Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/779073
14 IT must be an interesting time to work within the various institu- tions that make up the European Union. Interesting, but also daunt- ing and uncertain. As shockwaves from Brexit con- tinue to be felt, the EU now faces the possibility of political gains made by euro-sceptic parties in various member states. It is a phe- nomenon that Malta has so far been spared: for a country that was so viscerally divided on Europe until recently, we are now perhaps the most overtly pro-EU country in the entire bloc. But this will be small consolation for the rest of the EU. In France, the forthcoming Presidential elec- tion could easily be won by a Far Right, Eurosceptic candidate. In Germany, Chancellor Merkel faces a gruelling backlash over her unpopular immigration policies. Even the Netherlands – one of the most historically Europhile of the 28 member states – seems to have lost some of its enthusiasm for the so-called 'European project'. What went wrong? And more to the point: what can be done to reverse this apparent tide of for- tunes? "It is definitely an interesting time for the EU," Dr Vanni Xuer- eb, head of the Malta/EU Steering Action Committee (MEUSAC) admits when I raise the above concerns in his Valletta office. "It is challenging, in terms of shaping the immediate future of the EU. Is this a crisis that could lead to the breakup of the Union? Or is it time to take stock of the situation and move forward? A lot depends on what will happen in the next few months. There are a number of pivotal elections that could impact the future direction of the Union as a whole. Among the possibilities is the emergence of a widespread Eurosceptic coalition, with wide- ranging possible consequences..." But even before one takes those elections into consideration, Xuer- eb argues that there are a number of fundamental questions Europe needs to ask itself. "I think that people no longer connect with the old narrative of Europe. The EU was originally conceived in the 1950s, by Rob- ert Schuman (among others). The original Schuman declaration in- volved a plan to place production of coal and steel under a common authority. On paper it was an eco- nomic agreement, but from the outset there was more to the idea than just trade or production. Schuman's vision was also to make it 'materially impossible' for Euro- pean countries to go to war with each other. So what started off as a community built on coal and steel, consolidated into a grand project for peace..." This does admittedly sound like a very noble and commend- able long-term objective... but Dr Xuereb admits that it may no longer be enough to enthuse the Union's 500 million citizens. "One of the realities we must contend with is that people of our generation don't remember the war. It is not enough to remind this generation that the EU serves to make sure we never go through that experience again. We need another narrative: something to make people enthusiastic about the European project again. Some- how, we lost the plot somewhere along the way..." Is it possible to pinpoint exactly where we began to lose sight of that objective? "It is hard to narrow it down to any one event or development. Possibly, the EU enlarged too rap- idly. Initially, there was the argu- ment of 'deepening' versus 'en- larging': should there have been a 'deepening' of the EU before the enlargement of 2004? Or at least, before Romania and Bulgaria joined? Then there's the whole is- sue of what kind of 'Union' the EU should actually be. Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has often said that there are 28 member states with 28 different visions of what the EU should be. He is right. That is how it is at present..." Isn't this also in part inevitable? Today, we talk about a 'European identity'... but historically speak- ing, this is a very new concept. For millennia, Europe never looked at itself as a single entity before. Un- less one counts the archaic vision of 'Romanitas' from the Roman Empire, it has always been an as- sortment of very different commu- nities and cultures, often coexist- ing in a non-peaceful way. Could it simply be that the EU cannot work because its peoples and cultures are too diverse? "Identity is a core part of the issue. What constitutes European iden- tity, anyway? I think we can speak more of European 'identities'. This is one of the fundamental differ- ences between Europe and, for in- stance, the United States. To give an example: someone from Kansas would no doubt say 'I am Ameri- can' first. In Europe, however, it is the other way round. In fact, in some European countries people might not even identify with their own nationality first. "In Spain, for example, someone from Barcelona might easily say 'I am Catalan' before 'I am Spanish'. In Belgium, there are significant regional differences: Wallonia, Flanders the German-speaking part... Even culturally, we cannot really talk of a common European identity. Each country and each region has a very different history and cultural mindset. It would be accurate to talk about European 'cultures', rather than culture. But then again, the idea behind the EU was all along the famous 'unity in diversity'. It was never a question of trying to harmonise, to make us all the same. It is the differences between us, in fact, that contribute to the richness of Europe's diver- sity. So the real question is, how to gel these different cultures togeth- er and make it all work?" On a conceptual level, perhaps. But the problems gripping the EU at the moment are not just of an existential, philosophical variety. There are forces actively trying to pull the Union apart. And the EU's response is not always conducive to unity. Brexit is perhaps the best ex- ample. We are now talking about whether the UK's withdrawal from the EU should take the form of a 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit. Among those favouring the 'hard' version is Malta's prime minister, who has repeatedly made the case that Brit- ain's deal must be inferior to mem- bership... or other countries might choose to leave. Doesn't this suggest that the only reason to want to remain an EU member state, is simply fear of be- ing 'punished' for leaving? "The argument by those who say they want to punish Britain is precisely so that Brexit won't serve as an example for other countries. But that is not the main argument. I think the message of the EU27 to Britain is more a case of: 'listen, you can't stay in the single market and accept only one or two of the four fundamental freedoms. You can't pick and choose: if you want free movement of goods, you also have to accept free movement of capitals, of services and of per- sons.' "Now, it is clearly emerging that the UK government has accepted the view that Britain voted to leave mostly because of the freedom of movement of persons. The main issue, it would seem, was control of national borders. Britain basically is making the calculation that, 'if we want to give up freedom of movement of people, we must also give up free movement of goods. And we are ready to do it.' For this reason, [British PM] Theresa May has made it clear that the UK will not try and stay in the single mar- ket. So in a way, the solidity of the EU27 seems to have worked: the message got through..." But that doesn't change the mes- sage. It is still a case of: remain a member, or you will be punished... "It's not the EU that wants to punish Britain; in a way, it is the British who are going to be 'pun- ishing' themselves... if you want to put it that way. They are giving up the free movement of goods, in order to keep control over who enters the UK. What remains to be seen is what sort of agreement will be reached..." This indeed seems to be the crux of the matter: the concern is now whether the agreement Dr Xuereb refers to might be unnecessarily hard on Britain... in which case, the country may be pushed into taking extreme decisions which sit uncomfortably with the rest of Eu- rope. May is pursuing a trade deal with Trump's US as we speak... there have even been hints that Britain might become a tax haven which may lure investment away from Europe, etc. The question therefore becomes: is it really in the EU's interest to push Britain too far? "Those are the kind of threats – for want of a better word – that the UK is making at the moment. 'If you don't give us a deal that is good for us, we might do it our own way... and that would be det- rimental to you.' That's the mes- sage..." Isn't that fair play, though? Sure- ly a country is entitled to defend its own interests... "Yes, it's a perfectly normal part of negotiations. Perhaps 'threat' Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 29 JANUARY 2017 I understand that politicians need to be pragmatic, and listen to the people. But they also have to provide leadership LEADERSHIP Every time we get a result that is perceived not to be in the EU's interest, we say 'this is a wake-up call'. My fear, however, is that we wake up for five minutes, then immediately go back to sleep WAKE-UP CALL Europe needs a new