Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1416377
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 3 OCTOBER 2021 INTERVIEW the case: because when one immi- grant is in any of those countries… it means that they are in Europe. So we need a common Europe- an policy on immigration, based on solidarity: solidarity between different member states; and al- so, solidarity with the people who come here [to Europe] for differ- ent reasons… be they economic reasons, or human rights issues in their own countries. But it is unacceptable that some countries have to receive all this pressure, without any help from other member states. It is nec- essary, then, to find a common position; and we are prepared, as a group, to push for this in the Eu- ropean Parliament; and to remind some of those countries - which do not support a common policy – that they have to do it, because the EU is a political project. It is not only an economic project: we also have common values… and solidarity is one of the most im- portant of those values. Malta is often criticised for its role in enabling the shifting of profits generated in Europe to minimise tax exposure: some- times to just 5%. The S&D has supported the OECD push for a 21% global rate. But what do you tell Maltese MEPs when they refuse to support the stand for common corporate taxation in the EU? Do you see this oppo- sition to tax harmonisation as 'unfair play' by the Maltese? Sometimes, we have different positions within our group: not just with the Maltese delegation, but with others too. But we have the opportunity to discuss those differences between us, without any problems; and to try to find a common position. If that is not possible, however: it is always necessary to accept the majority position. And for us as a group, fiscal policy is an essential tool to guarantee social justice. We need a strong, just taxation policy, if we want to guarantee a robust European budget; a strong [Cov- id-19] recovery plan; and to re- spond to today's global challenges. Immigration, for example; public health; and the need for a strong social pillar, to fight against pov- erty. There is a lot we can we do about all those things; but we need the resources. And a fair taxation pol- icy is the best instrument, to guar- antee social justice. Government, however – and also the private sector, includ- ing the Malta Business Cham- ber – argues that tax incentives are the only way a country like Malta can compensate for the disadvantages of being such a peripheral destination, when it comes to attracting foreign investors. Don't they have a point? I understand this argument per- fectly well; and we face the same issues with other countries, too. Or with particular regions of certain countries, which are also vulnerable because they are pe- ripheral… such as the outermost regions of Europe. But having tax incentives, in itself, is not a problem. Nor is it necessarily incompatible with the concept of a just tax policy. I think it is perfectly possible to look at the issue from both perspectives. But what we want is a tax policy that guarantees social justice; and not competition. It should not be a question of how much countries can compete against each other, to have more opportunities. No; it should be about all countries hav- ing the same opportunities… Do you think Malta has "ex- posed" itself, as a European state, when it insists on selling Maltese citizenship (even as other EU countries do in sim- ilar programmes), when EC president Ursula von der Leyen has declared that the Maltese should stop its 'Golden Pass- port' scheme? As you are no doubt aware, we, as S&D, are against any 'Golden Passport' schemes: whether in Malta, or in any other member state. But I am aware that the gov- ernment is introducing certain changes; and that has to also be taken into consideration. We shall have to wait and see what these proposed changes are; but as the European commission President stated, the scheme [in its present form] will have to be stopped, sooner or later... What sort of changes do you think would make such a scheme acceptable? And is this something you are discussing with the Maltese delegation at this conference? Clearly, it is necessary to intro- duce some criteria: for instance, to guarantee that the people availing of this scheme have, for example, spent some time in the country; and have made certain invest- ments, and taken certain initia- tives. But yes, this is a matter that we are currently discussing; and we will continue working with the Maltese government, to help it take the right direction. Before this conference, you praised the Abela administra- tion over its 'rule of law' re- forms. How serious do you per- ceive Malta's shortcomings on rule of law to have been, when compared with some more egregious situations in coun- tries like Hungary and Poland? Has the EU been weak in taking action with these two states? For me, it is very clear that we cannot place Hungary and Poland in the same category as Malta. Be- cause the situation in those coun- tries is very different. Both Hun- gary and Poland, for instance, are enacting new legislation which is aimed at curtailing rights – as has happened in the past – while the situation in Malta is, in fact, the total opposite. We have to acknowledge that the current [Maltese] govern- ment is doing a lot of good work, to adapt local legislation to reflect European values and the rule of law. For example, the recent leg- islative changes regarding the sep- aration of powers: to keep justice, and the courts, at an arm's length from politics. This is very impor- tant, and I think that the Maltese government is clearly on the right track. And it's not just us, at the Euro- pean parliament, who recognise this. The Venice Commission, for example, also acknowledged the work that the Maltese govern- ment is doing. Is there more to be done? Yes, of course. Always. But it is important to support the governments which are, in fact, moving the right direc- tion. There is, of course, also the question of whether some politi- cal groups want to use this issue to attack the government of Malta; and not just the government, but also – at the end of the day – the country as a whole. Another thing I have to say is that, when the European Parlia- ment asks certain governments to co-operate in its committees – with requests of information, for example – the Maltese govern- ment always co-operates: unlike other countries such as Hungary, or Slovenia… Meanwhile, Hungary has just complained about what it de- scribes as 'blackmail' by the EU: namely, the threat to make the Covid Recovery Fund pack- age contingent on the recipient country's respect for the rule of law. Do you agree that such im- portant funds should be with- held, on that basis? and if so, isn't there a danger that coun- tries may ultimately be coerced into compliance? We, as a group, have worked a lot on the legislative proposal to make a link between the Europe- an budget, and the rule of law. Be- cause the European Union is not a bank; it is not a place where in- dividual countries go, just to with- draw money. The European Union is a polit- ical project. We share the same core values. And we cannot ac- cept that some governments – and now we are talking about 'governments'; not 'countries' – can attack, and undermine those common values and principles: such as human rights, dignity and equality. So it is very clear, for us: if some countries decide to not respect the rule of law… they cannot use European resources. They have to choose.