At a Discount and Others

Di-ve

This extract is lifted from the official EU web-site where a weekly bulletin called Enlargement Weekly provides an overview of the progress of the European Union enlargement project. 

QUOTE

THE COST OF ENLARGEMENT DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT
"We're getting enlargement cheaper than we thought we would", European Enlargement Commissioner Gunter Verheugentold the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23. He confirmed that the final deal agreed atCopenhagen was €1.7 billion less than the maximum ceiling fixed by Berlin for commitments in 2004-2006, and €9.4 billion less than the maximum available payments. And of the €25.1 billion in payments for the period, €14.8 billion would be covered by new member states' contributions, so the net cost for the EU15 would be €10.3 billion, he said.

UNQUOTE

Clearly we have priced ourselves at a discount. Forget all the arguments that project finance should not be counted as it is not equivalent to cash payments and may or may not be realized due to our lack of capacity to handle the bureaucracy for such funding. Just accept what we have been offered without any questioning.

“Why do the likes ofVerheugen speak different languages when they visit candidate countries as against when they address EU institutions? “

Can anyone deny that the net Lm81 million over the first three years result only due to temporary budgetary compensation which amounts to Lm97 million without which we would have finished as net contributors for Lm16 million over three years, with full objective one funding and all?

Can anyone deny that this budgetary compensation may not be repeated for next budget beyond 2006 so that even if we keep our objective one status, there is every likelihood that we become net contributors no matter what our Ver Huegen may think?

Why do the likes of Verheugen speak different languages when they visit candidate countries as against when they address EU institutions?

Probably because like experienced salesperson they speak to prospective clients in a very different mode from when they speak to the Finance Director in charge of their remuneration package.

Neutrality

At least Joe Grima is honest. Unlike the Prime Minister and his government who keep pretending that EU membership is compatible with our Constitution at least Joe Grima admits that it is not.

His opinion that we should jettison our neutrality and become an indistinguishable part of the EU foreign, security and perhaps defense policy is noted. Let me just reply that the Constitution can only be changed by a two thirds majority andLabour will not sell our neutrality, whatever the price. Building doomsday scenarios that we may be attacked by Libya to justify why we should ditch our neutrality just does not work. Neutrality has brought us peace and prosperity. Total delegation of foreign, security and defense policies to foreign bodies brought us wars and economic deprivation.

Neutrality is Labour’s evergreen doctrine. Anyone who hopes to return to Labour’s fold might disagree with its policies but not with its doctrines.

Referendum

While the whole world will be celebrating women’s day with a mimosa branch, we will be voting the EU referendum and one-third of us will also be voting for local elections.

I am writing this before the matter is debated by the Labour general conference to decide the party’s official position on the referendum. I will submit to the majority's decision which will be taken by the General Conference but my mind is clear.

“Neutrality is Labour’severgreen doctrine. Anyone who hopes to return to Labour’s fold might disagree with its policies but not with its doctrines.”

Labour should repeat its offer to hold a consultative referendum immediately it is returned topower, say within the first 90 days or so. Labour should commit itself to execute the people’s choice expressed through such national post-election referendum. The 60 per cent condition to bind the opposition should be dropped as Labour would not need the Opposition’s co-operation to execute the people’s choice. The referendum decision will be executed within the framework of the existing Constitution. Where membership conflicts with the Constitution (the government and the EU have assured us this is not the case) our Constitution has to prevail and this would need to be expressed through a formal protocol to be attached to the accession agreement.

I am more than positive that with Labour in government and having fair access to the media to explain its policies, MLP stands more than a fair chance of also holding the referendum. But the people’s will be respected to the extent that it does not conflict with the Constitution, even if the majority is just one vote above the 50%.

Provided that Labour comes to terms with these provisions I would say it can safely say that the PN's referendum should be considered as a non-event (one cannot boycott a non-event), merely as a partisan stool to reach the high, otherwise unreachable, objective of another election victory. Labour should put the stool on the other side of the wall.

Anyone who sincerely believes that the people have a right to choose, cannot so off-handedly reject the offer for a post-election referendum. Only such a referendum can be truly national, where people, away from the election heath, will be free to vote with their minds not with their hearts. Trying to bind a future government with a brain-washing referendum is not in my democracy dictionary.

In view of recent events, bearing in mind PM’s shameful utterances that we should forget all about the Opposition when voting for the referendum and with public resources applied so much tilted to deliver a subjective result, they will have to carry me to vote in the PN’s referendum.