I have always rated EU Commissioner Frattini highly since his days as Italian Foreign Minister.

It was indeed a pleasure and a rewarding experience to share a meeting with him last Thursday, together with my colleagues from the Foreign and European Affairs Committee.

Although predictably the illegal immigration issue dominated the agenda of the almost hour-long meeting, there was nothing cliché-ridden about Franco Frattini’s approach to this burning issue.

Coming as he does from a neighbouring Mediterranean state, he showed genuine understanding and concern about the problem that we are facing, as well as a deep sense of purpose and commitment towards addressing the burgeoning issue both within a short-term emergency framework as well as part of a medium to long-term strategy.

He was both frank and direct when he admitted that the EU needed to adopt a more coordinated approach to the problem, as well as when he underlined the fact that this was a European issue rather than one to be handled on a purely bilateral basis between national governments.

Following straight, to-the-point remarks by Labour’s main European affairs spokesman George Vella, I commented on the need for immediate remedial action in parallel to the mid to long-term strategy that Frattini advocated. This is particularly necessary, given that Malta is the southernmost tip of Europe and the closest to the northern tip of North Africa. I also spoke about the need for a coherent EU policy – that could eventually evolve into an ongoing mechanism – to keep the issue constantly under review through regular meetings, while developing a proactive action plan.

It was courageous on his part to also touch on terrorism by claiming that one needed to explore the roots of the problem as well as the cause that was propelling such actions forward.

He also dwelt at length with the link between illegal immigration and unemployment.

What I found fresh indeed about his approach was that there was none of the usual bureaucratic smooth talk that certain Commissioners – past and present – seem to have adopted on assuming office.

On the contrary, he welcomed practical ideas from such member states as Malta, while making it clear that for EU strategy to succeed, there was a need for a strong political commitment.

The man seemed interested in achieving one main objective – the highest level of results possible, given that he needed to carry on board the support of 25 member states.

Once on this subject of illegal immigration it would be interesting to find out which nine member states of the EU did not attend the triangular Malta-EU-Libya technical talks held in Valletta last Wednesday. I have a sneaking suspicion that they were mainly Nordic.

What was also encouraging about Commissioner Frattini was that he seemed hopeful of engaging Libya further in this process, although he was the first to admit that this should be seen as the beginning of a lengthy process which requires a long term commitment from both sides.

It is a pity that no time was found for Labour MEPs to pose questions the way Simon Busuttil MEP did from the Nationalist side, because both of those present – Louis Grech and Joe Muscat – have put in a lot of sterling work on this issue within the confines of the European Parliament in both Brussels and Strasbourg.

Going back to Frattini, he seems to have a clear road map of where he wants to get to and within what period of time he plans to do so.

Let us sincerely hope that he will find the backing and support that he deserves. I say so particularly in the wake of my earlier comments – the day before – during a parliamentary debate that there was no well thought out EU strategy as yet on this issue.

Economists,

politicians and partisan commentary

Last Thursday, this newspaper carried the banner title that Economists should steer clear of partisan commentary. Such words were attributed to MEA president Arthur Muscat.

Although I totally disagree that Prof. Edward Scicluna was being partisan when he claimed that Malta was experiencing a recession, I agree that all commentators should steer clear of partisanship in their comments.

I say so because nobody seems to have raised an eyebrow when certain economists such as Dr Gordon Cordina commented on the “healthy” state of the Maltese economy and of the advantages of joining ERM II the way we did.

If Prof. Scicluna, who seems to hold no brief from either the government or the opposition, considered it opportune to comment on the negative economic outlook of the Maltese islands, one would have expected that without in any way denigrating the economic competence of Dr Cordina, the same constituted bodies that showed concern about Prof. Scicluna’s comments should have expressed the same concern when a rather rosy picture was portrayed.

If certain people claim that politicians have dominated the media way beyond saturation point with their comments on the local economy, then I cannot understand the logic that certain economists should be censored for simply speaking their minds – particularly when they owe no allegiance or do not happen to be on the receiving end of any honoraria from either the government or the opposition.

e-mail : [email protected]

Leo Brincat is the main opposition spokesman on foreign affairs and IT.