Separate Issues

The Malta Independent

Keeping an ear on this week’s parliamentary debate I could not help feeling that two distinct issues are being confused.

Many government speakers, rather than focus on our specifics of the matter, restricted themselves to eulogising the EU in general and the enlargement process in particular. This is not the issue facing us.

There is no division between our main political schools on the positive elements of the EU formation, history, process and the forthcoming enlargement. What is being debated and needs to be decided is whether Malta’s interests are best served by forming an integral part of the process or staying on the outside and cooperate as much as possible on a bilateral basis to the extent that it is in our interest to do so. The two are separate issues that must not be confused.

I have no hesitation in endorsing the praises sung in parliament, this week to the benefits that the EU has brought to the European continent. I have no hesitation also to applaud the enlargement project.

But by no logic can this be taken to mean that Malta’s interests are best served by being integrated within such a model.Malta has its own peculiarities, particularly of size and location. The only other candidate country which is comparable to us is Cyprus. But Cyprus has its own unique objective for seeking EU membership.

“Partnership has the competitive edge of keeping our cost base more contained by avoiding huge membership compliance costs and unnecessary measures such as VAT on food and medicine”

It considers it a lever upon Turkey and the “outlawed” administration of Northern Cyprus to make concessions they have been withholding for nearly 30 years, ever since Turkish forces invaded the northern part of Cyprus and enforced an ethnic segregation between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

In Cyprus, they do not argue about the adequacy of the financial package. They do not argue whether partnership is better than membership. They consider that any price is worth paying in order to re-unite the country and gain access to lost property in the north.

In Malta, we do not have such problems and therefore no such motivations, which can justify membership whatever the cost or the consequences. Thankfully, we can take a reasoned approach to this fateful decision whether through a referendum, an election or both.

So, arguments that we should join the EU simply because it is a positive development simply do not cut ice. What matters is whether we will be better off as EU members rather than as partners.

The most forceful criterion that should influence our choice is whether we believe that we can attract more foreign direct investment (FDI) as members rather than as partners. Assertions are easy and they abound. But reality is different. Most of the FDI we have enjoyed in recent years, was sourced by existent industries that expanded or upgraded their operations here. Names like ST Thomson, Methode, Baxter, Brandstatter, Dowty, Denim, and Pharmamed easily come to mind. These companies invested without waiting for us to decide whether we will be in or out. They simply accept that being here and tapping experienced human resources with high productivity and creativity ratios can lead to economic success and that market access is assured, whatever relationship we decide to follow with the EU.

If anything, partnership has the competitive edge of keeping our cost base more contained by avoiding huge membership compliance costs and unnecessary measures such as VAT on food and medicine.

In preparing the electorate to make our choices regarding the EU, government should come off its high horse of undisputed generalities about the positivism of the EU and explain in specific terms its impact on our one nation. On the other hand, the Opposition must couple its information campaign with plentiful re-assurances that we can do better than the scrappy deal negotiated by government.