Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1438074
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 19 DECEMBER 2021 INTERVIEW problems itics. I could never agree with that, myself. If a right has been granted, within a representa- tional democracy… it cannot just be withdrawn on a whim. But do you think time has come for abortion to be legalized in Malta: at least in certain cases? Given that I am already nat- urally gravitating towards that position anyway… I would not be against it. Responding to Commission President Ursula von der Ley- en's 'State of the Union' ad- dress, you cast doubt over whether the European Com- mission had made a 'realistic evaluation' of the bloc's actu- al situation. Among the many structural problems you identi- fied were: management issues within the Eurozone; the lack of progress towards a common immigration policy; growing in- equality; and economic dispari- ties between different member states. Do you think the Europe- an Commission is denying the existence of such problems? Let me put this way; when you look at the European Union for what it is – i.e., a group of 27 member states – the source of all those problems becomes very clearly visible. Unlike the United States, the European Union doesn't have any feder- al structures of its own: which permit to it to directly tackle such problems, head-on, the moment they arise. But it has to be noted that similar problems are now cropping up even in the USA; and very often, we are seeing the emergence of the same sort of 'roadblocks' – by which I mean, 'political obstacles' - that prevent those problems from being solved. Having said this: the Europe- an Commission's strategy, un- der Ursula von der Leyen, has been to identify three or four major priorities: all of which are, admittedly, very important in themselves. The Green Deal, for instance; or the Digitaliza- tion Strategy… and [von der Leyen] is insisting that these projects have to be implement- ed, come what may: even if, in reality, the European Commis- sion has already fallen behind its targets… and is likely to fall farther still. At the same time, howev- er, other problems have been emerging. COVID-19 was one example which no one saw coming; and – at least, in the beginning - the European Un- ion encountered serious prob- lems in coordinating its re- sponse. The reason is that the 'Health' portfolio does not fall within the European Commission's competence, in any organic way; so there was need for ne- gotiations with each EU indi- vidual member state, to come up with a common position that was, at the time, required with urgency. Because one of the European Union's core fun- damental principles has always been 'Freedom of Movement' – i.e., that its citizens can freely move from country, to anoth- er, to another… technically, because you don't need a visa. But the moment you start in- troducing health restrictions, which are different from one country to the next… then that's it: you no longer have 'Freedom of Movement'. All of sudden, then, an issue which had always lain outside the EU's own competence, came to be something that directly affected the same EU's ability to act. And this is one of many problems, that the EU itself is structurally not in a position to solve. Immigration is another good example. When irregular mi- grants enter into any one EU member state - for instance, Malta or Italy - very often, their intention will be to continue travelling towards Germany (or, until recently, the Unit- ed Kingdom). And this cre- ates the same type of political roadblocks which hamper the EU's ability to effectively solve any of these problems: because there are all sorts of different national, and regional, inter- ests involved. Countries are, in fact, even classified according to region: this one is 'North'; that one 'East'; and the other is 'South' European - and as you rightly said in your question, this al- so translates into a situation of disparity – both social, and economic – between the vari- ous regions and nations. As things stand, the only 'language' we have to try and solve these problems with, is international dialogue: i.e., an exchange of ideas and compro- mises, between all the member states. There are no federal structures, within the EU, that can approach these problems at a federal level; and person- ally, I don't think there should be any, either… even if my own opposition to European feder- alization is based on other, very different reasons. Nonetheless, that is the basic context we are looking at here. And in that context – with 27 different countries; all with their own voices, and their own national interests – it is obvi- ous that there are going to be massive roadblocks, placed in the path of any 'common solu- tion'. So no matter what Ur- sula von der Leyen said in her 'State of the Union' address; it doesn't seem to me as though the European Commission is any closer to actually solving any of those problems. Not for want of trying, per- haps; but she's just not solving those problems. And nowhere is this more visible, than in the case of immigration… This raises the question of whether there can ever be any solidarity at all, at European level, on an issue such as immi- gration: which is not as 'attrac- tive', shall we say, as other is- sues like the Green Deal (where there is more convergence by member states)… I have to disagree with you about the Green Deal, myself. Personally, I'm not seeing all that much 'convergence' about it, right now. In fact, a major controversy that has only just erupted is the question of whether nuclear energy should be classified as 'green', or not. On one hand there are countries like France – which produce much of their own energy through nuclear power – arguing that 'yes, it should'; but on the other, you have countries like Germany, which (for once) disagrees. Even here, then, there are ma- jor problems looming on the horizon: for as this controversy is still ongoing, France – and also the Czech Republic – is in the process of investing heavi- ly in nuclear energy: at a time when other countries are argu- ing that nuclear should not be part of the Green Deal. There are, of course, valid ar- guments both for and against: nuclear energy, for instance, does not contribute anything at all to global climate change… though it has other disadvan- tages of its own. But with- out going into the specifics of those arguments: even here, we can already see that the Green Deal is ultimately subject to the same 'roadblocks' that prevent any form of lasting agreement. Meanwhile, there is another, similar controversy currently evolving around – believe it or not - the concept of the 'rule of law'. There are ongoing claims, for instance, that Po- land and Hungary are not re- specting certain basic rule-of- law principles – in particular, where the independence of the judiciary is concerned; and in the European parliament, pri- marily, there is also a growing emphasis, by a large majority of MEPS, on the need for sanc- tions against those countries… and others, which are deemed (by whatever process) to be in breach of the rule of law. There is even pressure on the European Commission, to con- duct an annual investigation into each member state over the same issue; and, where ap- plicable, that those countries found to be lacking should face EU-imposed economic sanctions… including the with- drawal of any EU funding. Now: to be fair, it's not as though the European Commis- sion has been inactive, faced with all this. It has tried to find a compromise, between the various interests concerned. Once again, however, it keeps coming up against the same hurdles; it keeps stumbling on the same obstacles… and this is only to be expected, if the EU continues to mix up issues such as 'the rule of law', with all the economic rules and regulations that hold the same European Union together.