Di-ve
The Prime Minister is right! Malta`s future relations with the EU should be decided by a specific referendum.` And this has to be a referendum free from partisan politics where the issue is debated intelligently not only by political parties but by all those who have an interest in the matter including the business organisations, the unions and civil society.
`If the Church were to enter the discussion, as the only European country without civil divorce, they would probably have to argue against membership knowing fully well that European integration will unavoidably lead to earlier installation of divorce then would be the case otherwise.`
The only sector I would exclude from the debate is the Church who should stay out of this civil matter and continue tending the religious aspects of society.` If the Church were to enter the discussion, as the only European country without civil divorce, they would probably have to argue against membership knowing fully well that European integration will unavoidably lead to earlier installation of divorce then would be the case otherwise.
Much as I feel that this country should join the rest of the civil world and include divorce in its civil legislation, I think that it is not a deciding factor in choosing our future relations with the EU.` So the Church should stay out.
I know as many nationalists who are dead set against EU membership as labourites who are quite sympathetic to it. If the EU choice is packaged in a general election decision these nationalists and labourites would find it hard to follow their own instincts and vote against the official line of their own party.
Through a referendum on the other hand they could follow their own thoughts about the EU issue without having to give up their political allegiance at a general election. And I agree that the EU issue is a decision which binds so deep into the future that it cannot be just another item in a normal electoral manifesto which is meant to chart a five year government programme. So it merits a specific ad hoc referendum decision, away from the political heat of a general election where we can decide about this important issue as a single nation and where hopefully the decision to go for membership or for partnership will be approved with a confident large majority.
But the Prime Minister is only 50% right! The other 50% is sleaze and deception.` Because by proposing to hold a referendum just before or perhaps concurrently with the next general election he is flaunting the national dimension which a referendum desperately needs,` and rendering it as a partisan tool in this bizarre political game.
`Using the referendum for perceived short term electoral gain to deviate the national agenda from discussion on the real issues which are making our life much less interesting and enjoyable than it ought to be, is condemnable.`
How can a referendum be considered national if by all counts it is being used by the government as a political tool to divert the political debate from the real issues which are causing so much stress to people`s everyday life, and instead use taxpayers money to put down the electorate`s throat a very unrealistic version of the EU`
What is the scope of holding a referendum when it is an undeniable fact that if the organising government would have its own way it cannot execute the referendum decision within the residual few months of its electoral mandate` Is it not clear that the referendum in these circumstances is just a tool trying to deform the following electoral decision out of its normal democratic cyclical shape`
How can we be forced to choose to go for EU membership, a practically irreversible decision, if the EU is still debating internally the shape of the organisation it wants to be when it expands to 27 countries`
For goodness sake let`s have a referendum about the EU.` But only after the next general election when the electoral heat is off and the issue could be debated serenely and when the political parties could allow a bit more diversity of opinion within their own ranks so that the decision is not entirely defined along party lines.
And let`s have the referendum only after the EU concludes its internal re-organisation to know exactly what our rights and obligations would be. For Malta and for the EU whether we join in 2004 or in 2007 does not make a difference. What makes a difference is that if we join we do so by a wide popular choice.
As I had argued in the book I published in 1999 I feel it is` most probable that a referendum could constrain the electorate to vote against membership for the wrong reasons.` This would provide a short term boost for the Labour Party practically guaranteeing a huge electoral success in the following elections but it will not make Labour Party`s job in government any easier. Labour could well do without having a referendum decision narrowing its choices as it negotiates the Partnership deal with the EU.
Our decision about the EU issue must not be 50% right.` It must be 100% right, taken as one nation, when the facts are known and when we have addressed our internal weaknesses to ensure that the decision is taken smartly and not just to protect us from ourselves.
Using the referendum for perceived short term electoral gain to deviate the national agenda from discussion on the real issues which are making our life much less interesting and enjoyable than it ought to be, is condemnable. As usual the Prime Minister is choosing to be the party man and not the statesman.
The Prime Minister is right! Malta`s future relations with the EU should be decided by a specific referendum.` And this has to be a referendum free from partisan politics where the issue is debated intelligently not only by political parties but by all those who have an interest in the matter including the business organisations, the unions and civil society.
`If the Church were to enter the discussion, as the only European country without civil divorce, they would probably have to argue against membership knowing fully well that European integration will unavoidably lead to earlier installation of divorce then would be the case otherwise.`
The only sector I would exclude from the debate is the Church who should stay out of this civil matter and continue tending the religious aspects of society.` If the Church were to enter the discussion, as the only European country without civil divorce, they would probably have to argue against membership knowing fully well that European integration will unavoidably lead to earlier installation of divorce then would be the case otherwise.
Much as I feel that this country should join the rest of the civil world and include divorce in its civil legislation, I think that it is not a deciding factor in choosing our future relations with the EU.` So the Church should stay out.
I know as many nationalists who are dead set against EU membership as labourites who are quite sympathetic to it. If the EU choice is packaged in a general election decision these nationalists and labourites would find it hard to follow their own instincts and vote against the official line of their own party.
Through a referendum on the other hand they could follow their own thoughts about the EU issue without having to give up their political allegiance at a general election. And I agree that the EU issue is a decision which binds so deep into the future that it cannot be just another item in a normal electoral manifesto which is meant to chart a five year government programme. So it merits a specific ad hoc referendum decision, away from the political heat of a general election where we can decide about this important issue as a single nation and where hopefully the decision to go for membership or for partnership will be approved with a confident large majority.
But the Prime Minister is only 50% right! The other 50% is sleaze and deception.` Because by proposing to hold a referendum just before or perhaps concurrently with the next general election he is flaunting the national dimension which a referendum desperately needs,` and rendering it as a partisan tool in this bizarre political game.
`Using the referendum for perceived short term electoral gain to deviate the national agenda from discussion on the real issues which are making our life much less interesting and enjoyable than it ought to be, is condemnable.`
How can a referendum be considered national if by all counts it is being used by the government as a political tool to divert the political debate from the real issues which are causing so much stress to people`s everyday life, and instead use taxpayers money to put down the electorate`s throat a very unrealistic version of the EU`
What is the scope of holding a referendum when it is an undeniable fact that if the organising government would have its own way it cannot execute the referendum decision within the residual few months of its electoral mandate` Is it not clear that the referendum in these circumstances is just a tool trying to deform the following electoral decision out of its normal democratic cyclical shape`
How can we be forced to choose to go for EU membership, a practically irreversible decision, if the EU is still debating internally the shape of the organisation it wants to be when it expands to 27 countries`
For goodness sake let`s have a referendum about the EU.` But only after the next general election when the electoral heat is off and the issue could be debated serenely and when the political parties could allow a bit more diversity of opinion within their own ranks so that the decision is not entirely defined along party lines.
And let`s have the referendum only after the EU concludes its internal re-organisation to know exactly what our rights and obligations would be. For Malta and for the EU whether we join in 2004 or in 2007 does not make a difference. What makes a difference is that if we join we do so by a wide popular choice.
As I had argued in the book I published in 1999 I feel it is` most probable that a referendum could constrain the electorate to vote against membership for the wrong reasons.` This would provide a short term boost for the Labour Party practically guaranteeing a huge electoral success in the following elections but it will not make Labour Party`s job in government any easier. Labour could well do without having a referendum decision narrowing its choices as it negotiates the Partnership deal with the EU.
Our decision about the EU issue must not be 50% right.` It must be 100% right, taken as one nation, when the facts are known and when we have addressed our internal weaknesses to ensure that the decision is taken smartly and not just to protect us from ourselves.
Using the referendum for perceived short term electoral gain to deviate the national agenda from discussion on the real issues which are making our life much less interesting and enjoyable than it ought to be, is condemnable. As usual the Prime Minister is choosing to be the party man and not the statesman.
No comments:
Post a Comment