Maltastar
This government is going mad. It no longer has any place left for reason. The decision to keep going full speed ahead for a referendum on the EU bears witness.
Joining or not joining the EU is a big decision. It would probably shape the future of this country for many legislatures to come. It is a decision that we have to take serenely on a fully informed basis. It is a decision that we should take as one nation away from the political heat of an election. The division of opinion on this matter is not strictly along party lines. There are PN supporters who are adamantly against EU membership. Equally there are Labour supporters who are quite sympathetic to it.
The government would have none of this. It gives no weight to the fact that its mandate is now four years plus old and is the most dated mandate of all the governments of candidate countries for EU membership. It cares nothing that it has no tenure to execute the mandate of a referendum.
The earliest enlargement can take place is January 2004. This legislature has to terminate by November 2003 and at best in January 2004 the government would have care-taker status; hardly the sort of mandate required for taking such an eventful step that could be undone just one month later if the government loses the election.
Joining or not joining the EU is a big decision. It would probably shape the future of this country for many legislatures to come. It is a decision that we have to take serenely on a fully informed basis. It is a decision that we should take as one nation away from the political heat of an election. The division of opinion on this matter is not strictly along party lines. There are PN supporters who are adamantly against EU membership. Equally there are Labour supporters who are quite sympathetic to it.
The government would have none of this. It gives no weight to the fact that its mandate is now four years plus old and is the most dated mandate of all the governments of candidate countries for EU membership. It cares nothing that it has no tenure to execute the mandate of a referendum.
The earliest enlargement can take place is January 2004. This legislature has to terminate by November 2003 and at best in January 2004 the government would have care-taker status; hardly the sort of mandate required for taking such an eventful step that could be undone just one month later if the government loses the election.
“It is clear that government is putting party interest, and personal interest of the PM, before the national interest.”
|
It is clear that government is putting party interest, and personal interest of the PM, before the national interest.
The national interest demands that this country goes to an election before facing a referendum. The reason is simple. A referendum presumes that the government has a current mandate long enough to execute the people’s decision. This can only be the case if the electoral mandate is refreshed before the referendum.
This sequence is also in the national interest. If the PN wins the next election then the ensuing referendum in favour of EU membership would in all probability find a broad based support so much necessary for a strategic decision that could shape our future for many legislatures to come. If the MLP wins, then this country can explore alternative relationship with the EU without having decided specifically on the issue in a prior referendum. This would give a new Labour government much more room for manoeuvrability in negotiating its option with the EU.
But the PN cares nothing about the national interest. All they care is to use the referendum as a political tool. They consider the referendum as their only chance to avoid an electoral disaster considering the level of discontent among the electorate with a government that seems to have given up on all domestic problems and looks at EU membership as the cure for all our ills, whether home-made or imported.
The national interest demands that this country goes to an election before facing a referendum. The reason is simple. A referendum presumes that the government has a current mandate long enough to execute the people’s decision. This can only be the case if the electoral mandate is refreshed before the referendum.
This sequence is also in the national interest. If the PN wins the next election then the ensuing referendum in favour of EU membership would in all probability find a broad based support so much necessary for a strategic decision that could shape our future for many legislatures to come. If the MLP wins, then this country can explore alternative relationship with the EU without having decided specifically on the issue in a prior referendum. This would give a new Labour government much more room for manoeuvrability in negotiating its option with the EU.
But the PN cares nothing about the national interest. All they care is to use the referendum as a political tool. They consider the referendum as their only chance to avoid an electoral disaster considering the level of discontent among the electorate with a government that seems to have given up on all domestic problems and looks at EU membership as the cure for all our ills, whether home-made or imported.
“They are so obsessed with this strategy that they are blind to the risks it involves and the consequences it could have on the national interest”
|
All the PM cares about is his personal political calendar thinking that he can win a referendum, which would be a stepping stool for winning the election, and then take Malta into the EU as the crowning end to his long political career.
They are so obsessed with this strategy that they are blind to the risks it involves and the consequences it could have on the national interest.
They must be mad to think that they can win the referendum when they can only present pains without any gains. Many people were supporting the pain on the expectation that upon accession the gain will be immediate and tangible in form on millions of liri of EU aid pouring over our heads. This mirage has now been identified for what it is. At best Malta’s budgetary position will be roughly neutral and at worst we could be net contributors to the tune of Lm12 million p.a.
So what are people to vote yes for:
They are so obsessed with this strategy that they are blind to the risks it involves and the consequences it could have on the national interest.
They must be mad to think that they can win the referendum when they can only present pains without any gains. Many people were supporting the pain on the expectation that upon accession the gain will be immediate and tangible in form on millions of liri of EU aid pouring over our heads. This mirage has now been identified for what it is. At best Malta’s budgetary position will be roughly neutral and at worst we could be net contributors to the tune of Lm12 million p.a.
So what are people to vote yes for:
1. For higher property prices taking them further away from the reach of first time home buyers?
2. For loss of jobs in domestically oriented firms and in exporting factories whose competitiveness will be jeopardised by being forced to pay duty on imports of raw material from outside the EU?
3. For loss of our sovereignty which is now shared with so many other countries who on most matters have all the number weights to decide on our affairs against our wishes?
4. For destruction of our agricultural and fisheries base?
5. For compounding of our environmental problem by allowing soft drinks in PET plastic bottles?
6. For deforming our natural character by upsetting current balance on hunting and trapping whilst allowing EU members to go on regardless with their bull-fights and fox hunting?
7. For a higher cost of living and erosion of our social services?
“Voting NO in the referendum would not be voting NO for the EU. It would be voting NO to total submission and YES to Labour’s policy to seek a partnership of equals with the EU.”
|
And on and on it goes. There are so many sectorial interests whose rights have been prejudiced that one wonders what madness must be driving the government to go for a referendum regardless. They probably assume that their control of the media and suffocation of Labour’s message will wipe away everybody’s sense of balance and vote for EU membership against their own interest on the basis that in reality it is inevitable and there is no alternative.
So you can understand why the government is fighting tooth and nail to ensure that Labour is not allowed to explain its alternative for EU relationship and flesh it out into a realistic and doable project.
I would much prefer that the referendum be postponed till after the election. But if the government insists on putting its own interest above those of the nation, then we as Labour must double and treble our efforts not only to expose the raw deal government has got in the negotiations, but also to explain our alternative as the one most suitable for our circumstances.
Voting NO in the referendum would not be voting NO for the EU. It would be voting NO to total submission and YES to Labour’s policy to seek a partnership of equals with the EU.
So you can understand why the government is fighting tooth and nail to ensure that Labour is not allowed to explain its alternative for EU relationship and flesh it out into a realistic and doable project.
I would much prefer that the referendum be postponed till after the election. But if the government insists on putting its own interest above those of the nation, then we as Labour must double and treble our efforts not only to expose the raw deal government has got in the negotiations, but also to explain our alternative as the one most suitable for our circumstances.
Voting NO in the referendum would not be voting NO for the EU. It would be voting NO to total submission and YES to Labour’s policy to seek a partnership of equals with the EU.
No comments:
Post a Comment