Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1262267
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 21 JUNE 2020 INTERVIEW so we will now have a double cost to bear. Malta is still buying emission credits from Bulgar- ia to make up for its emissions, notwithstanding that we should have been prepared for this since 2012. Same goes for waste recy- cling and renewable energies, where we remain at the bottom of the European graph. While many Maltese have adapted their lifestyle to more environmentally conscious choices, we fail to move forward as a nation as the government only pays lip-service to environ- mental protection. In general, most of us agree that more effort is needed to protect our environment. At this rate, we will be leaving a sick world to our children. If we can share that perspective then we need to be consistent and accept consumption taxation related to the most polluting substances tied to a strong environmental policy. The Union is leading the world by continuing to champi- on the Paris agreement on cli- mate change; and now, with the new green deal. This makes me proud to be European and as a Maltese I am ready to support that extra step forward. Certainly this will come at a cost too, but an environmental tax is much better to bear than a tax on our competitiveness. It is a fairer level playing field. The Union is also equipped to use trade tools to avoid negative effects on employment and in- dustry in Europe, hence limiting most of the impact on Maltese companies operating in the af- fected areas. Meanwhile, the plan itself re- quires approval by all 27 mem- ber states... but some (e.g. Aus- tria) have already hinted that they might veto it. It is to be expected, then, that the final deal (if any) will be the result of further negotiation. What bar- gaining power does Malta re- ally have in this scenario? And what do you realistically expect the final version to be like? EU budget deals require unan- imous approval by all Member States as well as the positive vote of the European Parliament. That gives us ample leverage to change the proposals on the ta- ble. In the past we managed to change proposals to factor in the Maltese dimension. To do that, however, we need to be equipped with a longer-term vi- sion and with sound arguments. This is something which seems to be somewhat lacking, or well-hidden, in the current setting. If there is a vision then maybe the government should dedicate more efforts to speak out about it. We also need to cultivate our credibility around the European table. What may look as a se- ries of seemingly unconnected developments in Malta's track record on fighting corruption, money-laundering and uphold- ing rule of law may, at the end of the day, nibble at our credibility and hence at our effectiveness on the negotiating table when it comes to bread and butter mat- ters like the EU budget. 'Next Generation Europe' fol- lows on from a previous Italian proposal to provide assistance in the form of 'Eurobonds'. This was however shot down by Ger- many, Austria, The Netherlands and Luxembourg. Do you share concerns (expressed, among others by French President Ma- cron) that this marks the begin- ning of a possible 'unravelling' of the EU? At every twist and turn there are those who say the EU is breaking up soon. We heard it when De Gaulle said no to the Brits in the fifties, the when France left the negotiating table on agriculture funding in the six- ties, then again every few years with different topics including recently with Grexit and Brexit. It seems to me that the Union comes out stronger from these misadventures. I think some- times we underestimate the re- silience of the project. It is also natural when the Union faces these crossroad moments that the first proposals are tempered with the input of others. I think the discussion on Corona-bonds started on an imbalanced foot- ing, and I believe that the re- covery fund presented now ad- dresses most of the needs but in a more balanced way between Europe's north and south. On the other hand, Commission President Ursula von der Ley- en has urged member states to 'rediscover the power of the idea of a united Europe.' Do you interpret that as a call for fed- eralisation? If so, is acceptance of this package the first step towards a 'United States of Eu- rope'? 'More Europe' is undeniably on the mind of most MEPs and undoubtedly of some ministers in Brussels. My personal view on a more federal Europe is that we should absolutely go more federal when it comes to giving Europe a stronger democratic imprint, where the European Parliament should have wider powers of scrutiny and initiative. I do, however, have strong mis- givings on branching out into new policy areas before we con- solidate what we should have working by now such as the free movement of professionals and services across the Union. Last week I helped a Maltese photographer with a French company insisting that he had to have accreditation to work as a photographer in France. Free movement of services (includ- ing photographers!) should have been a European 'acquis' since the eighties, and here we are still battling for its actual implemen- tation. It's no use expanding our remit further to then realise that we have limitations to Union rights even in the most basic of its supposed guarantees. There is an antidote to that of course – we must be much more militant in asking for our EU rights. Maybe that's the first thing that should federalise throughout. Lastly, Von der Leyen also said that: 'there are four freedoms that need to be fully restored." This includes the freedom of movement of people – curtailed by the travel restrictions im- posed by member states in view of COVID-19. Is the fund contin- gent on completely lifting these restrictions (e.g., by re-opening the airport)? If so, is this a case of putting economic recovery before public health? No. President Von der Leyen justly underlines the need for coordination of border openings as this has a direct bearing on European free movement. How- ever, this is without prejudice to the right of member states to impose limitations to free move- ment on the grounds of public health. The European Commis- sion would need to take member states to the European Court of Justice to put their judgement into question in this regard. I don't think it will come to that. Malta needs to be part of compromises; not try to unravel them after they are reached. It is squarely on Government's shoulders to scout and alert on EU developments like this, well in advance of negotiations