Holy Macaroni

The Times of Malta



This is what I twice exclaimed last Saturday. Firstly when I read John Dalli's Talking Point in answer to my contribution the day before in the weekly column I keep in The Malta Independent. And then again when I read the prime minister's reply to Alfred Sant's honourable and genuine offer to reach consensus on the referendum issue.

When criticism strikes at the heart of the PN's arguments or strategic positions, they react in two possible but distinct ways. They either ignore it, hoping that with the aid of the friendly media it will die away naturally. Or if they do not think this could happen, they react in a crisis mode, generally denigrating the critic rather than his message. Both PN reactions have the latter characteristic to which I could only express: holy macaroni!

Take Mr Dalli's piece. He could not deny the point that years of pressure on Switzerland, a non-EU member, did not succeed to move them an inch from their reluctance to adopt the disclosure model demanded by the EU.

`If, under partnership, we will get the same deal as the Swiss from the EU, we will make every year, in net clean cash, more than what the PN got in conditional funding.` Mr Dalli says I conveniently left out that Switzerland grants exchange of information on request for all criminal activities or civil cases of fraud or similar misbehaviour on the part of the taxpayer.

Under the plans to become an international financial centre under Labour's partnership policy, Malta would also adopt the highest level of anti-money laundering regulations and would not allow general secrecy rules to protect individuals' criminal activities or fraud charges. But what has this got to do with the general disclosure rules wanted by the EU`

Mr Dalli then doubts whether Switzerland, and eventually Malta under Labour's partnership policy, would be faring better under the deal.

He is free to doubt what he wants, to imagine that Switzerland will eventually give in to OECD pressure for disclosure, and to blind himself to the raw deal Malta is getting in not being given the same treatment as member Luxembourg.

The truth is that under the agreed arrangement, Switzerland has gained a competitive advantage over the many other EU financial centres that have been forced to accept disclosure. It is certainly no worse off than Luxembourg, and can now benefit by withholding 25 per cent of the tax at source revenue to be collected.

If this cash deal amounting to billions of euros is bad, then what does one call the financial package we got`

If, under partnership, we will get the same deal as the Swiss from the EU, we will make every year, in net clean cash, more than what the PN got in conditional funding. Is this feasible, one may ask` If it is feasible for Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco and San Marino, why not for Malta if we do not join the EU` `The way the prime minister dismissed it without attempting to develop it into something acceptable to both sides suggests he is only interested in hanging on to power at all cost. Those who matter have noted this.`

Whether this is better than the prospect that EU membership opens up for receiving outsourcing business from Dublin and Luxembourg for fund management and fund administration etc., it is for the people to decide.

But I distinctly remember Mr Dalli preaching that Malta cannot compete internationally simply on the basis of low costs. And how long would the cost advantage last under the EU membership model` And why should we settle for the crumbs that Luxembourg and Dublin let fall off their table`

The prime minister's reply to the opposition leader's proposal for further discussions on a truly national referendum to be held by a newly-elected government soon after the elections is vintage arrogance of 16 years in power.

No one should have any further doubt that, while preaching that the referendum has to be a national event above party politics, the prime minister is planning to use it as a political stool attempting to get over the high obstacle of having to face the next general elections with a record of failed promises.

By a simple and smart political move, the PN has been exposed as mere user and abuser of the national interest. The stark contrast in attitudes between Dr Sant and Dr Fenech Adami stands out sharply.

In the national interest, the former did not mind compromising a solid electoral win merely 22 months down the road. The latter would not even risk missing the last few months in power to pursue a truly national referendum to be held immediately after early elections.

The Labour leader's offer for a post-election national referendum is most valid and shows the serious stuff national leaders ought to be made of.

The way the prime minister dismissed it without attempting to develop it into something acceptable to both sides suggests he is only interested in hanging on to power at all cost. Those who matter have noted this.