Referendum FAQ`s

The Malta Independent on Sunday



Recently I made the point that if the referendum on EU membership is to have the national dimension which its proponents so emphatically proclaim, it cannot be held before the general election.

The reasons for this are basically two.` If the referendum precedes a general election which will follow hot on heels in a matter of months if not weeks, than there will not be the sobriety and tranquillity `necessary to permit voting on the merits of the issue rather than on political sympathies. The evident risk of harming the election chances of the favoured party will force people to vote on party line or to avoid participation altogether.

Secondly a referendum pre-supposes that the government holding it has the necessary term in office to execute the people`s decision.` This cannot be the case as the effective date of enlargement is now well and truly into next legislature.

`a Referendum pre-supposes that the government holding it has the necessary term in office to execute the people`s decision` So it is perfectly logical that the government should first renew its constitutional mandate by holding a general election.` Then if it wins should proceed to hold a referendum which will probably be carried by a large majority.

Many correspondents and key political figures tried to confuse this simplicity of thought by raising undue complications that can now be considered as FAQs.

Why should a renewed PN government need to hold a referendum if it first wins an election`

Because the election gives a mandates term for five years. The decision to join the EU in membership is irreversible and binds subsequent governments.` So it must be subject to a specific decision by the people preferably by a substantial majority.

Would not the same apply to Labour`s partnership policy`

No. This policy is not irreversible. A subsequent government would be free to up-grade it membership if circumstances and people`s will should so decide. Having said that, I would personally not mind at all subjecting it to a referendum all the same. `The decision to join the EU in membership is irreversible and binds subsequent governments.` `

But the present government has an obligation to go to a referendum on conclusion of negotiations in terms of its 1998 manifesto`

Not quite. That pledge was on the basis that the EU enlargement would take place as from 1st January 2003. So the pledge was based on the premise that the enlargement could be negotiated and executed well within the term of this legislature. Once enlargement date has slipped into next legislature the referendum pledge must similarly be carried forward into next legislature.

But the division on the EU is causing instability calling for a once and for all decision`

Very true. But a once and for all decision cannot come from a referendum before the election. In fact the Prime Minister has declared in parliament that such a referendum would need the subsequent endorsement of a general election. So a referendum will not end the indecision. A general election on the other hand will. If the PN wins than the referendum will be carried by a large majority. I cannot imagine a Labour Party keeping its anti-membership policies in the aftermath of an election loss. The Labour party has already accepted that membership is irreversible and once it happens it cannot be taken back.

On the other hand if Labour wins then we know that our relationship with the EU will not be the membership route but the partnership route. I have said it before in a book I wrote on the subject in 1999. Economically there is life after under either route. We just have to know which one it is and take steps to maximise the advantages and cushion its weaknesses.

Politically on the other hand there is much more life after in the Partnership project as it permits adequate leverage of our geo-strategic disproportionate importance for our economic and political (security and defence) advantage. It also safeguards our advantages of differentiation and flexibility which are indeed important endowments to overcome the difficulties of our small size. `Certainly the national interest is best served by having an early election so that the newly elected government can have a full term to execute its policies and end indecision in a definitive manner.`

But why does Labour insist on disregarding a referendum if it is held before the election`

Labour never said so. It said that once an election is due soon after the referendum it is only bound by that result.` In every instance it is the people`s last choice that prevails as it did in 1998 even though the 1996 mandate still had not run more than one-third of its course.` Is it not the essence of democracy for the opposition to hold different policies from government and to present them for the electorate to choose from` Or has democracy PN-version changed so that they have a right to condition a future Labour government democratically elected on a manifesto with alternative policies`

So who is really safeguarding the national interest` Certainly it is not the Prime Minister who on the one hand proclaims the need for a national referendum and on the other hand insists on a referendum to be re-confirmed by an election just as a step-stool to overcome the high barrier of winning an election with a 15 year-long baggage loaded with debt, environmental degradation and economic stagnation.

Certainly the national interest is best served by having an early election so that the newly elected government can have a full term to execute its policies and end indecision in a definitive manner.