Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/271600
10 maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 5 MARCH 2014 Opinion Download the MaltaToday App now Raphael Vassallo Opinion What does the 'U' in 'EU' stand for, anyway? W ith a European election around the corner, and Russia storming into the Crimea for all the world as if the European Union simply didn't exist at all… I think perhaps the time has come to re-dimension our views of what it was we actually joined 10 years ago. Some of you may remember the fireworks and light displays that ushered us in as EU members in April 31, 2004. And many may have expected a nationwide transformation to match that grand and unforgettable spectacle, devised for our benefit by a wandering conjuror who now organises national festivities instead. Granted, in some ways the country has changed since then, and mostly for the better. We are no longer surgically connected to a medieval system of 'sole agencies', as we were in the past; and the aggressively protectionist policies of yesteryear have simply evaporated like condensed milk. We have meanwhile managed to attract no end of business here purely on the strength of our status as EU members: and we also cashed in on our European investment in other, unexpected ways: flogging our EU passports on the international market, without even so much as pretending that the exercise was ever about anything other than money (or 'flus', as that commodity is known in French). Ah yes, money. We got lots of that, too. Mostly thrown into any amount on infrastructural projects which (let's face it) would probably never have got off the ground had Malta remained outside the EU. But on top of all this there was also debt – lots of lots of debt – much of which was incurred during the preparatory phases for accession in the early 1990s. And soon after joining the club, we also discovered we were no longer entirely free to service that debt according to our own interests and exigencies, either. As we repeatedly saw under Lawrence Gonzi (whose last three budgets were all sent back to the drawing board), and also under Joseph Muscat after just one year in office, Malta simply no longer calls its own shots in this regard… even though, unlike other EU member states, our national debt is not payable to the celebrated 'troika' which now sets down the rules on how to pay it all back. Yet we still have to submit our national budgets to the scrutiny of the European Commission. And apart from being beneath our dignity, this is also quite bizarre. The same European structures which now oversee our debt management models, also stand accused of having engineered the worst economic crisis in recent European history. And what was their response to the same eurozone crisis? Why, to engineer yet more debt for the beleaguered countries… some of whose populations (e.g., Cyprus) have been made to pay, from their own savings, for European 'bail-outs' that had previously (e.g., Ireland) been given out for free. So all things considered, the European Commission should be the very last entity to tell us how to administer our own economic problems… and also to talk about transparency and accountability, by the way. A recent study by the Commission revealed that the cost of corruption in EU institutions runs into €120 billion… with Commissioner Malmstrom helpfully adding that the real cost is probably much higher. What was the EU's response? Where is the crackdown on corruption within the EU? Nowhere to be seen. And the same EU which stands accused of corruption on an unimaginable scale, will also come down on us like a tonne of bricks if (for instance) it is 'not satisfied' with our plans to keep within the criteria of the Maastricht Treaty, or with our local anti-corruption mechanisms. None of this was ever really discussed in detail before we joined… and here I have to do a 'mea culpa' and admit that I, like so many others, was also blinded by the short- term political implications of the discussion at the time, and did not see any of this coming at all. But there was something else I didn't see coming… and now that the monster has finally crawled out of its cave, and we can all marvel at its previously unseen ugliness… well, take a good look while you can. You might spot a chink in its scaly armour, whose detection has so far eluded everyone else. I'm not sure how far advanced the crisis in Ukraine will have advanced by the time you read this, but I'm pretty certain you've all followed proceedings so far. And depending on whom you rely on for information, you may be under the impression that nasty, evil former President Yanukovich, former President of Ukraine, betrayed his country's European aspirations by signing a pact with the devil (through his earthly emissary, Vladimir Putin), thus precipitating a crisis that now threatens to descend into full scale war. So much for the fairy-tale version. Under scrutiny, the reality turns out to be slightly more complicated. Long before this impasse, Yanukovich had flirted with both the EU and Russia, and had come away with offers from both sides. The EU's offer was one many of us will find uncomfortably familiar: a free-trade agreement with the EU that stopped short of actual membership. Yes, that's right: the same deal that Alfred Sant had proposed back in the 1900s, but which we were always told was 'pas possible' back then. What was impossible for Malta very quickly became both possible and desirable for Ukraine… and I'll leave you to work out which of these two countries the EU was more keen on trading with, at the time it reached its opposite conclusions. Meanwhile the Russians offered something different: Around €11 billion in aid, a reduction of gas prices by 30% (Ukraine is heavily dependent on Russia for energy) and major business deals for the Ukrainian industry. In other words, Ukraine's choice was to either invest massively in a systemic overhaul costing untold millions, to transform the country into something the EU would like to do business with (thus incurring massive debts with European institutions); or to accept a more generous Russian deal that would have been considerably more advantageous to the Ukraine… even if the offer was made practically at gunpoint. What would you have chosen in Yanukovich's place, I wonder? But no matter: the Ukrainian president did what most prime ministers would have done, and accepted the more advantageous offer which placed the least strain on his own country. As a result, a segment of his own people rose against him and drove him out of office… leaving a bitterly divided country without any form of leadership, other than by a former premier who had only just been released from prison over corruption charges. Does this justify Russia simply marching in an annexing part of the country for itself? No, of course not. But this brings me to the truly earth-shattering aspect of this latest development, and what it reveals about the EU we joined in 2004. On Monday, international headlines were all variations of the same theme: The EU and USA were 'considering' sanctions against Moscow. But when US president Obama turned to his European allies for support … the EU simply turned around and said: "Nein, danke schon" in 56 different languages. When it came to the crunch – i.e., at an emergency meeting in Brussels on Monday – the foreign ministers of Germany, France, Italy and Spain all said 'No' to trade sanctions on Russia. Berlin in particular (Germany imports 40% of its gas from Russia) also rejected Washington's threat to kick Russia out of G8. And it transpires that the United Kingdom has also stalled proceedings… in part by insisting on an 'exemption' that would allow the City of London (the real thing, not the bar in Balluta) to carry on trading with Russian billionaires, while the rest of Europe's trade hubs were busy boycotting Moscow. At a glance it is easy to see how each individual member state reacted to the dilemma exactly as Yanukovich had earlier reacted to his dilemma in having to choose between Russia and Europe. All countries, without exception, asked only one question: "what's in it for us?" And there wasn't even the pretence of unity anywhere to be seen… and this alone makes you wonder what the 'U' actually stands for in 'EU'. I thought I'd get this out of the way now, before the propaganda machines of both our little political parties get cranked into action: the Nationalist machine to resuscitate a lifeless European vision in time for use in the imminent MEP campaign; and Labour's to exorcise the ghost of its own past euro-scepticism. I expect it will be amusing to sit back and watch them both get progressively more hysterical as they discuss a 'European Union' that is not in any way 'united', and that neither party seems to even comprehend. So enjoy the show, folks. I must say I'm looking forward to the fireworks myself… I expect it will be amusing to sit back and watch both PN and PL get progressively more hysterical as they discuss a 'European Union' that is not in any way 'united', and that neither party seems to even comprehend