[ANALYSIS] After Tonio Borg... the other Europe

Judging by some of the reactions to the 'severe but fair grilling' meted to Commissioner-designate Tonio Borg earlier this month, there appears to be widespread disillusionment about Malta's membership in the European Union.

The sensation was perhaps best captured by a single comment on the online social networks: along the lines that 'many of the people who wanted us to join the European Union, are now surprised at how the same EU actually works'.

Certainly many people gave the impression that they were shocked or incensed at some of the questions fielded by Borg before the European Parliament: even though similar (and occasionally much worse) objections had been raised in connection with other candidates in the past.

This in turn suggests that people's expectations of EU membership must have been very different from the reality we all saw two weeks ago. Some were reminded of that classic Mintoff quote from the 1970s - admittedly in reference to a very different political reality (namely the Iron Curtain) - about Europe being divided into two: the Europe of Abel, and the Europe of Cain.

Applied to the present scenario, the Europe of Abel would be the EU as projected by the Moviment IVA Malta Fl-Ewropa before the accession referendum. This version consists in a Union founded along uniquely Catholic principles by the likes of de Gasperi, Schumann and Adenauer; and its main aim (judging by how it had been sold to us less than 10 years ago) would be to dish out money to all its members, while interfering as little as possible in matters pertaining to social mores and individual rights.

The Europe of Cain, on the other hand, would be that part of the EU's identity that had been meticulously shielded from view during negotiations. It is a Europe that is fundamentally secular, that has no truck with people who fail to distinguish between personal views and the responsibilities of public office. And it is a Europe which takes a particularly dim view of the sort of religious fanaticism projected by Borg in his earlier incarnation as an overzealous peddler in 'moral values'.

As Borg's grilling made abundantly clear, this aspect of the EU strikes many Maltese as distressing, if not downright nauseating. Nor can it really escape notice that the ones who complained the loudest about Tonio Borg's treatment at the hands of MEPs, were the same people who had pushed for accession ahead of the 2003 referendum. Namely, the Nationalist Party and its media pundits: many of whom evidently feel betrayed by the fact that so many MEPs would reject the self-same values the PN itself holds so dear.

And yet, there was nothing particularly 'new' about the European Parliament's skepticism regarding Tonio Borg. Identical concerns had already been raised with other Commissioners-designate: including Italian politico-philosopher Rocco Buttliglione, who (unlike Borg) was unceremoniously given the boot. So how can the same people who urged us to join Europe only eight years ago, now express shock, indignation and even horror at the idea that Europeans might not approve their own choice of Commissioner?

And more pertinently: has the European Union itself changed since we joined? Or is it more a case that we joined the EU for all the wrong reasons, and without (as it were) reading the small print?

EU - an ongoing project

Professor Kenneth Wain is perhaps better positioned than most to answer these questions: having been at the very forefront of the 'IVA Malta Fl-Ewropa' campaign before the referendum.

He acknowledges that the reality of the EU experience may not have lived up to everyone's expectations; but at the same time sees no essential contradiction between the pre-accession perceptions and the reality that followed.

Kenneth Wain

"I can be counted as one of those who 'sold' the EU to 'us' before the referendum, but I didn't think then, nor do I think now that the EU is perfect," he begins. "For me the EU is an ongoing project, a project of peace, democracy and economic prosperity, which like every project will always have its ups and downs and will never be perfect. Of course, there is always that other little question besides: what is the alternative? I don't see any country making a rush for the exit - not even Great Britain."

Prof. Wain also defends the right of the European Parliament to have reservations and misgivings about Borg's nomination. This, he argues, is something perfectly normal within democratic institutions.

"What happened in the Tonio Borg case threw the European project into perspective: the EU is not just a cow to milk, but mainly a political ideal; and like every ideal it has its values, and its values are not uniform on a number of contentious issues that we saw raised in Borg's interrogation."

This is not only understandable, he goes on; but also commendable. "The same lack of uniformity is reflected in its parliament, which has every right to question candidate Commissioners on their values besides on technical matters... given the power of Commissioners in their area of policy-making. Like every other democratic parliament, MEPs then have the right to approve or disapprove the candidate. There is nothing undemocratic about rejection, not even on the grounds of values."

Wain illustrates this by means of an analogy that will surely ring a few bells, in a country which so recently witnessed a full-scale campaign to entrench anti-abortion laws in the Constitution.

"Let me put the matter in a Maltese context: what possibility would an MP who is generally accepted to be very capable, but is openly pro-choice,  have to be made minister in a socially sensitive or health policy policy area in Malta? I'm not sure that he or she would be shown the tolerance people here pleaded for Dr Borg; nor am I sure that his or her rejection would be regarded as 'scandalous'."

A clash of cultures

A similar view is taken also by Professor Joe Friggieri - who also campaigned in favour of accession before 2003, and went on to contest Malta's first European election on behalf of the Nationalist Party.

Friggieri begins by placing Borg's grilling - and the resulting doubts as to his suitability for the role - in their proper perspective.

"It is clear that those who voted against Tonio Borg did not do so because they thought he was not well informed about the technical aspects of his portfolio; but because they felt that his views on such matters as divorce, abortion and LGBT rights would influence his actions and decisions as an EU Commissioner," he explains.

"Obviously they were not too impressed by his pledge of allegiance to the European Charter, and they were still not convinced by the assurances he gave them in his letter.

Joe Friggieri

Consequently, he argues, the rather high percentage of  'No' votes was all along to be expected.

"The Maltese reaction to their lack of faith was understandable but wrong. This was not a question of the liberal faction wanting to impose its views on anybody. The vote, after all, was not split between 'abortionists' on the one hand and 'pro-lifers' on the other, or between 'pro-gays' and 'anti-gays', but between those who felt they could trust Tonio Borg when he said that he would not allow his personal views to impinge on his duties as EU Commissioner and those who didn't. The latter were democratically elected to the EU Parliament in exactly the same way as the former, and were exercising their democratic right in voting 'no' just as much as the former did in voting 'yes'. One either believes in diversity or one doesn't."

Nor did it help that Borg's views on so many issues were always going to be at loggerheads with the broader European perspective.

"There is absolutely no doubt that very few of those who voted for Tonio Borg would share his views on divorce, or would even dream of including an anti-abortion clause in the Constitution. In the vast majority of European countries these matters were settled ages ago and are not likely to arise again, or become hot electoral issues, as they still do in the USA due to the influence of the religious right..."

Friggieri therefore argues that it was wrong to interpret the Socialists' demands for further clarification on the part of Dr Borg as an insult to the nation, or to read the result of the vote as personally humiliating.

"I see it more as a clash of cultures, a result of the tension between the way we tend to look at ourselves and the way we are seen by others. In this sense Tonio Borg's 'grilling' on moral issues, which came as a shock to many, should serve as an eye-opener. 

"The EU is not just an economic union, and there are more advantages in belonging to it than those related to funding. We can enjoy the benefits of a stronger rush of fresh air if we open more windows."