Maltastar
Normally if the Prime Minister wanted to sound his probable successor about anything and he has genuine interest to explore, in the national interest, a solution acceptable to both, he could have invited the Leader of the Opposition for an informal not on record tete-a-tete.
The fact that the Prime Minister not only used the medium of a formal letter but made the letter public on a prime-time TV show, probably before the Leader of the Opposition had read the original one, shows that the Prime Minister was not in fact addressing only the Leader of the Opposition. He was also addressing public opinion.
From the Leader of the Opposition he wanted to have an inkling of what his Party’s position would be regarding the referendum that he was dead set to hold in March 2003. From public opinion he wanted acknowledgement that he was making a gesture of reconciliation to make the referendum look a truly national above politics affair.
He has failed miserably in both objectives. The Leader of the Opposition held his ground that if the Prime Minister keeps insisting on a March 2003 pre-election referendum then the position of the Labour Party will be known after the matter is discussed and decided by its highest organ, the general conference, that will be called in extraordinary session immediately the referendum gets announced.
The promise of holding an election after the referendum by not later than a date to be agreed with the Leader of the Opposition is hardly a concession. Such a date already exists – it isthe 24th January 2004 . With the referendum planned for March and an election campaign requiring at least five weeks thereafter the earliest the election could be held would be next May. So what was being offered to the Opposition was merely bringing the election forward a maximum of 8 months. With the election unlikely to be held in January 2004 as this would land Christmas 2003 in the election campaign, effectively the maximum period the election was being brought forward was more likely 6 months.
Six months during which the falsity of government’s EU policy, unsavoury details about the new EU Constitution which would apply should we eventually join and the unsustainability of public finance would continue to expose themselves to the detriment of the PN’s chances for re-election.
There was nothing really on offer from the Prime Minister’s side. The real offer came from the Opposition and it was to be the second public opinion blow for the Prime Minister. After a week-long consultations, the Leader of the Opposition counter-proposed a real concession.Labour moved from the oft-repeated position that the matter had to be decided solely through a general election and made a spectacularly practical and realistic offer. Let’s both agree that the government returned from an early election will hold a referendum in a short time-frame thereafter, proposed the Labour Leader. Rather than hard-headed, Alfred Sant showed he was flexible and pragmatic, especially where the national interest is involved.
But in case that clarifications or further discussions were needed the Leader of the Opposition made it clear he was ready to discuss. The message was unmistakeable. Once the principle of the election preceding the referendum is accepted by both sides, details could be discussed and agreed.
The Prime Minister must have seen red when he got the Leader of the Opposition’s letter. Not only it gave no inkling of what the Opposition would do when the March referendum is called, but public opinion would inevitably sway in Labour’sfavour for making the only real and practical solution, for taking a truly national decision on the EU project. I am sure if the correspondence had been copied to the Archbishop he would have thought that heavens were hearing his prayers for making the EU referendum a truly national and intelligent exercise.
It was not to be. The Prime Minister’s arrogance, fermented over 16 years in absolute almost uninterrupted power, could not permit any deviation from the need to preserve power by using the referendum as a step stool to reach the otherwise inaccessible goal of another electoral success in the face of structural domestic adversity. His trick had been exposed. Any time ‘lost’ discussing with the Opposition would have only helped to build credibility for their sensible proposal. The Sunday papers could not be allowed to give prominence to the Opposition national interest offer. An outright refusal had to be issued and it had to be justified somehow. Inevitably it was justified on the flimsiest of excuses.
It labelled the 60% binding benchmark as undemocratic without even bothering to understand what was in fact being offered. The PM did not even bother to seek clarification or to remember that theLabour Leader had always maintained that a referendum binds only the government that holds it. Not the slightest attempt was made to see whether this benchmark, once explained or clarified, could be negotiated downwards. The possibility of having a situation where, not only the government is committed by the referendum result but also the Opposition, to ensure that the country approaches the monumental EU project as one united nation, did not appeal at all to our PM whose only real interest is retention of power.
But then again it is simply not true that the PM is bound by the pledge to hold a referendum now. When the pledge to hold a referendum soon after negotiations for EU membership are concluded was made, it was the summer of 1998. At that time the officially envisaged EU accession date was1st January 2003 . So the pledge was not just to hold the referendum after negotiations but to hold the referendum before the enlargement date which all had to happen in this legislature.
Circumstances changed. Enlargement has now slipped into next legislature. No consultative referendum could bind a future government if it remains unexecuted. So the only logical way out is to hold an early election and return a government with a faculty of execution that would then hold immediate referendum. This is perfectly logical.
In the PN camp, however, logic supply is inversely proportional to party interest. Logic gets scarcer and scarcer the most partisan interest get involved. And not even laughable surveys giving handsome electoral leads to the PN in both the referendum and the election seem to impress the PM. Like us what he hears from the people who do not participate in such surveys tells a different story.
The country now needs no more letters from the top. It only needs to give its people the right to decide calmly and soberly without being bombarded by those willing to spend millions on the media to scare us from voting in our own interest.
Letters are normally a communication means between persons who do not regularly meet each other. So it was strange from the start that following a week-long debate in parliament about the EU issue, the Prime Minister needed to write a letter to the Leader of the Opposition.
Normally if the Prime Minister wanted to sound his probable successor about anything and he has genuine interest to explore, in the national interest, a solution acceptable to both, he could have invited the Leader of the Opposition for an informal not on record tete-a-tete.
The fact that the Prime Minister not only used the medium of a formal letter but made the letter public on a prime-time TV show, probably before the Leader of the Opposition had read the original one, shows that the Prime Minister was not in fact addressing only the Leader of the Opposition. He was also addressing public opinion.
“There was nothing really on offer from the Prime Minister’s side. The real offer came from the Opposition and it was to be the second public opinion blow for the Prime Minister”
|
From the Leader of the Opposition he wanted to have an inkling of what his Party’s position would be regarding the referendum that he was dead set to hold in March 2003. From public opinion he wanted acknowledgement that he was making a gesture of reconciliation to make the referendum look a truly national above politics affair.
He has failed miserably in both objectives. The Leader of the Opposition held his ground that if the Prime Minister keeps insisting on a March 2003 pre-election referendum then the position of the Labour Party will be known after the matter is discussed and decided by its highest organ, the general conference, that will be called in extraordinary session immediately the referendum gets announced.
From public opinion the Prime Minister received a double blow. The first blow came as public opinion, in spite of strong exhortations to the contrary by the friendly media, quickly formed a view that in reality the Prime Minister was not offering any concessions to the Opposition to entice them to a consensus position.
The promise of holding an election after the referendum by not later than a date to be agreed with the Leader of the Opposition is hardly a concession. Such a date already exists – it is
“I am sure if the correspondence had been copied to the Archbishop he would have thought that heavens were hearing his prayers for making the EU referendum a truly national and intelligent exercise”
|
Six months during which the falsity of government’s EU policy, unsavoury details about the new EU Constitution which would apply should we eventually join and the unsustainability of public finance would continue to expose themselves to the detriment of the PN’s chances for re-election.
There was nothing really on offer from the Prime Minister’s side. The real offer came from the Opposition and it was to be the second public opinion blow for the Prime Minister. After a week-long consultations, the Leader of the Opposition counter-proposed a real concession.Labour moved from the oft-repeated position that the matter had to be decided solely through a general election and made a spectacularly practical and realistic offer. Let’s both agree that the government returned from an early election will hold a referendum in a short time-frame thereafter, proposed the Labour Leader. Rather than hard-headed, Alfred Sant showed he was flexible and pragmatic, especially where the national interest is involved.
What Labour was essentially saying here was that to stop the EU membership project which the Prime Minister is so obsessed about, Labour would have not only to win the general elections but also to win the ensuing referendum. BecauseLabour Leader had made it clear several times before, that being of a consultative nature the referendum binds only the government that holds it. But Labour went even beyond that. It offered that if the referendum decision exceeds the 60% mark of the valid votes cast (so abstentions or boycotts would not find much motivation) then not only the government is bound by that decision but also the opposition. That is the only logical explanation that could be given to Labour’s offer.
But in case that clarifications or further discussions were needed the Leader of the Opposition made it clear he was ready to discuss. The message was unmistakeable. Once the principle of the election preceding the referendum is accepted by both sides, details could be discussed and agreed.
The Prime Minister must have seen red when he got the Leader of the Opposition’s letter. Not only it gave no inkling of what the Opposition would do when the March referendum is called, but public opinion would inevitably sway in Labour’sfavour for making the only real and practical solution, for taking a truly national decision on the EU project. I am sure if the correspondence had been copied to the Archbishop he would have thought that heavens were hearing his prayers for making the EU referendum a truly national and intelligent exercise.
It was not to be. The Prime Minister’s arrogance, fermented over 16 years in absolute almost uninterrupted power, could not permit any deviation from the need to preserve power by using the referendum as a step stool to reach the otherwise inaccessible goal of another electoral success in the face of structural domestic adversity. His trick had been exposed. Any time ‘lost’ discussing with the Opposition would have only helped to build credibility for their sensible proposal. The Sunday papers could not be allowed to give prominence to the Opposition national interest offer. An outright refusal had to be issued and it had to be justified somehow. Inevitably it was justified on the flimsiest of excuses.
“No consultative referendum could bind a future government if it remains unexecuted.”
|
It labelled the 60% binding benchmark as undemocratic without even bothering to understand what was in fact being offered. The PM did not even bother to seek clarification or to remember that theLabour Leader had always maintained that a referendum binds only the government that holds it. Not the slightest attempt was made to see whether this benchmark, once explained or clarified, could be negotiated downwards. The possibility of having a situation where, not only the government is committed by the referendum result but also the Opposition, to ensure that the country approaches the monumental EU project as one united nation, did not appeal at all to our PM whose only real interest is retention of power.
Even flimsier was the excuse that his government was obliged to hold the referendum now as this was pledged in the electoral manifesto. Off the top of my head I could name so many instances when failure to deliver on electoral promises did not really bother the PM’s conscience. How about the free doctor of your choice, the Lm 5 a week allowance to housewives, the eradication of drug problem, the Lm100 million EU funds, the tax rebates on house loan repayments, the easing of the tax burden and so on and on and on.
But then again it is simply not true that the PM is bound by the pledge to hold a referendum now. When the pledge to hold a referendum soon after negotiations for EU membership are concluded was made, it was the summer of 1998. At that time the officially envisaged EU accession date was
Circumstances changed. Enlargement has now slipped into next legislature. No consultative referendum could bind a future government if it remains unexecuted. So the only logical way out is to hold an early election and return a government with a faculty of execution that would then hold immediate referendum. This is perfectly logical.
In the PN camp, however, logic supply is inversely proportional to party interest. Logic gets scarcer and scarcer the most partisan interest get involved. And not even laughable surveys giving handsome electoral leads to the PN in both the referendum and the election seem to impress the PM. Like us what he hears from the people who do not participate in such surveys tells a different story.
The country now needs no more letters from the top. It only needs to give its people the right to decide calmly and soberly without being bombarded by those willing to spend millions on the media to scare us from voting in our own interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment