Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1115758
OPINION 31 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 12 MAY 2019 Why they call us Socialists, and we like it Josianne Cutajar Josianne Cutajar is a PL candidate for the European Elections Cutting off one's nose to spite the face Cyrus Engerer Cyrus Engerer is a Labour candidate for the European Parliament Cyrus Engerer "THE Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council." (Article 7, TEU). Roberta Metsola and David Casa have been unrelenting in the past five years. They tried to besmirch Malta's name on the European stage time and time again. While the culmi- nation of the attacks locally may have been the Egrant lie, the cherry on the cake in the European Parliament was the Resolution on the rule of law in Malta and Slovakia, voted upon last March. This was the culmination of five years of mud-slinging by Metsola and Casa. A campaign of whispers and damage that had been go- ing on in the European Parlia- ment's corridors for months on end. However, while Metsola and Casa may have considered the resolution as an end in itself, other MEPs saw this resolu- tion as the first of a dangerous and treacherous path in strip- ping Malta of its voting pow- ers. Roberta Metsola and Da- vid Casa were (and still are) playing with fire. It came to no surprise that the German MEP Sven Giegold was com- pletely dumbfounded when the PN came out against the invocation of Article 7 against Malta. Logically, Sven Giegold believed that the natural path following such a resolution would be to keep ploughing on. He wanted to add meat to the bone. He did not believe that such a resolution would only be meant as a political stunt. Sven Giegold wants Malta to be stripped of its voting rights in the Council of the EU. It is, therefore, fundamen- tal for us to comprehend the effects such an invocation would have on Malta. Putting it simply, the EU's voting pro- cedure mostly works either by qualified majority voting or by unanimity. Logically, the latter case is kept for the most sensitive of issues, financial issues being an example. Basi- cally, this means that in any law pertaining to finances, Malta has a veto. The financial sector which is so vital to our economy and which was created by previ- ous governments, has come under attack and has been put under the limelight several times since we joined the EU and different prime ministers and finance ministers have defended our sector over and over again. However, should Article 7 be invoked against Malta, our ministers would be without the most important tool at hand; the vote. The vote that could act as the veto in protecting thousands of jobs in Malta, and the Maltese economy in general would take a major hit. Such a situ- ation would wreak havoc in Malta. Although it has been made abundantly clear that this is, after all, the goal being pursued by some people who would bask in the ruin of our economy, Metsola and Casa are playing with fire. A similar effect of such an invocation, albeit on a smaller scale, would be the loss of voting rights during the negotiations of the Multi-annual Financial Framework (the MFF). Should we lose our vote in this regard we would end up without a voice in the setting out of the seven-year budget of the EU. We have seen PN prime ministers in the past proudly reporting back to Malta the millions gained through the MFF. On the other hand, Metsola and Casa are seeking to deprive our economy of such gains. It is, therefore, fundamental- ly important to recognise that actions have consequences and everyone must shoulder one's responsibilities. It is not only unwise but insanely dan- gerous to put in jeopardy the economy and the livelihood of thousands of Maltese fami- lies with the aim of possible political gains. THE closer we get to election day, the more is Government being called Socialist by the Opposition. If it is meant to insult anyone close to Gov- ernment, the plot needs tweaking as I could not be happier with this label. Perhaps we are called Socialists because we understand privilege. Our experience away from power was long enough for a deep establishment to form, for certain people to make con- siderable lumps of money from public resources, and for politicians to give themselves good raises. We also understand poverty, and we do not deny it. We spoke about it when in the Opposition, and started tackling it immediately when in Government. 29,000 people used to be poor and are no longer deprived, because this Government cares. We won't abdicate this responsibility because a decent living is a question of right accord- ing to us. Economically, we baked a much larger cake, which is now being shared amongst everyone. Critics are now saying that this growth is too big, but I would choose this challenge over the stagnation we had before any time and any day. I'm quite willing to bet most of the electorate would agree. As a Gozitan growing up under a Nationalist administration, I used to think full employment was a mirage found only in Socialist utopias. That was before we made it happen here in Malta, where everybody who is will- ing and able has a job. The war declared on indecent work- ing conditions is still ongoing, and any employer found guilty of precari- ous employment is precluded from bidding on public tenders. I still think that we need to induce our enforce- ment efforts if we are to win this war once and for all. Are we called Socialists because we raised the minimum wage? Or because we introduced an automatic mechanism to ensure nobody is on it for more than one year? We might be called Socialists be- cause we have ensured free childcare for everyone working or studying full- time. Or perhaps due to the creation of a maternity leave fund. Both family friendly measures are intended to welcome more women in the work- force, because the numbers we found were inadequate. Increasing parental leave and taking our free childcare measure to the next level will en- able more families to make their own decisions on career development and caring responsibilities. Addressing gender inequality might have earned us the title of Socialists, and it only makes us proud. Are we called Socialists because we made sure utility bills did not remain so hefty? They might be little, but at least, nowadays people find cheques in their mailbox in the morning. We are Socialists because we care about the elderly, and our strong economy enabled us to increase pensions twice already, with further increases on the horizon. We think the rights of persons with disability are a matter of social justice and not merely medical. I think that isn't enough to make us Socialists, but enforcing the '2% of workforce rule' and the way by which we increased allowances and ensured better access to services, definitely are. Or perhaps we are called Socialists because we are providing social hous- ing, after the longest ever halt to any construction of such units? Socialism is not just economic. It is a way of life that values respect, solidarity, openness and empathy. All of these happen to remind me of European values which were touted by some back in the day. Because we are Socialists, we en- sured huge progress in civil liberties, including marriage equality. We don't abstain when it comes to deciding on people's freedom to live their life their way. We love life, and that is why we made sure that all couples, their sexual orientation notwithstanding, have equal access to IVF treatment. Maltese society is now more open, more equal and more prosperous. If that is possible because we are Social- ists, there is nothing else I want to be.