The EU information battle

Last week's editorial criticised the government for not properly explaining to the public what the closure of seven EU acquis communautaire chapters really meant and what effect such closures would have on our economy. Last Saturday Foreign Minister Joe Borg gave a press conference, nine days after the chapters were provisionally closed, to discuss the closure of the chapters. His main message was that these were relatively "easy" chapters and that he was quite confident that up to 12 acquis chapters could be opened under the French presidency. This is all well and good and one hopes that the chapters to be negotiated under the French will be as easy to close as the first seven.

However, the government has still not properly explained just what has to be done for these seven chapters to be fully in force by 2003, what effect this will have on the country and why no transition periods or derogations were necessary. This lack of explanation can unfortunately lead to plenty of misinformation coming from the anti-EU membership lobby.

A case in point regards the chapter on industry which has been provisionally closed. Last Saturday Labour leader Alfred Sant said that as a result of this chapter being closed, Malta had agreed to introduce between 350 and 400 EU directives in the industry sector. He also said that information should be made available on these laws which will be introduced following this agreement.

The Malta-EU Information Centre immediately issued a clarification of Dr Sant's statement saying that no such agreement has been reached because there are no EU laws to be applied in this chapter. The MIC said that under the industrial policy chapter, the EU has no laws, directives or regulations but merely "a set of guiding principles on which EU member States should base their industrial policy". These principles emphasise the importance of industrial competitiveness. In this chapter, the MIC stated, all that has been agreed is that Malta agrees to and endorses these principles.

The directives which were referred to by Dr Sant, said MIC, are not part of the industry chapter "but fall under another chapter, free movement of goods (free trade). Negotiations on free movement of goods have not yet been opened and therefore no agreement could possibly have been reached on directives in this chapter".

Dr Sant also mentioned specific directives on plastics, milk, honey and mineral water which, he said, would now have to be implemented by Malta. The MIC said that in the case of plastics, the EU directives have already been applied in Malta since 1996 (Legal Notice 4 of 1996) whereas in the case of honey, EU standards have been in place since last year (Legal Notice 78 of 1999).

Maltese mineral water products already comply with the relative EU directive on water for human consumption (Directive 80/778/EEC) and this is indicated on their label. The only directive that applies to milk under this chapter relates to evaporated and condensed milks which are not produced in Malta, MIC explained.

MIC's replies to Dr Sant's allegations are clear, concise, factual and to the point. These are the type of statements that are needed to be issued as soon as an acquis chapter has been negotiated and closed. We should have been told straight away that there exist no laws, directives or chapters under the industrial policy chapter and all that is required on Malta's part is an acceptance of a set of guiding principles with emphasis on industrial competitiveness.

The consequences of the closure of each and every one of the chapters has to be fully explained. It is useless saying that everything is fully explained and transparent in MEUSAC (the Malta EU Action Steering Committee). The general public is not represented in MEUSAC and need to be better informed.

The government has an excellent information organisation at its disposal - the MIC. If it is not capable of properly explaining exactly what it has negotiated, that perhaps it should ask the MIC to do just that. As far as the Labour Party is concerned, its refusal not to participate in MEUSAC is a lost opportunity and its EU misinformation campaign is harming the country's interests. Why can't it rise to the occasion and put the national interest before partisan pique? By all means criticise the government's handling of the country's EU bid but it should be constructive and it should not resort to scaremongering.

The combination of a government that gives the impression that its EU negotiations are shrouded in secrecy and an opposition that has resorted to scaremongering and misinformation does not augur well for the EU debate in our country.