5 - 11 July 2001

An unprecedented concession

The Chamber of Commerce is right to declare its great satisfaction at the agreement reached between Malta’s negotiators and the EU on the Free Movement of Persons chapter. The Chamber has pointed out, and rightly so, that this agreement clearly underlines that negotiations for the country’s entry to the EU are not solely restricted to the latter insisting on Malta’s compliance with the acquis. On the contrary, this agreement has proven that such negotiations take notable consideration of the specific needs of all candidate countries. The outcome of negotiations on this chapter have shown that the EU is prepared to make certain vital concessions which are conducive to such particular circumstances.
This particular concession is indeed unprecedented and no other
candidate country has asked for such an arrangement. The EU agreed to a seven-year special arrangement for Malta regarding the free movement of workers: this allows Maltese citizens to work within the Union from day one of membership while Malta would have the right to implement safeguard measures to prevent a sudden influx of EU workers into the country on accession into the bloc. This is nothing but a massive coup for the government and Malta’s negotiating team and a major victory for the country.
Although we do not believe that EU membership will result in a massive influx of EU citizens into Malta – who would want to work for our salaries? – there is such a perception in Malta, which has been partly created by those opposing our EU bid such as the CNi and the Labour Party. One could argue, however, that Malta’s small labour market, or sections of it, might not be able to withstand a sudden influx of foreign workers. However, Malta’s negotiating team and the EU have agreed to a solution which satisfies both sides and removes any fears among Malta’s population. Malta can therefore start applying, and benefiting from, this part of the acquis from day one of its membership, with the assurance that if any problems arise, it can take appropriate remedial action.
The most important aspect of this special arrangement is that it puts an end to the myth that the European Union is not flexible and that it has a set of rules which simply have to be obeyed by everyone. The EU realised that Malta had a good case and it took into account the country’s particular circumstances. Such a development is certainly encouraging especially when one considers that Malta has made some other rather difficult requests during its negotiations. Credit must be given to Malta’s negotiating team which has obtained a remarkable concession from the European Union in an area which is considered to be one of the four basic freedoms of the single market. This is a major victory for Malta and the pro-EU membership lobby. It is a huge slap in the face Labour and CNi who never imagined that Malta would have obtained such a remarkable concession.

Unfortunate dispute

The dispute between Maltese and Sicilian fishermen over the ownership of a tuna catch worth Lm140,000 is unfortunate. The clashes, sometimes violent, between the two sides at Ta’ Liesse is even more unfortunate. If there are two countries which enjoy excellent political, economic, diplomatic and social relations, these are Italy and Malta, so such disputes are clearly not in the two countries’ interests.
The dispute arose last Thursday when Italian fishermen caught the tuna that was lured to the surface by a Maltese fisherman. The Maltese fishermen say the tuna was caught in Maltese territorial waters and the Italians then lured the fish into international waters. Maltese fishermen then took over the tuna pen prompting an Armed Forces of Malta patrol boat to intervene and order the Maltese to release the pen, firing warning shots in the process.
The authorities in Malta have now handed over the tuna to the Sicilians after the Maltese fishermen rejected an offer of 15 per cent of the catch. It is not clear who is right in this dispute although the statement by the President of the National Fisheries Cooperative, Tony Carabott, that “I know no judge who was a fisherman and knows how the tuna industry works – such a case would have been decided against us”, is indicative of how a court case would have ended.
The Maltese and Italian governments, however, do have a role to play to ensure that similar incidents do not reoccur. The two sides must set up a joint commission to explore all possible ways of avoiding such disputes in the future. One must also ask whether the Maltese army was right to fire warning shots against Maltese fishing vessels and one looks forward to the conclusions of the magisterial enquiry.