Fifteen Reasons For Not Saying Yes

Maltastar

If one is still looking for a reason why one should not vote ‘yes’ in the EU referendum, I offer fifteen reasons hereunder:

1.       It is not true that EU membership is the only practical solution for Malta

2.       It is shameful that the best reason for joining the EU is government’s own incompetence in managing our domestic affairs.

3.       In spite of being faced with structural faults Malta’s economy can still be salvaged

4.       Economic salvage depends on taking bold re-structuring decisions and attracting FDI

5.       As the Irish experience shows this has nothing to do with EU membership but largely depends on the quality of internal leadership. Ireland’s much admired economic miracle started 20 years after membership when tough internal decisions signalled a strong attraction for FDI.

6.       The smaller the economy the bigger the problems in making a success of handling the EU bureaucracy.

7.       Out of eight European States (including Malta) with a population of less than one million, five are not EU members or candidates, Cyprus is a candidate for clear distinctive political reasons and Luxembourg is a founder member.Malta is currently looking at the wrong prototype.

8.       The cost of compliance with EU bureaucracy and the cost of new subsidies to the agriculture and food sector will wipe away most of the funds we manage to drawdown from the net Lm81 million financial packages offered for the first three years.

9.       Membership is an irreversible decision which in the long term will unavoidably oblige us to put our defence strategic value at the disposal of the central leadership of the EU as it gains federal powers over foreign, security anddefence policies.

10.   Membership will force us to become economically dependent on our defence values reversing progress achieved since the closure of the military base in 1979.

11.   Globalisation would require that we specialise in niches that would require fast pace to be flexibly different.

12.   Membership would deny the speed and flexibility we need to compete in the fierce global competition, forcing us tospecialise by relying once again on our distinctive strategic values for defence purposes.

13.   Increased cost base would threaten the economic viability of existing industrial units.

14.   Foreign direct investment will not consider Malta as a good location for new investment given that we will not be allowed to offer better terms than competing locations that are closer to the EU core markets.

15.   Even if one were to agree that EU membership represents a worthy objective, certainly the first priority is shaping up domestically to be able to enter EU membership in a good position to compete and not economically injured as we presently are.

I strongly believe that if properly led we can succeed and prosper better outside the EU. If on the other hand, we do not find the good leadership this country needs, we will fail to deliver a better future to our children both in membership as well as in partnership.

“I strongly believe that if properly led we can succeed and prosper better outside the EU.”

So the real issue is not the nature of the relationship we need to have with the EU. The real issue is if we can find the real leadership we need to rid us from the irresponsible legacy of money-no-problem largesse that is leaving us nearly bankrupt after 16 years of quite uninterrupted PN power.

Membership or partnership is not an end in itself. They are simply a means to an end; an end to procure a better standard of living for the citizens through sustainable economic growth in a context of regional and international peace, in harmony with the environment and with strong social policies.

If we find the leadership we need, membership would be an obstacle not an aid to reaching the ultimate objective. If we do not find the leadership we need, we will fall into EU membership by default, and will be forced to rely on our intrinsic defence values in order to regain economic composure and source economic development.

The issues at stake are as simple as that. The choice is ours. If Labour cannot persuade the majority of the electorate not to vote yes in the next referendum, we cannot simply blame the high din of the electoral campaign financed by our tax money through a strikingly obvious democratic deficit.

If the democratic deficit of this referendum is seriously prejudicing Labour’s ability of being perceived as capable to offer this country a solution to prosper without having to rely on our defence values then we should protest more vehemently by considering seriously to pull out of the referendum campaign.

Simultaneously Labour should offer to re-hold the referendum in the first 90 days of a new Labour government when we will be able to correct the four basic democratic deficiencies of this referendum, namely:

a.       Presentation of the real choices, with full disclosure of studies and text of treaties, rather than the present just saying yes or no to one of the choices.

b.       Fair balance of resources between the two opposing schools of thought

c.       Ability and commitment to abide and execute people’s majority choice (no subsequent referenda to force the electorate to give the decision that the government wants)

d.       Serene environment for taking an informed rational decision away from the electoral pre-election heat.