Free Drinks - Tomorrow

Maltastar   

 

 

Time is wiser than words. That’s a great consolation to writers and speakers like me who try to make their case objectively rather than in absolutely assertive terms, and then let the passage of time be their best judge.

Throughout last year I made a strong argument that of all the reasons that may exist to support Malta’s EU membership, funding ought not to be one of them. I expressed serious doubts whether Malta will be a net beneficiary of funds from the EU and whether it would qualify for objective one level of funding in an enlarged EU.

“In my replies to MIC and to Minister Josef Bonnici, who had joined the choir of criticism against me, I had proposed to let the matter lie and to stand the test of time.”

This criticism hit at the very heart of the government’s case for EU membership. So I was criticised mercilessly from all quarters. MIC made several attempts to discredit my argument. One has to remember that Dr. Simon Busuttil had in 1997 written as president of the European Movement that Malta was losing substantial funding for freezing its application for EU membership. He mentioned Lm80 million for Malta, by pro-rating by population count, what Slovenia was supposed to get. When he was quoted by Super One radio he opened a libel case against Emanuel Cuschieri saying that one should have understood that Malta would be entitled to these funds upon membership not on re-activation of the application. In fairness on reading his writing one was more likely to assume the latter than the former. This libel case goes on.

 

 

Minister Michael Refalo attacked me for being unpatriotic claiming that I was trying to influence the EU to deny Malta the funds it is entitled to. Minister Joe Borg also ridiculed my argument and I have a recording of his saying in 1999 that Malta during the accession process would gain four, five or six times the level of funding we hitherto used to gain under the financial protocol of the association agreement. He practically assured us of a high level of funding upon accession and made the statement that in deciding the EU budget for 2007-2012 Malta as a fully accredited member of the EU would have the right to veto the budget unless it is pleased with the outcome.

“You can expect the government chorus to tell us that this negative funding is only temporary due to timing difference in the payment systems of the EU.”

The Prime Minister also attacked me as alarmist for informing the people that on my best estimates Malta would be neutral on funding with the EU upon full accession once we would be joining with a large group of former communist countries.

In my replies to MIC and to Minister Josef Bonnici, who had joined the choir of criticism against me, I had proposed to let the matter lie and to stand the test of time.

 

 

Now these shameful lot who ridiculed democracy in 1998 by vitiating a fresh 1996 electoral mandate given to Labour through false EU funding promises, should apologise to the Maltese electorate for misguiding it so crudely. The EU has made the case that in the first three years of membership 2004 –2006 we would be net contributors to the tune of Lm35 million and that at best we can hope to be neutral if some scheme is devised for temporary funding to alleviate this bitter pill for candidate countries. So the parameters now range from negative average Lm12 million p.a. to neutral. Positive average Lm100 million p.a. is not even a remote possibility.

So what should we expect? I tell what to expect; and mark my words I will not be wrong. You can expect the government chorus to tell us that this negative funding is only temporary due to timing difference in the payment systems of the EU. They will promise us that after 2006 these payment systems will turn in our favour and we will start benefiting handsomely from EU funds. In short they will once again repeat the slogan FREE DRINKS - TOMORROW.

 

“Let’s forget about free drinks tomorrow and get some honest, proper and detailed answers today”

 

Of course as usual this will be a load of rubbish, empty talk and cheap propaganda. The truth is that the budget of the EU for the years 2007 –2012 will not be discussed before 2005 and that’s after agreeing to a new EU constitution which could further re-dimensionise the voting power of a small peripheral country member like Malta.

We have had enough pies in the skies. Our future depends on us. On our capacity for self-discipline, true leadership, efficiency, quality consciousness, hard work and judicious investments.

Rather than continue chasing elusive butterflies we should attend to more important matters closer to home and start by asking questions which must be answered clearly and unequivocally:

1. Who is taking responsibility for allowing a system where convicted drug merchants organise the importation of drug from their prison cells. Who is resigning for this Columbian affair?

2. Who is controlling the AG in the negotiations of plea bargaining with drug merchants and money launderers?

3. Who is controlling which cases should go forward the whole course of justice and which cases are abandoned for lack of supporting evidence even though the investigating magistrate would have recommended otherwise?

The whole system needs opening up for public scrutiny and fast before we have more scandals, which rock us to ashes. Let’s forget about free drinks tomorrow and get some honest, proper and detailed answers today.