Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1034189
29 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 30 SEPTEMBER 2018 OPINION @rvassallo survival of the so-called 'Euro- pean Project' takes precedence, in these people's minds, over the welfare and individual prosperity of each EU citizen. It is certainly not a good enough reason to discard, a priori, the idea that 'better relationships' may indeed exist, apart from the existing model that these people want to defend for its own sake. Besides: this reasoning would be bizarre even if the condi- tions were as good as they are made out to be. But they're not, are they? In some cases – Greece, for instance – they are actually reminiscent of the post-WW1 depression era referred to in the opening paragraph: you know, the very scenario the EU was supposed to avoid at all costs. Small wonder individual countries might be interested to hear about the possibility of revising the terms of their own membership, for the good of their own citizens. But… sorry, folks! The great reformists of the EU are not interested in improving the standard of liv- ing of the average man in the European street. Not if it comes at the cost of their cherished 'European project'… which, funnily enough, not a single author of this article has ever been able to properly define. This is the closest we get to a definition in the same arti- cle: "Instead of a divided and weakened Europe which is at the mercy of world powers, we want a sovereign Europe that acts robustly at all times where the action of isolated countries is unyielding – especially when it comes to economic and monetary policy, security and defence, social policy, ecologi- cal and agricultural transition, immigration and integration, plus digital change." Leaving aside that they don't seem to know the meaning of the word 'unyielding' – it doesn't mean 'fruitless', if that's what they thought – well, there's a sort of giant irony staring us in the face here. The same people who argue that the UK – or any other member state, for that matter – cannot 'pick and choose' their own preferred relations with the EU, go on to suggest changing the very nature of the 27-member bloc in a way they have 'picked and chosen' themselves: uni- laterally, of course, with no ap- parent care about whether their plans are shared or approved by the rest of the EU's 500 million citizens. Once again, they helpfully spell it out for us themselves: "We are not scared of change. We are ready to reform treaties if that is what is needed. We are determined to move forward, despite obstacles and each member state needing a differ- ent pace to embrace change. We want a stronger Europe, one we can reinforce [sic] together. And we remain open to others wanting to join us in this quest…" Oh dear. Coming from people who howled so loudly when an individual member state dared to suggest 'reforming' its own accession treaty, according to its own wishes and exigen- cies… well, what could we have expected, but a proposal to do exactly the same thing them- selves? Only this time it's not a case of an individual country trying to get a better deal for its citizens – perish the thought! – but a proposal to reform the EU itself from the centre outwards. And while the British govern- ment can always point towards the referendum result to prove that it is negotiating on behalf of its citizens… on whose behalf are these people put- ting forward their proposals, anyway? It can't be on behalf of Eu- rope's citizens, because – as they freely admit, above – they haven't actually consulted any yet. Instead, they merely invite us to join their cause almost as an afterthought… not because it's necessary, but just because it 'would be nice'. Even so, however: this pales to insignificance compared to the broader irony implicit in that sentence. As I recall, the last person who proposed replacing Europe's exist- ing 'nation state' model with a 'sovereign Europe' – i.e., an economic and military powerhouse, capable of taking its own place on the world stage, under the illuminated leadership of a central, pan- European government – was a certain 'Hitler, Adolf.' And we all know how that turned out in the end… In any case: I won't be scram- bling to join the crusade of people who seem to be hellbent on repeating the mistakes of history. But that's just little me: and I will certainly not presume to speak on behalf of an entire continent's population… with- out even bothering to ask what it thinks.