Given the current state of play in Malta when it comes to migration, do you feel that reasonable strides will be made in forming a concrete and comprehensive agreement to deal with the current situation following yesterday's Council meeting, considering that the Prime Minister himself said that there weren't any major breakthroughs?
We're are facing a make or break situation. The June European Council meeting has always concerned migration, but the reality is that year after year we find ourselves in the same situation. This year, it is even more sensitive because a number of governments are quibbling more than ever before over who is responsible, which conventions they have signed, and which laws apply to them, while ultimately people are drowning in our seas.
There are hundreds of thousands of people in Africa who feel like they have no other solution but to board a rickety boat and face an almost certain death. We have spent too much time looking at each other asking what has been done so far. Taking stock of the current situation, we have faith in a solution.
What is on the table is a very robust legislative proposal in the Dublin regulations. The fourth version, which was passed in the European Parliament (EP) by a very large majority, effectively removes the disproportionate burden on small periphery member states like ours.
The ball is in the Prime Minister's court. It is up to member states like ours to have the guts, courage and will to push through a majority vote on this issue. People think that this proposal needs unanimous approval, it just needs a majority. We cannot just impose majority rule on member states when it comes to areas like the financial crisis or natural disasters. We need to also enforce this on issues such as this.
In the medium term, we also need to discuss disembarkation points. It is a controversial topic, but we need to start looking at solutions which prevent people from seeing crossing the Mediterranean as their only option.
Should people cross, we need target those NGOs, who are filling a gap left by member states, and give them clear rules where to disembark. The current options on the table are either reception centres in Africa or a safe country outside the European Union.
Which one would you prefer?
I don't think it is one or the other, however, you do need to have the possibility for someone to tell a person that they will not be eligible for protection, no matter how long it took the person to get to Europe.
We also need to see how we are going to clamp down on traffickers and smugglers. The fact that we do not have an interlocutor in Libya is a massive problem as till today we still cannot return people to the country. So we do need a proper EU funded disembarkation centre outside the EU, which in accordance with fundamental human rights, processes asylum applications. If a person is eligible then they are redistributed among member states, as was seen in the case of Lifeline, if not, then they are returned efficiently. We are still at a 36% return rate, which is way too low.
We've had two diplomatic standoffs with Italy over migration in a matter of weeks, and Matteo Salvini only seems to get bolder with every perceived 'victory'. Do you believe immediate action should be taken from the EU to sort out grey areas?
If there is an agreement on Dublin, we would put place a more permanent solution than the ad-hoc one that was put together. This week we showed it can be done and that there are member states willing to step up to the plate.
We need to see what the NGOs are doing, as once they are operating in Libyan territorial waters they are breaching their sovereignty. There a number of legal aspects and I suspect that the governments will continue arguing on the lines of protocols and obligations. The PN has been very consistent in that humanitarian concerns have to be taken. We must never forget these are people and not statistics.
The PM described the assistance of the NGO vessel Lifeline as a 'one-off'. Do you agree that this should be the country's policy moving forward?
Lifeline was a one-off situation because there are questions as to whether the captain of the boat acted appropriately. Aquarius was different. The likelihood is that boats will continue coming so some sort of agreement with countries outside the EU should be looked at, that in exchange for some sort of agreement, will probably be willing to set up a disembarkation centre there.
We've seen that the involvement of NGOs in the Mediterranean can further muddy up an already grey area in international diplomacy. EU Council President Donald Tusk referenced this after the summit, stressing that he was behind Malta's stance. Should NGOs be better regulated?
This is another area where the EP is ahead of everyone. Next week in Strasbourg, we are going to adopt a resolution after a debate with the Commission and the council, whereby we will ask member states to come up with common guidelines so that we avoid having A constant blurring of the lines between what is rescuing, and what is trafficking
At the moment, this is extremely difficult. There is a directive in place which states that facilitating illegal entry into the European Union is a crime which must be prosecuted. So technically, NGOs are in the firing line in that regard.
The idea is to regulate this area and for there to be common guidelines, so no matter which boat is outside territorial waters, saving no matter how many lives, the same rules apply to all.
With Brexit approaching, the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) will most likely be passed. Could Malta's tax rebate system affect the financial services and gaming industries? and Do you believe that the current government is preparing for an eventuality that these companies may leave?
I certainly hope so, because if we are not, we will find ourselves in a situation where we are surprised by sudden infringements as was the case with on the VAT on yachts. The government had been saying for months that is nothing going to happen, and suddenly, Moscovici, a socialist EU Commissioner, actually slapped one on us without looking at other countries, including his own.
The tax system is requiring an ongoing diplomatic effort across the board, from both the government and the opposition, to actually make the case that Malta is within it's right to have specific tax situation relating to the kind of island we are, that takes into account our disadvantages, like the fact that we are not linked to the mainland. Not to mention, that is essentially in our right to do so.
Now, has our credibility been tarnished? Of course, it has. If we had been speaking about this five years ago, I would have been able to say that I have enough faith in a financial services structure that is robust to withstand any lobbying efforts by bigger member states that want to kill off the sector.
Unfortunately, our reputation is tarnished, and the fact that the PM has not shouldered any responsibility, or even tried to solve the issue during his own presidency over the EU Council. Instead, he had to call an election and fail to find any legislative solution during his presidency, while questions upon questions are asked about the people very close to the PM.
Does this mean we will stop our efforts?
No. The PN will continue to insist that the structures are there and loopholes must be closed. We are here to support our country and its businesses. This is a priority for us. We are not going to let a few shady individuals around the PM bring the sector down.
This is the end of my first full mandate after being elected five years ago. I have always insisted on a complete balance in both aspects. It has not been the case of me disappearing and now reappearing once again. I have spent the last five years knocking on peoples doors and discussing matters that affect certain sectors, whether that was firearms legislation, environmental obligations, or better infrastructural solutions for the country. These are all EU issues which MEPs can use to communicate back home.
This does not mean that the campaign will also not be dominated by local issues, of course, they are. I receive a number of calls on issues that do not fall under my remit, but I'm not one of the politicians who will simply back off because of it. This is the best thing about being an MEP because our constituency is a national one, and that will be the focus over the next year.
The PN has lost two landslide elections, with the party narrowly acquiring a third seat in the last MEP election. Are their fears that the party will lose one of its MEP seats?
If I were not worried I would be irresponsible. Of course, the PN is facing an enormous challenge as it did in 2014, and I will do my very best for the PN to keep its third seat.
from The Malta Independent https://ift.tt/2KypHDT
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment