Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1110343
16 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 28 APRIL 2019 INTERVIEW As a Labour MEP candidate, you have highlighted various issues – social inequality, domestic violence, Gozo's connectivity issues, etc. – in articles and speeches. Yet none of that seems to feature anywhere in the PL's billboards and electoral messages. Would you agree that there is a gulf separating the Labour Party's official campaign, from that of its individual candidates? Let me start by pointing out that I am a candidate for the Labour Party because I be- lieve in the principles of the Labour Party. As a candidate, I am aware of what the PL's campaign message is, and I agree with that message; but it doesn't follow that I will speak only about the issues highlight- ed by the party. It is only natu- ral that individual candidates will speak about those issues where they feel they can make a difference. I, for example, am someone who believes very strongly in the social dimen- sion. Discrimination, inequal- ity... these are issues that bother me a lot. For instance, to ensure a better quality of life for eve- ryone, I believe we have to talk about reducing domestic vio- lence. We have to start talking about issues of mental health. So, I firmly believe that this platform – my candidacy to the European parliament – is not just about those areas where the EU has competence. I feel obliged to use this platform to also talk about areas where, as a society, we should be working towards eliminating stigma; to raise awareness about issues I feel to be important. This seems to point towards an uncomfortable truth about Maltese politics today. You are the second youngest candidate in this election; the youngest is AD's Mina Tolu, who also tackled issues the party had ignored. Doesn't it say something, that the 'underdog' candidates are the ones talking about issues of direct relevance to people's lives… and not the parties themselves? I see your point, but I don't see it as such a contrast. When it is the right forum to speak about 'traditional politics'… I speak about 'traditional poli- tics', too. But then, we have to discuss what 'traditional poli- tics' means. I wouldn't say it's just about confrontation. Some of the billboards have also been about the Labour government's achievements. I don't see any- thing wrong with a party focus- ing on the good it believes it has achieved for the country. And I do speak about these things: I am proud that my party, in government, has registered its third consecutive fiscal surplus. I boast about the social benefits this government has introduced. These issues were on billboards, too… Perhaps, but the general message is still that of two political parties lost in their own private feud, forgetting all about issues of concern to people. And my impression is that people are switching off. Do you feel this? Is it something you feel your generation of politicians should be concerned about? It depends. It doesn't bother me, for instance, that the two parties constantly turn the big guns [jifthu il-kanuni] onto each other. Maltese politics be- ing what it is, that sort of thing is expected, more or less. But then again… let me put it this way: there are sometimes 'par- tisan' things that do have to be said. I don't like being partisan, myself… but it is not a 'parti- san' statement when I say that it hurts me a lot when Maltese politicians go to the forum of the European Parliament, only to blacken Malta's name and harm its reputation. It's not something I say because my party expects me to: it is some- thing I really and truly feel. As a Maltese, I am really hurt by it. I have always believed that, if there is trouble in the family… yes, by all means, we fight about our differences behind closed doors. The same applies to this case… Does it really, though? You talk of Nationalist MEPs 'harming Malta's reputation', as though the issues they constantly raise in the EP – Panamagate, corruption, etc. – never happened. But they did happen. Surely it is the Opposition's job to be casting a spotlight on such issues? I can understand that the Op- position has to criticise; it is part of its function. But there are ways and means of criticis- ing. It doesn't always have to be destructive. In fact, I would like to be able to welcome some constructive criticism from the Opposition. It wouldn't bother me in the least to be told what they think we're doing wrong, and how they think we can manage better. But if the Op- position doesn't even acknowl- edge any work the government has done… the Whistleblower's Act, the reform of the judiciary, the Press Act… if they are go- ing to act like none of that even happened, and focus only on the negative: 'Panama, Panama, Panama; Corruption, corrup- tion, corruption'… all coming from Maltese voices… it stands to reason that other MEPs will start seeing only those things, too. Because they themselves do not behave like that about their own countries. At home, they fight internally as much as we do; but they don't go to the European Parliament to un- dermine their own country. So when they see Maltese MEPs doing that… it stands out. They will think, 'there must really be something wrong, for them to attack their own country like that'. This is why it hurts; because it is not a fair picture. Another thing that irks me is that the PN doesn't seem to realise the damage it is doing… even to itself, in the long run. It has forged a link between 'the Panama Papers' and our taxa- tion system; then it pretends to be surprised when MEPs like Sven Giegold call for Article 7 to be invoked against Malta. Suddenly, they turn around and say, 'No, Mr Giegold: we don't agree with Article 7 against Malta'. [Pause]. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that the PN didn't say, 'Yes, Mr Giegold, by all means, let's invoke Article 7 against our own country…' But you can't lead these foreign MEPs to the edge of a cliff, and then suddenly tell them 'we can only go this far'. If anything, you should realise from before- hand where all this was going to lead… and not take that path in the first place. Nonetheless, the PN's 'No' to Giegold underscores that – despite the apparent state of 'war' between the two parties – there is actually convergence on the broader issue of tax harmonisation. It seems as though PN and PL disagree only on the details, not on the principle. Would you agree? Again, I was pleased to see that the PL and PN voted together on the subject of the EU's compe- tence in tax harmonisation. I'd like to see similar cooperation on other areas of national inter- est. And yes, there are other are- as of possible convergence. I fail to see why we should get lost in attacking each other on an issue like immigration, for instance. Let us concentrate on where we agree. Both parties agree that the EU could do a lot more on this issue. In three recent cases, Malta had to resort to ad hoc agreements with other EU countries, to redistribute res- cued migrants at sea. I think the Prime Minister did an excellent job of negotiating those agree- ments; but from the national interest perspective, it's not a long-term solution. We cannot continue coming up with ad hoc arrangements, every single time. This is also something the To be 'closer to the people', you have to listen to the people's concerns – Labour's youngest MEP candidate, JOSIANNE CUTAJAR, on how the EU does not always follow its own advice One size does not fit Raphael Vassallo Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt