A Volt from the blue… | Arnas Lasys

Volt is a new party, both in Malta and across the EU. This is also reflected in your declared electoral target: to ‘field a candidate in every district’ (rather than ‘to elect an MP’).  With the next election only a few months away: how close is Volt to actually achieving that aim? And what sort of response are you getting, so far?

As you said, we are a very young party – our official launch was less than three months ago – so we are very much still in the process of setting up the structures.  We began by launching a public call for people to apply to become members; or to simply get to know Volt more. Now, we are reaching out to people ourselves, as well.

As for the response, there has been a lot of interest: especially because we project very clear views. We don’t want to change our views, according to the public opinion of the time. Our policies are set in stone. And that is something that we find people tend to respect…

All the same, however: it is a very big step, from there, to attracting people to actually contest elections as Volt candidates. It is a small party, in Malta; and also, in a way, a party that has unpopular views…

Before turning to Volt’s actual policies, though: how many candidates has the party attracted so far?

I don’t have the exact figures, but so far around 30 people have joined Volt as members, of whom five have applied to become candidates… though they are still in the process of getting to know what Volt is, and how it works, before deciding to officially submit their name.

To be fair, that’s not a small number, for a newly-formed political party. But you yourself mentioned that Volt has ‘unpopular views’. Do you consider your stand on abortion as the party’s stumbling blocks? If so, how do you intend to project your pro-choice views, in such a clearly ‘anti-choice’ environment?

It is certainly a challenging issue, in Malta. But, like I said, we do not take up our positions on the basis of public opinion.

Our position is that abortion needs to be seen for what it is – not as a crime, but as an essential medical procedure that can positively affect a woman’s physical and psychological health. In fact, the European Parliament has effectively declared it be a human right [via the Matic report]…

Nonetheless, Volt does not advocate for ‘top-down’ change… but more for a ‘bottom-up’ approach. Change should not be simply imposed from above; it has to come from the local level.

So we need to understand what the situation really is: we need to share our experiences, education the public, and have an open and clear discussion on the way forward.

Unfortunately, the discussion about this issue tends to get very… toxic. And this is something that can only be tackled in a bottom-up way. The NGOs advocating for reproductive rights in Malta, have done immense work over the past few years. They have much more influence over the actual situation, through the work they are doing: because their work involves educating, raising awareness… talking to anti-choice people, and opening their eyes to a different perspective…

And this is the way we want to do politics: here in Malta, and throughout Europe…

In fact, Volt has a very clear identity as a pro-European Union party: yet at the same time, the number of one priority in Volt’s European manifesto is to ‘Fix the EU’. In what ways do you see the EU as ‘broken’… and how do you intend to ‘fix it’?

There is a lot in the way of ineffective structures, within the European Union in its current form. To give an example, one of the reasons why the EU hasn’t managed to come up with a common migration policy, is that member states still decide on many issues by unanimity or consensus: making it far easier to block legislation than to act. 

The situation as it stands today is that – if the EU does come up with a proposal, on something like migration – the whole plan usually falls through, because one member state decides against it. And the same, of course, applies to other issues as well.

Innovation, for instance: it should be much easier to set up a business within the European Union, and then operate anywhere within the EU. It is, after all, the ‘common market’. In actual fact, however, there are very huge differences in how businesses can be set up, in each member state. What we would like to see, is a more seamless process which applies across the EU.

There is also huge democratic deficit within the EU: right now, the Commission president is essentially selected by ‘back-room deals’. That, we strongly disagree with.

We believe that the primary legislative initiative should really rest with the European Parliament – which is elected by the public - and not with the Commission. So to give you an idea of the sort of Europe we at Volt are trying to achieve:  we want to have a President of the European Union elected by the public.  But it would be a ceremonial role, compared to how it is now…

Yet at the same time, your national policy platform includes a ‘European solution’ to (among other things) migration. How do you propose to achieve that, where all efforts have failed in 15 years of EU membership?

Well, we aim to push for that by being vocal about the need for a solution, throughout the European Union: by having presence in every European country – at national, local and European level – so that we can push through our ideas and policies more effectively.

In a sense, this is already happening. With specific reference to migration: we are active at European Parliament level, where our MEP [Damian Boeselager] has collaborated with the Greens on a programme called ‘Europe Welcomes’.

The programme aims to encourage localities, at municipal levels, to voluntarily take in refugees, and show their commitment to helping others. And already, there have been hundreds of responses from across Europe.

This is to demonstrate that there is, in fact, solidarity for this kind of solution.

At municipal level, perhaps. But so far – as you yourself confirmed - little solidarity has been forthcoming from other member states. And in any case: the programme you describe is ‘voluntary’: leaving us more or less in the same situation (i.e., relying on bi-lateral agreements with other countries). What are you proposing that is in any way different, or innovative?

The programme I mentioned was just an example, to show of how it is possible to reach this kind of agreement. But our long-term proposals are to have an actual redistributive system in place: whereby refugees coming to the EU would be redistributed, based on such factors as a member state’s population density, wealth, unemployment, and so on…

This is, in fact, partly what we mean by ‘fixing the EU’. At present, the current set-up doesn’t allow the EU to enact that kind of policy in the first place...

This, presumably, is also why Volt is such an openly ‘federalist party’: arguing in favour of the EU becoming a single country, with member states (presumably) devolving into semi-autonomous regions. But how would that impact such a small, peripheral state such as Malta? What sort of future would this country even have, as a tiny enclave within a federalised Europe?

At this stage, we are still working on what the federalised structure would look like. It’s not easy, or clear-cut: it will take some time to come up with something that is ideal. But along the way, we want to ensure that there is a strong local participation of citizens; and that there are ways for citizens to actually participate, at their local, regional and national levels.

But while it is still too early to say what the final structure would be… the federalisation of Europe, as a whole, does not mean ‘taking autonomy away from member states’.  It would change how those countries operate, at certain levels… but it is not as though they would lose their autonomous decision-making powers.

If look at Germany, for instance – which is, in itself, a Federal Republic – there is still a fair amount of autonomy, within each federalised state...

Fair enough, but already there are certain concerns about European integration. Like the drive towards tax harmonisation, for instance. Critics – including the Chamber of Commerce, and both main political parties – argue that tax sovereignty is the only way to counterbalance the disadvantages of trying to attract foreign investment to such a peripheral country. Why, then, does Volt agree with tax harmonisation?

Yes, Volt is in favour of a form of tax harmonisation… but we are also aware that it’s not something you can implement, without looking at the consequences. We have to be very careful as to how this is introduced, as it can impact small countries such as Malta: and also other countries, like the Netherlands and Ireland: which also use their own tax incentives to attract business...

So there has to be a lot of research on how it can be introduced; but we do need to introduce it eventually…

But that was the point of my question. Why is tax harmonisation so necessary in the first place? Doesn’t it just protect larger countries, by penalising smaller countries that are trying to compete with them economically?

The way we see it in the European Union, it’s not about ‘big countries versus small’; it’s more about the amount of tax revenue collected within the EU, which can then be used for services to help citizens. The way it is at the moment, there is less tax collected… so there will be less in the way of services provided…

But in Malta, it’s the other way round. Our tax incentives (whatever their other flaws) have helped make this country economically viable… why should we be forced to relinquish our only competitive advantage?

But we want to see this from the perspective of the EU as a whole: and not only from the perspective of each individual member state. Obviously, this is not something we can introduce from one day to the next: because, in the present set-up, it will have this impact on smaller countries.

But if we had a more unified system of tax redistribution, operating across the EU as a whole… and if companies were taxed at a higher rate… there would be more tax revenue to invest in services for the public, across the entire Union.

Besides: even the global drive for tax harmonisation, in itself, is not proposing a ‘flat rate’ for all industries, across the board. So we need to find an optimal solution: which, admittedly, we don’t have yet…