The European Commission previously pushed Malta to cut energy subsidies, and a previous PN government followed an EU austerity template.
The Commission has flagged Malta's broad-based energy subsidies as a fiscal-sustainability concern in country-specific recommendations and during the Excessive Deficit Procedure period. The 'PN-followed-EU-austerity' framing is more interpretive — pre-2013 PN consolidation existed, but wasn't a uniform austerity template.
The Commission has flagged Malta's broad-based energy subsidies as a fiscal-sustainability concern in country-specific recommendations and during the Excessive Deficit Procedure period. The 'PN-followed-EU-austerity' framing is more interpretive — pre-2013 PN consolidation existed, but wasn't a uniform austerity template.
The Commission has, in successive country-specific recommendations and during Malta's spell in the Excessive Deficit Procedure (now ended after the 2025 deficit dropped to 2.2% of GDP), flagged Malta's broad-based energy subsidies as a fiscal-sustainability concern and recommended better targeting. That is on the documented record. The second half of the claim — that PN followed an EU austerity template — is more interpretive: pre-2013 PN-era fiscal consolidation existed, but framing it as a single 'EU austerity template' is a political characterisation rather than documented history. Mostly True.
Did the European Commission really push Malta to cut energy subsidies
Attard's claim has two halves. The EU side is on the documented record. The PN side is more interpretive.
What the Commission has actually said
Successive Commission country-specific recommendations have flagged Malta's broad-based energy subsidies as a fiscal pressure point and pushed for better targeting. Malta was placed in the Excessive Deficit Procedure, which only formally ended after the 2025 general government deficit dropped to 2.2% of GDP — back inside the EU 3% threshold.
The Commission's framing is not 'cut the subsidies' so much as 'target them better' — meaning trim universal coverage, focus on lower-income households, and reduce the fiscal exposure to international price swings. In practice, however, that distinction is rhetorical: better targeting means some households pay more.
And the PN-austerity half?
Attard's broader claim — that a previous PN government followed an EU austerity template — is more interpretive. PN-era fiscal consolidation pre-2013 did exist (the Gonzi-era public-finance tightening, for example), but reducing it to a single 'EU austerity template' is a political framing rather than a documentary description. The Commission's surveillance of Malta has used different language at different points; the word 'austerity' is more political vocabulary than technical EU vocabulary.
So is the claim accurate?
The first half — that the Commission has pushed Malta on energy subsidies — is documented and ongoing. The second half — that PN followed an EU austerity template — is rhetorical.
Verdict: Mostly True. Real EU pressure, rhetorical PN-austerity framing.