decisions from inside.
In theory they are right. In practice, however, our qualifications for EU funding, net of our own direct and indirect contributions, are pie in the sky. And our ability to influence decisions from inside is a figment of our imagination considering that the EU is embarking on an irreversible journey to render all decision-making based on a qualified majority system.
So the points which should be carefully debated are whether the two objections to the EEA, which in practice are also applicable under the membership option, are a price worth paying to preserve our agriculture and fisheries sector and our ability to leverage our strategic political importance, far greater than our geographical size, to gain economic benefits as we have been doing since time immemorial.
And then the EEA option is the worst possible alternative from a myriad of other possibilities. An ad-hoc bilateral agreement as negotiated by the Swiss could enhance this agreement and add value to our relationship with the EU by including co-operation in other areas tailor-made to our realities. So
“The tragedy is that those forces who are intellectually obliged to expose spin for what it is, particularly the press and the intelligentsia, are themselves spinning.”
|
The go-it-alone syndrome is deceptive spin pushed by those who are afraid to consider alternatives outside membership, less the defects of the membership option become over-exposed.
The other spin is the question of the referendum. The government maintains the right to hold a referendum without explaining the alternatives. It wants the people to believe that the choice is between the EU and post-war
I challenge professors of history, who are quick to criticise whatever Labour says or does, to tell us in which country in the democratic world has any government held a referendum on a matter on which there is strong contrasting views by the party in opposition when:
· the Opposition’s views are not given commensurate resources for proper exposure
· and the government has no electoral mandate long enough to execute the referendum decision.
An EU referendum on this side of the election is spin. Given its horrible performance on the economic, financial and administrative front it is little wonder that the government is forced to resort to spin.
The tragedy is that those forces who are intellectually obliged to expose spin for what it is, particularly the press and the intelligentsia, are themselves spinning.
The tragedy is that those forces who are intellectually obliged to expose spin for what it is, particularly the press and the intelligentsia, are themselves spinning.
No comments:
Post a Comment