Ten years down the line

There was something extremely sexy about being pro-European Union in 2003.  The ‘Iva’ movement – funded entirely by the Nationalist Party – went out of its way to portray the do-or-die choice of membership. It was as if ditching Europe was akin to catapulting Malta into the underworld.
Perhaps EU membership was simply the best and only option, considering that at the time the man leading the political party opposing European Union accession – Alfred Sant – was markedly out of synch with the popular mood.
Nothing could beat the vibrant, victorious and triumphant chorus that supported the pro-EU campaign trail, even though some of its leaders were not at all convincing.
When you do look back, European Union accession did bring about new opportunities, but not the overwhelming tsunami many were anticipating.
The perks of EU membership, as projected by the Nationalist Party at the time, were unbelievably  superficial.
One recurring point referred to the “millions” that Malta would forsake if it remained out of the club.
The other point talked about the wonders of passing through customs and not having to be hassled or to wait in line. The most popular – and unofficial – example was not having to wait with “blacks and Arabs” in the queue!
The third referred to the fact that the Maltese language was now an official language in the European Union, just like other major languages. Special reference was made to the fact that other, far more popular languages would never be recognised as official languages: they included Catalan, Basque, Breton, Welsh and so many other ethnic languages, and they were cited to point out our unique success in the Cachia Caruana-captained negotiations.
Point number four was to deflect fears that European Union accession would not mean the effective imposition of dreaded ‘abortion’ in Malta (and hence avoiding a guaranteed Church boycott in the referendum) – the treaty between Malta and the EU spelt out that abortion was out of the question for Malta.
The fifth point confirmed that long transitional periods were negotiated for the phasing out of trapping and hunting, much to the delight of Lino Farrugia and the rest of his fiery bunch.

The flip side
Ten years later, European Union membership has made us realise that a lot of it was really down to hype.
The experience of watching millions of euros in funds flowing into our coffers may soon be over. Indeed, the difference between what we receive and give is becoming smaller. Strangely enough, everyone talks of incoming funds, but no one seems to underscore what monies are paid to the EU by the Maltese state.
That reality was, ironically, raised by Malta’s former negotiator, Richard Cachia Caruana, who said last week – in his very stiff Maltese – that the day Malta becomes a net contributor could very soon be upon us.
The undue importance given to passing through customs simply because one has an EU passport has become a rather fringe issue – more so when most of us have to wait patiently in departure lounges due to very stringent security measures.
The obligation of using the Maltese language in Europe has been proven to be pointless, more so when one considers that most interventions by Maltese in the EU institutions are expressed in English.  
Yet, we have to admit that the recognition of the Maltese languages has boosted the department of Maltese at University and allowed most of our learned Maltese linguists to reside in Luxembourg or Brussels.
EU accession has benefited a sizeable band of graduates who have lost no opportunity to seek better salaries with European institutions. But most of all, it has reinforced our perception that the EU is a gravy train.
On the ground in Malta, the status of Maltese citizens is no different to the plight of other Europeans. Perhaps not as bad in fact, but none of our achievements appears to be linked to the European Union members. Indeed, most of our financial robustness comes from our conservative banking sector. Unlike the European banks, who have had to re-adjust their approach to monetary indulgence.
Between 2003 and 2013, Europe and its European Union partners experienced one of the worst economic crises of all.   
In the face of this, the EU was not only slow to act, but remarkably inept. Its response to the crisis was to suggest and impose more austere controls on public spending. It meant clamping down on the underclass and preventing small businesses from growing.
Over the past 10 years, three main international upheavals took place and the European Union looked on, incapable of taking a unilateral decision or of being useful. The Arab Spring was one of them, the fall of Gaddafi and the Syrian crisis another.  
And while Cameron and Sarkozy chose to intervene in more than one way in Libya, today Europe, the UK and France have opted to look the other way when it came to Syria. In contrast to what happened in Libya, the Syrian regime remains far too stable to be taken to task.
Add to this the extraordinary mixed messages Europe has sent out to its member states in tackling migrants leaving the African shores. And of the various failed initiatives in the past 10 years from Berlusconi attempting to buy Gaddafi, to tough responses from Sarkozy and Cameron.
European accession led to the inevitable removal of the Maltese lira in 2008, and this struck a blow to many Maltese companies, many of which could not cope with the inherent price changes with the introduction of the Euro.
The appeal of being European was what made the pro-EU lobby tick.
Level headed, middle class folk spoke about looking forward to “being European”. It was as if being European meant full accountability at all levels, no corruption, better manners, high ethical standards, fine and honest politicians, good roads and a cared-for environment. Some went even further, choosing to believe that our hot summers would disappear altogether, and that we would be perpetually living in blissful springtime.
In the very end, the EU showed us that it could be ruthless with a Maltese commissioner but a ‘pussy’ with other commissioners who faced serious allegations of impropriety.  
It was also clear that many standards would be imposed unless governments were cornered and forced into accepting their failures.
Worst of all, most of the daring reforms happened because of people power and not because of a directive from Brussels. Divorce, gender equality and civil unions were all home-grown initiatives.
Perhaps the best proof that the Maltese people had lost faith in the European Union is their decision to force a referendum to ban spring hunting, because the EU has been politically reluctant to put pressure and stop spring hunting in Malta.
If and when the referendum does go through, it will be another clear message that if we want change, it has come from us.
Which is why most people will be asking whether they should really bother to vote in the first place on the 24 May.
The counter-argument to that is that voting will only make the possibility of changing this institution into something more worthwhile a possibility… even if this may be highly unlikely.