This is my first article this year and I wish all readers whatever makes their heart content outside the material world, which unfortunately surrounds us. Sometimes we fail to realise that the best things in life have been around us throughout our lives, and only realise it when we lose them.

But back to work and back to politics.

Resuscitating the EU Constitution

After the European Parliament’s Christmas break, preparing the agenda for the January plenary session in Strasbourg must have been a tough ordeal. With the EU budget for 2007 – 2013 requiring the approval of the Members of the European Parliament, and the Bolkestein (services) Directive still pending, some MEPs have only one thing on their minds: resuscitating the rejected EU Constitution.

So the infamous Duff/Voggenhuber Report on behalf of the Constitutional Committee is definitely on the agenda. Strange, one might think, that while the proposed Constitution is dead, a report by the diehard MEPs Andrew Duff and Johannes Voggenhuber gets priority. This is a report that does nothing but push for the resuscitation of the EU Constitution by 2009, even though two countries have rejected it. The “period of reflection” is, for them, nothing more than a sham. They don’t want to listen to what the people have to say – all they want is that their Constitution for a centralised European State takes effect.

So the agenda became quite packed and some votes had to be moved to the next plenary session. It was logical to assume that the Bolkestein Directive would be given priority over a dead Constitution but amazingly, the Bolkestein Directive was moved to the February session, while the Duff/Voggenhuber Report stayed on.

Europhiles turning eurorealists

Talking to a friend of mine over a coffee last Wednesday helped clear some smog from what seemed terribly illogical. Having known him as a very pro-EU French MEP, he plainly explained that since the Bolkestein Directive and the Constitution are seen in France as politically intertwined one couldn’t have them debated during the same plenary week.

It would be “catastrophic” for French politicians, he assured me in a French accent. The Constitution is a definite “Non” for the French, he said. Even those running in the Presidential election have stated that the French will not face another referendum on the Constitution: “It is dead; we’re still discussing where to bury it, who’s going to bury it and how; even the Socialist presidential candidate would not commit himself,” he added.

So, as expected, the French politicians have changed their tune. At that point I realised that even his own usual tone had changed and I pointed out to him that with that kind of language he could easily be mistaken for a eurosceptic. “Oh no!” he exclaimed, “me a eurosceptic?! No, I’m talking about the reality of the European Union.”

So I rephrased my description. “You’re a eurorealist then,” I suggested. This he liked and we both agreed.

“Eurosceptic”, “eurorealist”... what’s in a name?

Eurorealism

So I could see clearly now (not that the rain has gone) why the Bolkestein Directive was moved to February while the Duff–Voggenhuber Constit-utional report stays on. As far as political reasoning goes, one issue needs to precede the other. There’s always a reason and when you find it, it’s usually obvious. At times you fail to find it and a question mark would linger every time you thought about it. That’s a theory I believe in. That, too, is realism and when dealing with EU matters it is fundamentally important to be a eurorealist. This hopefully helps you see things as they really are.

But one also needs to believe in the democratic will of the people and respect it, because without that respect tyranny unfailingly takes over. In this case, one needs to understand that further centralisation of EU power means less democratic control and less power to act on local issues back home under different circumstances according to each country’s economic and social needs.

One man in need of a dose of eurorealism is our Prime Minister. You might all recall Lawrence Gonzi last spring, just after the French and Dutch rejection of the EU Constitution, telling us all that the French and Dutch do not decide for us. Well, he must have missed the principle of unanimity when it comes to EU treaties: all EU member States must agree to move forward. If Gonzi is unable to respect the French and Dutch vetoes, how can he expect Malta’s veto to be honoured if the time comes to use it?

But then Dr Gonzi would never seek to veto anything connected with the EU.

The pittance in the

2007 – 2013 EU Budget

With the Bolkestein Directive out of the way for January, the EU budget should still be debated at the next Strasbourg session (although, funnily enough, it is still not on the agenda).

When the time comes I sincerely hope that our MEPs will vote against the pittance Malta was allocated. Not that this would change anything, but it would symbolise a form of protest by the Maltese people’s representatives at the European Parliament. If our government has failed us, someone should make the point that we are not happy with the budget.

Those who proclaimed victory over the EU Budget are clearly either blinded, deceitful, or otherwise unaware of the creative manoeuvring in figures and speech. Putting aside the pre-referendum promises, what we are being offered for 2007–2013 is nothing more than what we were offered for the 2004–2006 EU budget, which amounted to e64.8 million (Lm27.8 m) annually. It is now e64.3 million annually for 2007–2013; compare with Luxembourg, with has roughly the same population as ours, but is by far richer: it gets e1.1 billion annually for a staggering total of e7.7 billion for the 2007 – 2013 period.

The annual figure of e64.3 million should be the balance in our favour after transferring some of our taxes to Brussels. Yet these are mostly funds that need to be applied for, with 15 per cent of each project having to be paid for by the Maltese government or the private enterprise concerned, and only with the approval of the EU institutions concerned.

Not only have we failed dismally in securing the allocations for the 2004 – 2006 budget, but the expenses incurred to apply for this 85 per cent funding are high enough to warrant mention as far as the net balance is concerned.

But one major fact that Gonzi failed to tell us is this: from the 10 newly acceded countries only Malta has accepted less than what it was offered in the last EU Budget. The other nine countries had the balance increased in their favour, quite substantially in some cases.

In fact, it is widely known that our Prime Minister did not negotiate anything as far as the fiscal balance is concerned. I’m sure his government would correct me should I be wrong.

But don’t ask Dr Gonzi anything about the EU budget. He would boast of how his government managed to keep the “Objective One” status for Malta. What he would not tell us is that we do not reach the 75 per cent GDP threshold anyway, so we are automatically entitled to keep our “Objective One status”.

Funny that Luxembourg gets much more without having such a status.

[email protected]

Sharon Ellul Bonici is a Labour Party candidate currently working in the European Parliament in the political field.