The candidates have been fielded, the votes have been cast, the verdict has been delivered and now, all that remains today is the counting.

The Maltese electorate has, for better or worse, chosen its representatives in Brussels and Strasburg – representatives that will now be tasked with securing the best for Malta from the European Union – no small feat for a small country with a mere five, and possibly six, seats at the European lawmaking institution.

But, as in many other instances in life, it is not the size of the contingent but rather how it is used that counts. Placing Maltese MEPs on the right committees and the drafting of the right reports will not only raise their profile in European circles and their respective European parties, it will also serve the country in good stead by pushing forward its interests.

Some of Malta’s MEPs have done just that over the last five-year legislature, others have fallen short of the mark.

But after today’s backslapping and champagne uncorking, Malta’s newly elected MEPs will, from tomorrow, need to begin putting the pettier aspects of what has been a very partisan campaign behind them and begin working in the national interest – although much of the tone of the now finalised campaign does not bode well in that respect. That all needs to be left behind in Malta before the country’s MEPs set off on the road to Brussels.

With the campaign now safely behind us, let us put the seemingly eternal partisan divides, as well as new divisions that have cropped up over recent weeks, behind us and put the campaign’s more negative slants down to a learning experience. This is, after all, a question of Malta and the EU, and not one of Nationalists and Labourites.

As one candidate put it during the campaign, what the country needs and what it has been sorely lacking over the last five years is a Team Malta at the European institution, a team that would work together, in unison, for the country. Another candidate from the opposite end of the political spectrum suggested in reply that Malta’s MEPs meet, for instance, on a monthly basis to discuss and thrash out the issues coming up in the plenary sessions – to present a common front on which to fight for the common national interest.

Both suggestions, unless they turn out at the end of the day to be no more than campaign rhetoric, are commendable, and should be taken up as soon as possible after the summer recess, and as soon as Malta’s MEPs have warmed their new seats.

Heritage takes a bold step forward

Heritage Malta’s recent move to safeguard archaeologically sensitive land is commendable, all the more so given that the land expropriated by the government on the agency’s request had already been granted development permits by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority.

The incident has highlighted what appears to be a severe shortcoming in the planning approval process, with the advice of both Heritage Malta and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage having apparently fallen on deaf ears, even though the development in question lies a mere 10 metres from the megalithic remains of Ta’ Hagrat.

While Mepa should of course be given a wide remit to take the decisions that it feels need to be taken, the opinion of the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage should be given more weight in the decision-making process.

Once a sensitive site is covered by concrete and development, there is no turning back – and given the rampant and at times unchecked development of the country in the past, more must be done to safeguard what is actually left.

That Heritage Malta had to step in, in what was an extraordinary move, reveals the system’s shortcomings. And the fact that what was otherwise extremely positive news appears to have been shrouded so as not to uncover Mepa’s shortcomings is also something warranting a closer look.

More actions of the sort on the part of Heritage Malta would be warmly welcomed.

Tread cautiously with Libya

In its headlong rush, which has become more frenetic over the last two weeks, to find a solution to the great migration phenomenon for Malta and Italy, the European Union and Malta itself needs to keep the humanitarian aspect of the issue at the forefront.

And in this respect, both the EU and Malta, the latter having perhaps a more intimate knowledge of the Libyan mindset than its European counterparts, needs to tread very cautiously indeed with Libya in positioning the sometimes-renegade country as a crucial partner in addressing migratory flows.

Short of setting up a UNHCR office on Libya’s sea border where migrants would be able to apply for asylum in Europe, any return of migrants to Libya, which is not their country of origin and not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, needs to be completely ruled out. In the same vein, the recent returns of asylum seekers by Italy to Libya must also be condemned as utterly irresponsible and obviously politically motivated.

The same argument has been applied to the suggestion of Frontex or Italian patrols off the Libyan coast, a prospect that has not yet materialised. If migrant boats are to be turned straight back to Libyan shores, and with would-be asylum seekers not being accorded their right under international law to seek asylum in a safe place, the results could be disastrous for the reputation of the EU, Malta and Italy on the world stage.

Treatment meted out to migrants in Libyan detention centres has been well documented in this newspaper and others, and until that country can assure humane conditions and treatment no one should be sent back there.

There is no doubt that both Malta as well as Italy are in dire need of assistance, but plans along these lines need to be careful, prudent and, above all, pay full respect to the humanitarian dimension of the issue if Europe is to avoid falling into a very deep pit.