Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1503087
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 2 JULY 2023 9 INTERVIEW to raw materials [in the mi- cro-electronics industry] such as chips, microchips, and semicon- ductors. For those, we are high- ly dependent on third countries such as China, Chile, the United States... and Russia, before the war. And basically, that's the push [behind the investment in man- ufacturers such as STMicroe- lectronics]. It is aimed at remov- ing, or reducing, our reliance on third countries; and becoming more independent in this sector, ourselves. That is why the Com- mission approved those projects: which will help Malta's economy, as well; but much more impor- tantly, they will help reduce our reliance on unstable partners - let's say Russia, for instance - or partners that can hold us to ransom, when it comes to... the transition to electric cars, for in- stance. For that, we need batter- ies; and for batteries, we need to have lithium. But we are not producing the batteries in Europe. Instead, we are dependent on others... I understand that argument perfectly; but it's not what I was questioning, with that ar- ticle. My question was: 'why only semi-conductors'? Why does the European Commission only agree to 'bend State-aid rules', in cases where its own interests are at stake; but not, the interest of any one member State? (Bearing in mind that Air Malta is just as strategically im- portant to Malta, as 'semi-con- ductors' are to the EU) More than 'the Commission's own interests', I would say it's a case of protecting the common European interest: which means that projects like these, will fur- ther the European Union as a whole. Don't look at it specifically from the perspective of STMicro-elec- tronics; look at the bigger picture. This will help the EU fight threats that come from the external sources: either in the future, or at present... Fair enough: we'll just have to agree to disagree. On the sub- ject of 'external threats' and 'unreliable partners', though: when Malta signed a memo- randum of understanding with Azerbaijan, for the supply of natural gas, we were criti- cized for 'cosying up to dic- tators'. Fast-forward to 2022, and suddenly the Commission announces a similar deal with the same country and even de- scribes the Aliyev regime as a 'reliable partner'. Isn't this a case of double standards? To be fair, you have to see where the criticism actually stemmed from. I don't recall the European Commission itself criticizing the Socar agreement, in that sense... No, in fact the Commission ap- proved the deal... Precisely. So, what the European Union is trying to do, is diversify its energy sources and Malta is doing this, as well. Because as far as I am aware, Malta's gas supply has been diversified; it's no longer coming just from Azerbaijan, but from different sources. What happened, in a nutshell, was that when Russia launched an unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine, most EU member states were being held to ransom, because of their fos- sil-fuels importation from Russia. Within record time, however, the European Union has managed to mobilize – through programmes such as Repower EU – in order to try and shift our dependence on Russian fuels, to other fuels originating from more reliable partners; or else, investing in re- newable energy sources. And I think that is the success of this Commission: it reacts in a very prompt manner to threats. Let's face it: no other Commis- sion has had to face a global pan- demic – where we had to mobi- lize all our resources towards the procurement of vaccines - and then, war on the European con- tinent, on such a large scale. To give you an example: a year ago, I was living in Strasbourg; and we were talking about the possi- bility of power shortages, power cuts, and heating cuts in winter. It didn't happen, however be- cause of the productive work of different governments, obviously; but also, because of the decisions taken by the European Commis- sion... Onto another issue now: im- migration. The European Com- mission has just announced a 'breakthrough' in discussions of a new 'Asylum and Immi- gration Pact'. For the first time, member states have agreed to a 'mandatory relocation' system. On closer scrutiny, however, it turns out that they still have the choice to make a financial contribution, instead of actually accepting relocated migrants. So, what would hap- pen if all EU states agree only to take the financial option? Wouldn't it still leave border states to cope with the influx, regardless? First of all, I think we need to go into detail, when it comes to the legislative process: just to explain things a bit better. The Commis- sion originally came up with the proposal for the Asylum and Im- migration Pact, which included this kind of 'mandatory reloca- tion' - or solidarity - mechanism. With options, yes. But it's still something that had always been considered inconceivable, until this point. Let me put it another way: I've been working in the EU for the past 16 years. And never, in all that time, would I have imagined that there would be 'mandatory solidarity', ever featuring in some [European Commission] text. But that's precisely what I'm asking: does this really count as 'mandatory solidarity'? Be- cause it looks as though coun- tries can still 'opt out', at will; and this is, in fact, why the Maltese government abstained on the motion: despite having called for 'mandatory solidari- ty', for years... That's why I said 'let's go into the legislative process'. The process itself works like this: the Com- mission comes up with the pro- posal; then, there has to be a dis- cussion between member states and the European Parliament. At which point: it is no longer in the hands of the Commission itself, but in the hands of parlia- ment and the member states. All three will decide together. So, if, for example, mandatory reloca- tion is a 'red line' for Country X: they would need to negotiate, and come up with alternatives... like, for example, monetary contribu- tion, instead of relocation. I've seen the reaction of the Maltese government. What I can say is that, obviously, the Maltese government feels that the agree- ment is not as 'far-reaching', as they would have wanted it to be. What I can tell you from my perspective, however, is that: hav- ing reached this stage now, that we are actually no longer talking only about 'voluntary' relocation - because that's how it had always been framed before: as a 'volun- tary' agreement - but everyone now agrees (in principle, at least) with a 'mandatory' mechanism, instead... I think that we have to appreciate the positives, as well. This could be a first step to- wards a more tangible, more con- crete proposal in the future. On top of that, we also have to keep in mind what used to happen be- fore. Basically, whenever there was an arrival in Malta, the authori- ties would be in contact with dif- ferent authorities around Europe, to see who would be willing to take in any refugees or migrants. Now, however, we have a more structured proposal on the table, which is more concrete. Let's appreciate the positives, that we have achieved in the 20 years since joining the European Union. Today, we have reached the situation where more mem- ber states are now sensitised to- wards the difficulties that coun- tries such as Malta face, due to migration flows. Because let's face it: there are other member states that have experienced the same situation on the Eastern borders of our continent: even more so now, be- cause of the war in Ukraine; and all the refugees coming in from that country. So, at the moment, there is a bigger sensitization of the Eu- ropean dimension, towards mi- gration. And I think that having reached this step, is already a big milestone. It's already quite an achievement, in itself. It doesn't mean that [the agree- ment] is perfect: obviously, it isn't. But I do think it's a first step in the right direction. And I hope that the deal will be reached very soon.