‘Our issues’ in the European parliament

Immigration

With the first boats of migrants arriving in 2004 – the year when Malta joined the EU – migration and EU membership have been intertwined in the Maltese psyche to the extent that immigration has become the symbol of EU indifference towards the plight of a small nation.
Against the backdrop of record boat arrivals, irregular immigration became the main issue of the 2009 MEP campaign for candidates from both major parties.

Judging by the latest MaltaToday survey, the issue will continue to dominate the debate in next month’s MEP election despite the lack of any significant boat arrivals over the past few months.

The perceived absence of EU assistance on migration remains a major bone of contention in Malta. Ironically, all Maltese mainstream parties tend to expect a ‘federalist’ solution; an obligatory burden sharing mechanism which can only come about through a consensus among member states, and not by any initiative taken in the European Parliament. 

Local consensus exists on a reform of the Dublin II regulation. However, the regulations stipulate that asylum seekers must apply for asylum at their ‘first point of entry into the EU’: which means that Malta has to assume responsibility for all such asylum seekers.

When still an MEP, Nationalist Party leader Simon Busuttil was an EP rapporteur for migration, and his long-standing colleague David Casa were vociferous in their demands for more European support. Similar pleas have more recently been made in the Labour representation: Marlene Mizzi similarly lambasted European institutions for their failure to show solidarity with Malta last October.

Yet it is debatable whether the European Parliament is indeed the institution best suited to raise these concerns.

Both the centre-right EPP and the Party of European Socialists have refused to include a reform of Dublin II in their manifestos. Of the parties contesting in Malta, only the Greens have made a similar commitment.

But even if the mainstream parties made a similar decision, it would not amount to anything more than moral pressure on sovereign governments who ultimately can change Dublin II. Parliament’s only role would be to ratify any decision for it to come into force.

However, in one respect the EP does have considerable influence on immigration-related matters. This year, Malta’s budgetary allocation within the EU’s 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework stands at almost €80 million: up by €15 million over the previous amount given by the EP. Of these funds, €53 million go under the Internal Security Fund (External Borders and visas), €17 million under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund; and €9 million under the Internal Security Fund (Police).

The LNG tanker
The European Parliament has absolutely no say on the location of LNG terminals, something which falls entirely under the remit of national authorities.

On its part, the Commission can intervene on permits issued by national authorities if these are in breach of EU directives. MEPs can solicit the intervention of the Commission through petitions.

The issue has been Europeanised by incumbent Maltese MEP Roberta Metsola, who submitted a petition to the European Parliament urging the European Commission to investigate the risk to the public’s safety by the government’s plans to berth a floating liquefied gas storage unit close to shore.

Metsola referred to EU’s SEVESO II Directive, which lays down that member states will prohibit the use of any establishment, installation or storage facility, where the measures taken by the operator for the prevention and mitigation of major accidents are seriously deficient, saying that petitioners were understandably concerned that the project will violate the Directive.

The Maltese Occupational Health and Safety Authority has concluded that the project is compliant with the directive.

Spring hunting
The issue of spring hunting has come to a head after 45,000 signatures were collected to call for a referendum for the abolition of hunting in spring. Moreover, Labour MEP candidate Cyrus Engerer has actively campaigned to collect signatures for a rival petition to protect minorities from referenda.

In March, 33 MEPs from 10 EU countries have added their names to a letter requesting an urgent meeting with European Commissioner for the Environment, Janez Potočnik, to discuss the spring hunting of birds in Malta.

This is not the first time that hunting has featured as an issue in MEP elections. The 2004 election saw the candidature of FKNK – the hunters’ federation – secretary Lino Farrugia, who failed to get elected, raking in just a miserly 3,000 votes.

But while MEPs may bring on pressure to bear on the commission, the EP has no influence the outcome of any local decision on this matter.
This is because the issue of spring hunting does not revolve around any proposed amendment of European legislation – in which case, MEPs would have a say. The issues revolves around the interpretations given to the European Court of Justice’s 2009 verdict, and the correct way to apply a derogation from the Wild Birds Directive.

In fact it was the European Commission that took Malta to the European Court of Justice in 2007.

As in all other issues, the EP naturally retains the ability to pass non-binding resolutions on the issue.

The environment
In Malta, the environment is mainly associated with land use and air quality issues.  The EU Parliament has no jurisdiction on decisions taken by the local planning and environmental authorities, but the Commission can investigate any breach in the numerous directives governing the two sectors.

For example, the 2006 extension of building boundaries was investigated by the European Commission over an alleged breach of the directive requiring a strategic assessment on any land use plan commenced after 2004. But following a four-year investigation, proceedings were dropped. MEPs can also present petitions requesting the commission to investigate alleged breach of directives and may also present questions to the Commission on these issues.

Citizenship
The resolution passed by the EP which singled out Malta in condemning the Individual Investor Programme is still fresh in the memory of voters.

Although the EP has no remit on this issue except for passing resolutions, the motion which singled out Malta raised questions on whether Maltese MEPs should defend Malta’s name at all costs or actively solicit the intervention of EU institutions on issues where they are in disagreement with the government.

In fact, while Labour MEP candidates emphasise their role as defenders of the national interest, in this instance PN MEPs insists that they had no choice but to seek recourse to the European Parliament after the national parliament turned down all the Opposition’s amendments.
The vote also showed that resolutions passed by the European Parliament could spur the commission to action.

In fact, following a strong vote in the European Parliament, the Commission called on legal experts to examine the possibility of opening infringement procedures against Malta based on Article 4.3 of the Treaty of the European Union. Article 4.3 calls on member states to “refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives”.

The missing issues But in the absence of a directive clearly governing the granting of citizenship, the Maltese government managed to snatch a favourable deal through which the Commission approved Malta’s scheme while the government accepted the principle that applicants should “effectively” reside in Malta for a year before they are granted citizenship.

The Commission is also investigating similar schemes in other European countries.

It is up to the next European Commission to close the loophole by legislating on a directive regulating the naturalisation of non-EU citizens.  
In this case, MEPs will be expected to vote on the Commission’s proposals. In the absence of such common rules, Europe may well face a race to the bottom as financially hard-pressed countries compete to offer European citizenship at the cheapest price.

Gay rights
Over the past few years, the European Parliament has voted on several resolutions condemning homophobia and urging member states to recognise the rights of same sex couples.

In fact, the legislation approved by the Maltese parliament in parliament granting a civil union status on a par with marriage makes Malta more liberal than many other member states.

In fact, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia lack legislation don’t recognise civil unions.   
But the EU has little power over the regulation on matters regulating marriage and adoption by same sex couples. This is because no directive exists to regulate the matter.

Moreover, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have constitutionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

While the EU legislates to improve the free movement of persons, there is no provision for mutual recognition of same-sex partnerships. The European Parliament has however approved a report calling for mutual recognition. On its part, Malta recognises same sex marriages granted in other EU countries.

A proposed European anti-discrimination law would outlaw discrimination in the areas of social protection, social advantages, education and access to supply of goods. This would be on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age, and sexual orientation. However, the directive has been stalled in the Council, despite strong support from the European Parliament.

EU funding for Malta
According to statistics compiled by the PPCD, Malta has been allocated an impressive €944 million under the EU’s Cohesion Policy, since it became a member in 2004.

Although funding is the object of intense negotiations in the Council of Ministers, the EU budget – which makes this funding possible – needs the approval of MEPs.

Malta has received €84.9 million from the EU’s SOLID Funds 2007-2013, European Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said in reply to a question raised by Labour MEP Joseph Cuschieri.

The Missing Issues

While the European parliament has little or no powers on the issues which dominate the election for the European Parliament, it has power on important issues rarely mentioned by the Maltese.

These include EU directives proposing a degree of tax harmonisation and a tax on financial transactions. While there is very little debate on these issues locally, these are high on the agenda of European political parties.

Although the European Parliament has little say on the future of European integration, the forthcoming election is being characterised by intense debate between eurosceptic populist parties and defenders of the European project.

It is also characterised by a split between parties on the left who reject austerity measures and parties of the centre right who insist on the importance of fiscal rigour.

An issue largely overlooked in Malta is that on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a trade agreement that is presently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States which aims at removing trade barriers in a wide range of economic sectors to make it easier to buy and sell goods and services between the EU and the US. The treaty is opposed by the Greens and the radical left, who fear an erosion of workers’ rights and environmental standards.

The powers of the European parliament

The European Parliament has three main roles: debating and passing European laws, scrutinising other EU institutions – particularly the Commission – to make sure they are working democratically and debating and adopting the EU’s budget.

In many areas, such as consumer protection and the environment, Parliament works together with the Council (representing national governments) to decide on the content of EU laws and officially adopt them. This process is called ‘Ordinary Legislative Procedure’.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, the range of policies covered by the new ordinary legislative procedure has increased, giving Parliament more power to influence the content of laws in areas including agriculture, energy policy, immigration and EU funds.

Parliament must also give its permission for other important decisions, such as allowing new countries to join the EU. Parliament exercises influence over other European institutions in several ways.

When a new Commission is appointed, its 28 members – one from each EU country – cannot take up office until Parliament has approved them. If the members of the European Parliament disapprove of a nominee, they can reject the entire slate. Parliament can also call on the Commission to resign during its period in office. This is called a ‘motion of censure’.

Parliament keeps check on the Commission by examining reports it produces and by questioning Commissioners. Its committees play an important part here.

MEPs look at petitions from citizens and sets up committees of inquiry. When national leaders meet for European Council summits, Parliament gives its opinion on the topics on the agenda. Parliament adopts the EU’s annual budget with the Council of the European Union.

Parliament also has a committee that monitors how the budget is spent, and every year passes judgement on the Commission’s handling of the previous year’s budget.