Having served as the head of the Malta-EU Information Centre in the years leading up to Malta’s European Union accession, a position that earned him no insignificant amount of exposure in all matters EU, Dr Simon Busuttil was a natural choice for the electorate when Malta’s voters went to the polls in the 2004 European Parliamentary elections.
And the electorate responded in a predictable fashion. Dr Busuttil was the first candidate confirmed for the post with a resounding 60,000-odd votes.
Over the last two years Dr Busuttil has broken ground for Malta and Europe alike in numerous areas. He has addressed Malta’s and Europe’s problem of irregular migration by leading a European Parliamentary delegation to Libya, he is the EP’s rapporteur for EU funding in the Mediterranean, he was involved in the drawing up of the EU next budget by sitting on the EP’s Budgets Committee, and he is currently the EPP-ED’s representative on the EP’s working group looking into allegations of rent irregularities of the EP’s Strasbourg buildings.
These activities, however, barely scratch the surface of the full extent of the passionate europhile’s involvement in the upper echelons of EU politics and in bringing specific Maltese issues to the European forum for discussion as he has done, for example, in the instances of Malta’s departure tax regime and in ensuring Malta’s eligibility for the EU’s solidarity fund.
Now two years down the road, what does Dr Busuttil make of his time at the European Parliament and what challenges does he see for the EU, and for Malta as an EU member state?
“Like any other country that has joined the EU, Malta’s first years of membership should be focused the essentials, on finding our feet as members and starting to translate membership into a success, as opposed to trying to do everything at once. I am very confident that we are on the right track, although I would have liked things to have been delivered a little bit faster.
“As far as the EU is concerned, the biggest challenge is for it to be seen as delivering. We talk a lot about communicating Europe and about reconnecting with the citizen. But what better way to do this than to actually deliver on your responsibilities? This is the EU’s biggest job.
“We need to bridge the gap with the citizens and show that the EU could be more effective. If the citizens hear about the EU delivering on their main concerns, the EU would be much more identifiable to the citizens. I would like the EU to focus more on delivering on its existing tasks such as meeting the Lisbon Agenda targets, for example.”
In the lead up to Malta’s membership referendum, eurosceptics had made a strong argument over what they viewed as a resultant loss of Malta’s sovereignty, but Dr Busuttil begs to differ.
“Prior to membership,” he explained, “I used to argue that, being a small country, we would essentially be giving up some sovereignty. But at the same time Malta would be sharing in the joint sovereignty of the EU, which, on balance, would mean Malta would win more sovereignty than it actually gave up.
“Now that I’m living it, I think Malta’s influence was actually underestimated and is even greater than I had anticipated. I always like to keep a sense of perspective. I don’t think that we joined the EU to change Europe or the world, but we are trying to give our fair contribution, and our contribution, sitting around the table with the other 24 other countries, has been even greater than I thought it would have been.”
As a concrete example of Malta’s contribution, Dr Busuttil cites his selection to lead an EP delegation on irregular immigration to Libya.
“In this case I was heading a European delegation, not a Maltese delegation, on an issue that is so important for Malta, and with a country that is also so important for Malta. That is a concrete example where our sovereignty was much bigger than it was prior to joining.”
EP resolution on Malta’s immigration problems
Another such example was the recent resolution on Malta’s irregular migration phenomenon, which saw the whole of Europe discussing what is essentially a European and worldwide problem from a specific Maltese angle.
“The migratory flow we are experiencing would still be taking place irrespective of whether we joined the EU or not. Migrants would still have been landed here, migrants’ boats would still have run out of fuel, been caught in bad weather and had to have been saved by us – with the difference that if we were out of the EU we would have had to deal with the problem on our own.”
The problem, however, has by no means been solved through the EP resolution, but, as Dr Busuttil explained, “at least we have put it on the European agenda and for the first time got an EU institution to echo what we as a country have been saying for the past years”.
Dr Busuttil gave the government full support on its handling of the thorny issue. Despite the complexities of the problem he said the government is “sincerely trying to strike a fair balance between the interests and concerns of the Maltese over a seemingly unending influx on the one hand, while on the other making good on our equally important obligation to treat these people like human beings, human beings who are living a tragedy”.
But attempts to strike such a delicate balance, Dr Busuttil argued, inevitably draws criticism from both sides of the debate.
“You will notice that the government is criticised by one extreme as being too soft, and by the other as being too hard,” he noted. “That tells me that the government is, in fact, trying to strike a fair balance.”
The EP resolution on Malta’s immigration problem was, according to Dr Busuttil, a positive milestone in that the only directly elected institution in Europe has echoed what Malta has been saying, as well as in terms of having placed Malta’s concerns on the European agenda. Having said that, Dr Busuttil holds no false hopes that the resolution has provided an elixir for Malta’s migration problems.
“We need to be realistic, and we also need to manage our expectations,” he warned. “I must stress there is no one single solution to such a complex problem. Such a problem requires a multi-level approach, starting from providing more development aid for the countries of origin, to increasing joint patrols of the Mediterranean region, as well as fostering more solidarity between EU member states, by which I mean other EU countries helping us to share the burden.”
Malta as a country of transit
The argument, however, is not as clearcut as simply applying the country of transit principle to Malta. This, he argued, is just one out of several possible solutions that need to be integrated for a holistic approach to the issue.
The EP resolution, in fact, had not stated that Malta should be treated as a country of transit, but instead called for a thorough revision of the Dublin II convention.
As it stands today, Dr Busuttil explained, the convention stipulates that the first country an asylum seeker lands in should be the country that processes the individual’s application for asylum.
“That is creating severe constraints on countries such as Malta due to the sheer numbers involved. If that law were to be revised, we are saying it should be done in such a way as to ensure that the responsibility is more equitably shared.”
Such an equitable solution implies other EU member states taking on some of Malta’s numbers but, Dr Busuttil warned, one must be realistic about the extent to which other EU countries would accept such a proposal.
Dr Busuttil throws cold water on recent criticisms contending that introducing the country of transit principle in Malta’s respect could effectively open the floodgates to countless migrants looking to make Malta their staging post to the rest of Europe.
“These people appear to want Malta to remain stuck in the difficulty that we are in today – of not being able to send these people back to their countries of origin either because they qualify for refugee or similar protection status, while not being able to send any of them on to Europe either.
“This is something of a Hobson’s choice. People are saying we should not open this ‘channel’ to EU countries by becoming a transit state, but at the same time these same people know that we are stuck with these growing numbers.
“At this stage the EP resolution should be seen as a clear call from a European institution this time, not from a single country, on Europe to face this issue more urgently and more concretely. As for the exact route to be taken, the EP is open to negotiate. So by all means let’s discuss, but for heaven’s sake let’s do something about it.”
Dr Busuttil insisted the problem cannot be solved by simply throwing money at it, but in terms of funding, he is pushing for two measures.
The first is for an immediate emergency fund to be made available as from this year. This would create the possibility for the EU to trigger the use of funds in emergency situations. As matters currently stand, a boatload of 500 immigrants could land in Malta, thereby creating a national crisis. Malta, however, would have to wait until applications for EU funding open in order to apply for assistance.
This state of affairs, Dr Busuttil argued, must be put to an end by ensuring EU emergency funds are readily available should such an instance occur.
Secondly, Dr Busuttil favours the insertion of similar emergency mechanisms into the four separate funds on immigration created through the 2007-2013 EU budgetary package – the repatriation fund, the integration fund, the external borders fund and the refugee fund.
The EU’s 2007-2013 Budget
Dr Busuttil conceded he is not entirely satisfied with the deal struck on the 2007-2013 EU Budget, although he described the e800 million granted to Malta in structural funding as “a very generous, fair package, which is also the largest injection of foreign capital Malta has seen. We now need to roll up our sleeves and make sure that we translate this funding into concrete projects from which our people can benefit.
“The end outcome was that the EU budget would be increased by e4 billion, which is not insignificant but, personally speaking, is not so overwhelmingly satisfactory. I wanted a better budget for Malta, as well as for Europe.
“We talk a lot about Europe doing this and that, but when it comes to providing the financial means with which to do these things, we don’t. I, along with the Budget Committee of which I am a member, was working for a budget that would better allow the EU to fund the areas where funding is most needed.
“For example, more students need to be taking part in Erasmus programmes – an experience that literally changes lives. The same applies to workers getting placements in other EU countries and training institutions. Here we are not talking about funds that go into national envelopes such as Malta’s e800 million. These are funds that go into other policy areas from which, after all, Malta will still be able to benefit.”
The constitutional debate
On the sticky issue of the EU constitution in the making, Dr Busuttil feels that since two countries – France and Holland – have rejected the constitution in referenda, it must be redrawn. But it also must be borne in mind that a far greater number of member states have accepted it in its present incarnation.
The approach favoured by Dr Busuttil consists of dividing the current four-part document into two parts.
The first part would condense the first two sections the current constitution into an easily readable 60-page document outlining what the EU is all about and the rights afforded to EU citizens. This section, as President Edward Fenech Adami recently suggested, could be named a ‘European Charter’ – dispelling of the word ‘constitution’, which has become excessively emotive.
This first section, Dr Busuttil proposes, should be put to EU member states’ citizens in the form of separate referenda to be held in each country.
Dr Busuttil suggested the other 300-odd pages of the constitution, which detail how matters raised in the first two sections should work, could be hived off into a supporting treaty to be approved and ratified by individual national parliaments.
“My idea is that we should first seek agreement on dividing the constitution in this manner. Secondly, we should decide as to how to get these two sections ratified.
“I personally think we should hold an EU-wide referendum on the first part, in June 2009 for example, which is also the date of the next European Parliamentary elections. That way people could vote on their MEPs and the European Constitution at the same time in 25 separate referenda held on the same day.
“The idea is to ensure, as much as possible, that the debate is a truly European debate that does not become hijacked by national concerns as happened in France, which turned out to be more a referendum on Jacques Chirac than on the constitution itself.
“Of course, having a referendum is a huge risk…and I’ve come to know something about risks through our own membership referendum!” he added.
But while the idea is attractive on paper, Dr Busuttil mentioned a current lack of political leadership to take the bold decision to go down such a route. The situation, however, could very well be remedied with the advent of the German EU presidency in the first half of next year. A new German government headed by the country’s first female chancellor, who appears to be more pro-European than her predecessor, Dr Busuttil feels, may be just what is needed for such a bold proposal to take root.
Tabling Maltese concerns
Dr Busuttil has undoubtedly been one of the most vocal representatives Malta has in the European Parliament and has brought a number of issues affecting the Maltese onto the European agenda.
One such issue is the departure tax on airline tickets, recently upped from Lm10 to Lm20, which presents something of a conflict with the EU’s free movement of persons credo.
“The issue, as far as I am concerned, is not solely about money – it goes beyond the Lm20 that are paid in departure taxes. The free movement of persons, your right to move freely throughout the EU as an EU citizen, cannot be quantified in financial terms.
“I am disappointed that my government, which had fought so hard for the country to join the EU and to acquire the rights of EU membership for its citizens, has, on this particular issue, contradicted itself in a way because it is depriving people of what I see as a basic right that comes with being an EU citizen.
“As such, I could never have agreed with the departure tax being increased the way it has been because I want the people to enjoy the full rights of EU membership.
“I have tabled five parliamentary questions and I am informed that the matter is being investigated, and that feedback on the issue from the Maltese government has been requested.”
2009 MEP elections
One last question is unavoidable and I ask Dr Busuttil about his intentions on contesting the next MEP elections in 2009. Less than half-way through his first term, the question may be a little premature, but Dr Busuttil is willing to venture a somewhat cagey reply.
“I must say that I found myself in politics in a very strange way. I never thought I would be doing this, but here I am. I was definitely overwhelmed by the feedback I had from the election, of almost 60,000 votes, which was extraordinary for me.
“I must also say that I am working very hard, but I’m equally enjoying every minute of it of what I am doing and that I am very privileged to be doing it. It is tough, but then again not many people are lucky enough to be working in an area that also happens to be their passion.
“As for the next election, I’m not the type of person to plan what I will be doing in five years’ time. If you plan things in politics, your plans usually fall through. So I think I should be sensible enough not to plan out my political career.”