The Myth of Inevitability

The Malta Independent on Sunday



With the funding myth fully exposed for what it is, there remains the myth of inevitability that needs to be addressed to ensure that in the up-coming referendum people do not vote for EU membership for the wrong reasons.

The myth of inevitability tells us that we should stop analysing whether or not membership in the EU is in our interest. We just have to accept it as given, as a fact of life, as inevitable. Then we just have to make the most of it. So it should not matter whether the EU would be paying us hundred million or whether we will be paying them twelve million. We just have to proceed regardless full speed ahead to full membership, whatever the cost or the consequences. In the end if there is no economic opportunity for our children in Malta they will have the freedom to do like so many mezzogiorno youngsters did before them and go to work in north European countries.

Thankfully Labour`s argument that a special relationship is not only possible but also in the interest of` a sustainable relationship with EU is finding support in the Convention on the Future of Europe where its vice-president, ex-Italian PM Giuliano Amato, has specifically advocated the inclusion of such a possibility specifically with Malta in mind.

`The current Association agreement guarantees full access of our domestic manufactures to EU markets even as enlarged.` But then why should anyone doubt that there are alternatives Even the status-quo is an alternative provided it is acknowledged for what it is and adopted for the future.` The current Association agreement guarantees full access of our domestic manufactures to EU markets even as enlarged. It permits us to source our international purchases from the most competitive suppliers without obligations to finance the farm folly of the EU. It could be easily up-graded to a free-trade area excluding agriculture and fisheries.

So even without any further negotiation there is a ready alternative. With skilful and clever negotiations it could be enhanced through a give and take exercise where we participate gradually in freedom of movement of capital, services and people but always keep the lever in our hands to keep the tempo of our liberalisation fully tuned to the rate of development of our economy to ensure that no shocks are suffered which could tear apart our social fabric.` In short we would do what the Swiss have done. `With skilful and clever negotiations it could be enhanced through a give and take exercise where we participate gradually in freedom of movement of capital, services and people`

It is now clear that the urgency for Malta`s inclusion in the next enlargement is more from the EU side than our own. Malta`s accession to membership would make us share our sovereignty with the much larger EU countries losing control of our own affairs. EU membership is for the long-term. It is irreversible. As the EU continues to evolve we will be very poorly placed to withstand the evident trend for central decision making by majority rule. We will not be joining just the EU of today against known rules. We will be joining the EU of the future with rules yet unknown but which inevitably lead to weakening of our ability to influence our own affairs.

Our loss of sovereignty will be the EU`s gain. The EU is behaving towards Malta as if we have already shed away our neutrality, a wish often expressed by our Prime Minister. Rhetoric declarations that our neutrality will be safeguarded carry little value.

Just consider this.` In the first Avis of 1993 the Commission explicitly said that Malta would have to change its constitution requiring a two-thirds parliamentary majority to fulfil its membership obligations. In the second Avis of 1999 the Commission noted government`s assurance that the Maltese constitution permits membership without need of two thirds parliamentary approval but still pointed out that the neutrality provisions in the Constitution could inhibit `Malta`s participation in the future development of the Common Foreign and Security policy (CSFP). `In the first Avis of 1993 the Commission explicitly said that Malta would have to change its constitution requiring a two-thirds parliamentary majority to fulfil its membership obligations`

In recent reports the issue has disappeared altogether. Take the last report published this month about Malta`s state of readiness for membership. Reporting on Chapter 27concerning the CSFP the word neutrality is not mentioned even once. Instead the government keeps behaving as if neutrality is a dead letter in the constitution.` We are told that our Ministry of Foreign Affairs has instituted the posts of interlocutors for the Political and Security Committee and the EU Military Committee. A Liaison Officer to the EU Military Committee has also been appointed. Furthermore Malta has confirmed its preparedness to contribute the EU Rapid Intervention Force with Maltese forces being integrated into the Italian contingent. Furthermore Malta is obliged to ensure that its foreign policy orientation remains in line with the EU developing foreign and security policy.

Empty assurances about safeguarding of our neutrality are meaningless compared to the reality of its neglect by our own government.

Even before joining we are giving up for nothing the only natural resource God has endowed us with, that of having a geo-strategic importance much bigger than our size. This endowment has since time immemorial been included in the equation which enabled us to earn our living from our foreign masters or partners. Under the now near defunct Italian Financial Protocols we used to be paid handsomely for preserving our neutrality.` Before that we used to be paid for renting facilities for military or defence purpose. Now we are just about giving them for free.

Inevitability is a myth. Alternatives exist but only for a country led by a government that has the national interest at heart and who can negotiate with foreign partners as equals not as servants.