If it`s not heaven (1)

The Malta Independent on Sunday   

   

We have had impassioned pleas for the EU issue to be decided on a national basis and not strictly along party lines.     Such appeals came not only from the church authorities but even from the Prime Minister himself when faced with Labour leader’s assertions that the referendum would bind only the government that organizes it.

 

The Labour leader softened his position by proposing that it is in the national interest to postpone the decision on the EU by a few years and meanwhile focus on the domestic issues which are afflicting our daily lives.   In contrast to an outright negative stand he kept open for review the possibility of EU membership in a few years time.

“It was the reaction of those who are not interested in building a consensus but in imposing one.”

 

For true consensus seekers this was an opening not only worth noting but worth exploring further to see if it can be built upon to achieve a real broad based agreement.    The reaction was otherwise.   It was the reaction of those who are not interested in building a consensus but in imposing one.

 

Basically the reaction from the government was that Labour’s opening is only because it is realising that it faces a referendum defeat.  So for the PN government rather than stop and consider it, all that should be done is to label Labour’s opening as a sign of weakness and press on regardless towards a referendum a few months before the next election hoping that the referendum could be a stepping stone to an otherwise unreachable electoral success.

 

So the argument is being made that Labour’s opening is just a time waster as the last train to the EU heaven is by proceeding to full membership in 2004 which means that a referendum has to take place in 2003.

 

Labour on the other hand is arguing that even if the EU could be heaven, which clearly it is not, heaven can wait until we devote our resources to address our domestic weaknesses which could otherwise threaten the economic sustainability of the sovereign state.

“Labour on the other hand is arguing that even if the EU could be heaven, which clearly it is not, heaven can wait until we devote our resources to address our domestic weaknesses”

 

Other pro-EU but not pro-PN observers seem to accept the last train to heaven approach arguing that politicians have not delivered the discipline necessary to move the country forward in step with the well developed consumption expectations of the electorate.   Therefore without the discipline of an external agent like the EU we will just be wasting more and more precious time and meanwhile compound the problem without offering real solutions.

 

These are the real issues for which there are no easy answers.    I for one have been and still remain very much against the holding of a referendum a few months prior to the next election.  This for two robust reasons.

 

Firstly in the charged environment preceding a general election it is difficult to have the referendum deliver the national decision expected of it.   Knowledge  that voting against the party line could prejudice the chances of success in an election  which will follow hot on heels to the referendum, will act as a barrier to the achievement of a truly national decision.

 

Secondly without exploring in its full details Labour partnership policy and informing the public about it with application of resources commensurate with the resources given to the membership proposal, the electorate will not be given an opportunity to make an intelligent choice.   Some will vote against membership wrongly believing that the status quo is a viable option.   Others will vote for membership even though they know little about it but simply because they think there is no other alternative.

 

So the only real national binding decision that can be reached on the EU is the one which comes out from a referendum following the general election.    So ideally both parties should commit themselves to holding a referendum on the EU issue within a relatively short time after the next general election and that the referendum decision will be binding on the government that will have ample time to execute it.

“But I know that political maturity is not a common commodity in government’s circles these days”

 

For those who argue that this sequence of events could put us out of the EU calendar for accession I would argue that to be a convenient excuse.   Firstly if the EU negotiations are concluded accession could be delayed by a year without causing any problems to the EU once the structures are ready to take us on as members through conclusion of the negotiations.   Secondly we can still make the accession calendar by holding an election as soon as the negotiations are concluded next autumn giving the incoming government good time to hold the referendum before the target accession date of 1^st January 2004.

 

Rather than arguing whether heaven can wait or whether this is the last train to heaven it is time to show political maturity to proceed with an election to be followed by a referendum so that the EU issue will stop being a source of political division and we can truly focus on our domestic problems

 

But I know that political maturity is not a common commodity in government’s circles these days.    Their power overstay generated arrogance leads them to ignore rulings of such independent bodies as the Broadcasting Authority meant to give a tiny redress to the extreme information imbalance about our EU choices.   It also forces government to patch up a hurried programme for visible deliverables by the referendum date.

 

I expect more make-up and less substance.   But it is substance and not make-up that takes you to heaven which the government does not want to leave waiting.   And if it’s not heaven it’s ……………..