I Told You So!

The Malta Independent on Sunday



Much as I hate to say it, I can`t resist it - I told you so!

For the last four years following the totally unrealistic and invented claims about our entitlement to EU funding in the pre-accession and post membership phases made prior to last elections, I have been making a consistent and simple argument about such funding.

I have maintained that funding will never be a true and honest reason for joining the EU. I maintained that our entitlement to such funding is very dubious as joining a EU of 25 members or more will reduce our entitlement and comparisons with benefits enjoyed by Ireland and Spain are totally irrelevant.

I maintained that when all is said and done Malta would never come close to the Lm100 million promised before the last elections and on a net basis we could be close to a neutral position. `Unsurprisingly (for me) Malta is expected to be a net contributor to the tune of an average Lm12 million p.a. for the first three years.`

Last year I exchanged extensive public correspondence with MIC, various Ministers and the Prime Minister who came out in force to destroy an argument I made where I guesstimated that in the context on an enlarged EU, Malta could fall out of objective one funding reducing our claim on such funding.

I was accused of a mixture of misrepresentation and incompetence in the subject matter.` Some even accused me of being unpatriotic in trying to influence the EU in denying us the funding we are entitled to! All assured that even in the context of an enlarged community Malta`s claim on generous funding from the EU should not be in doubt.` Min Borg even after the 1998 elections kept insisting that in the pre-accession stage Malta would be entitled to funding four, five, six times the entitlement we used to enjoy under the financial protocols.

To each of these criticisms I had replied holding my ground. However as this was an opinion based on informed estimates, I suggested to let time be the best judge as it unfolds.

`I am eagerly waiting for those who protested against and ridiculed my arguments now to come forward and make their case with the wisdom of the judgement delivered by the unfolding of time.` Time has now unfolded.` The Commission has issued its own estimates of what Malta would be entitled to in the first three years of accession 2004 `2006 under the current budgetary provisions of the EU. Unsurprisingly (for me) Malta is expected to be a net contributor to the tune of an average Lm12 million p.a. for the first three years.

It is pointless arguing whether these calculations include funding under objective one or not. The ultimate crux of the argument is not the technicalities of which programmes we would be entitled to, but the hard reality of how funds much we would effectively pay or receive.

The parameters seem to have been set. It is between being net contributors for about Lm12 p.a. and achieving a broad neutral position if the Commission succeeds in persuading the European Council to approve direct disbursement to new members to compensate for such negative cash flow impact, even if on a temporary basis.

Apologists like Dr Cassola quickly came out to re-assure that Malta would be a net recipient without explaining how and by how much. But in reality pipe dreams and inventions of Lm100 million straight net funding have long been abandoned as having served their cruel purpose in deceiving people into believing that the EU would provide for our living if we join it in membership.

`Let`s become EU members if we so collectively decide.` But let`s not allow such decision be taken on the basis of half-truths and untruths about funding bonanza.` I am eagerly waiting for those who protested against and ridiculed my arguments now to come forward and make their case with the wisdom of the judgement delivered by the unfolding of time. Having lost their case I am sure they can try to play the game again by arguing that in the budget for the years 2007-2012, which Malta as a member will have the right to veto, we will have the opportunity to make up for what we will not be getting in the first three years.

Hope springs eternal.` But having been fed so much empty platitudes about rain of funds from the EU at some point in time we have to get serious and argue with our feet on the ground. The budget for 2007-2012 will not be discussed before 2005, namely one year after we are supposed to have taken the irreversible decision.` By that time the inter-governmental conference due in 2004 and the resulting EU constitution being proposed, could well re-define the voting rights of members, as usual, to the detriment of the small members of the EU. The drive to central decision-making in an enlarged EU is understandable and unstoppable.

Even if we assume that we could exercise our veto on the budget to try to get what we want this government record in negotiating accession terms, to the extent permitted by the acquis, gives little room for hoping that we can rely on generous funding terms. Germany as the major fund provider has already put everyone on notice that they expect the financing burden to be more equitably shared. Spain, the major beneficiary country so far, insisted at Nice on keeping the veto on budgetary decisions for the last time to defend its interest which could be diametrically opposed with that of newly admitted members.

I part with a quote from my reply to Minister Josef Bonnici in April 2001 in the argumentation above referred to. Let`s become EU members if we so collectively decide.` But let`s not allow such decision be taken on the basis of half-truths and untruths about funding bonanza.`

Alfred Mifsud