News • 23 February 2003

EU? Partnership? what’s the difference?

By George, it’s Dr Vella, Labour’s eternal deputy-leader. MATTHEW VELLA speaks to him about partnership, Europe, and… partnership

Partnership L-Ahjar Ghazla, is a book that could have anyone fooled. It is not so much Labour’s anti-EU spiel that seems to feature so prominently. Certainly drawn up by Mile End pundits surely acting in good faith, there’s nothing in Partnership that denies the basic foundations of EU membership.

There’s no bottom line either being drawn by Labour Deputy Leader George Vella that Europe will never be Labour’s future.

Just a couple of weeks from referendum day, the question in my mind is whether Partnership is really an alternative to EU membership if not a delaying tactic to cushion the blow of a wide-open 500-million strong common market. Legit concern, true, but not one that everyone is fond of. Why agree with free trade areas and levy dismantling and not with the EU?

Nowhere in George Vella’s office is there any of the fiery blight of the PN media-machine or its little vassals to switch on his temper. Vella is approachable and wants to talk.

I wonder if he agrees with my foreboding for the socialists. He himself says he cannot speak for the Labour Party of the future: "If people decide in a general election they want to go with the EU, I don’t know what position the MLP will take after that. I cannot speak for the MLP of the future.

"I am assuming Labour will win the election, and I say it in all sincerity, because things are changing quite a lot recently. But I cannot foresee the situation if, come the general elections, there will be the Nationalists back in the government."

Of course, if that happens, Labour will have no problems to endorse the EU. It will have to resign to the fact that we are in. It will probably have to work hard in its years as Opposition to gear up to its role as a political party ready to lead Malta in the EU.

Close association to EU, short of membership, suited to Malta’s needs…in a nutshell ‘partnership’. Dismantling of levies is ok, free trade area is ok, EU environmental standards are ok, EU education programmes are ok. What, Dr Vella, is wrong with the EU, apart from the much-berated common agricultural policy?

"CAP is not the only problem. We are talking about freedom of movement of persons, of services, capital, taxation policy, and other things which come with EU membership and which we can keep out with the partnership mode.

"Partnership is an attempt to approximate as much as possible the EU structures, to integrate as much as possible into the workings of the EU, but keeping away from those structures that could have a negative effect on the economy, on your politics and on your social structures."

Half-baked membership or real alternative? The European Economic Area countries are incurring massive costs to enjoy EU membership which approximate, up to EUR500 million a year. Of course we are talking about Iceland and its energy reserves in geyser power, Norway’s oil reserves and Switzerland’s banking haven.

"I don’t see where the difficulty lies,” Vella reiterates. “It is not a question of picking and choosing. That’s just not true. It’s not a half-baked version of membership. Is the EEA or EFTA a half-baked version? It is a policy that is near to membership but not quite. Why do the EEA countries, which are in the nearest position to membership, keep out of CAP and the customs union? Countries as powerful as Switzerland, Norway and Iceland opted for that. Now imagine a country like Malta and how difficult it would be to implement the CAP and the customs unions. These are important aspects of the whole relationship which make a lot of difference."

But in return for non-EU membership, and that is where a possible pitfall may lurk in Labour’s partnership, the MLP are offering structures to counter the loss of EU funding advantages. Education funds to the tune of Lm1.5 million and EU environmental standards. If a newly-elected Labour government faces deficit-reduction as its eternal conundrum once again, the taxpayer is in for a surprise.

"If you are talking about the availability of the EU education programmes, of course that is one thing. If you are talking about who’s paying for it, well that’s another thing.

"We want to give our youths the same opportunities as EU students. Now to do that we have to pay. The point is this: to obtain that benefit and participate in EU education programmes, does that justify taking on our shoulders the burden of CAP and the customs union or freedom of movement? If I can get that with Lm1.5 million, two million, four million, I will be giving our youths the same opportunities but avoiding the disadvantages coming from the other aspects of membership.

"Likewise for the environment. Even if we assume that whatever is voted as an environment projects is actually carried out and we get 100 per cent of the projected funds, even there it is not enough. If you look at Government’s commitments, and I am worried about this, by 2007 practically all of the projects we would have committed to have to be finalised.

"If you look at the money the government got in terms of project-related funds, we are talking about Lm4.5 million. What do you with that? If we don’t get the money from somewhere else, as Dr Giorgio Boggio (the former EU ambassador) had said, such as taxes, levies and fines, what will happen if we don’t deliver in 2007?

"Margaret Wallstroem is on record as saying she would not like to start her new relationship with the new Member States by dragging them in front of the European Court of Justice. If they don’t deliver what they promise they are up for trouble.

"Many are taking these constraints as things that have to be done for the quality of the environment. But do reflect on something, this government inherited Lm400 million when it was elected in 1987. It managed to chalk in Lm1,500 million in debt. What do we have to show for it? Roads? The environment? Where is all this money?"

Dr Vella says the Nationalists are duping the people that with a couple of millions from the EU they will patch up whatever has not been done with all those millions: "I don’t believe it. The rationale of money coming from the EU is out. What we believe is that we need to have commitment. If you have ministers who are lazy and who just file reports, nothing is done. You need to have doers, who will channel enough funds to the right projects."

But once again, taxpayer in the limelight. Who will fund these projects?

"When we were elected in 1996, one of the biggest problems we were facing was the stench coming from Sant Antnin. What had been billed as Lm1.2 million for one of the drums that had stopped working by Francis Zammit Dimech was done for Lm7,000 by the Drydocks workers. You need to be economical, pushy and you have to deliver. We strongly believe that if you allocate the right amount of money to the right projects and not to other people’s pockets, we can get to our desired goal."

He could be right. Roping in the funds means project commitments for the next ten to twenty years, possibly adding more tension to Malta’s cash flow. Vella is right to point out that laziness and short-sightedness has been rampant in the Nationalist government when it came to environment.

However, he could also be wrong. Inside the EU the public can act as a watchdog on government. If the administration does not deliver it could be dragged all the way to the European court.

All in all, there is one main concern if the people choose partnership. What will happen to the ten years spent getting to this final stage in the EU negotiations? After all, Alfred Sant did mention a further ten years to negotiate the partnership agreements at a business breakfast just a month ago.

"The point he was making was not the conclusion of the negotiations, but the safeguarding of the competitiveness of the industry. We have to look at it from the point of view of business, and Dr Sant was addressing a business breakfast. What we want for business is stability and for it not to lose its competitiveness. And that is why he emphasised the impact of the Common Agricultural Policy on prices, production costs and wages."

George Vella and I do agree on one aspect of the whole membership scenario, and that is the power of the bigger states within the EU. He is sceptical when I tell him that party politics is stronger than national politics in the European Parliament, mentioning Cassola’s influence amongst the Green Group. He says he does not believe everything he is told.

"This is very subjective, and your opinion could be as good as mine. So we have five MEPS and three votes in a Council of 300 odd. You might say, ‘at least you are there’. It is a question of assessing how influential one could be in such a small representation. You could say ‘better to be there than not to be there’. But if you are sitting at the table knowing fully well that what the big ones say goes, does that justify taking all the responsibilities of EU membership?

"We are definitely not going to influence the way Europe goes. When we talk about fiscal policy, foreign policy and security, they are going to go the way the big ones decide. We have to be very realistic about this. At the end, who’s going to draw the line? I have seen hundreds of interventions at conferences, but which were the ideas that have filtered down? The ones made by Joshka Fisher, Jospin, Barnier and the top people who represent Germany and France."

How different then would it have been had it been Vella as leader? A Zejtun-born doctor, he was first elected through a by-election in 1978. He had been missing from politics for four years in 1992, when Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, then Labour leader, sprung on him the offer of leadership. Clearly surprised, his decision was returned within a week. ‘Thanks, but no thanks’. And today here he is. The eternal deputy-leader, shouldering Alfred Sant. And also one of the many architects of New Labour, shovelling out the weeds of the eighties, fraying the rope with Mintoff and his cronies.

So what next for the Labour Party if the people choose Europe?

"If they so decide, then God bless them. Let’s hope to God it turns out to be to the advantage of Malta. We are really angry and sorry that we are not being given the same facilities to put forward our version to let the people have a real choice. The human resources offered to the pro-EU group are nothing to compare with the meagre measures that we have, and this is not democratic in my opinion.

"On the other hand if, after having said this and going through the whole campaign, the people still decide they want to vote for the EU then that’s what it should be, but the PM himself said that this would have to be ratified through a general election."

And for Dr Vella?

"I haven’t honestly thought seriously about that, because I am preparing myself for, God willing, five years of hard work. But if the election is lost then, one will have to look at the situation and take a decision. It’s still very early and I am not considering that scenario."