Postpone It

The Malta Independent



This being the last contribution in this medium where I can discuss matters related to the EU referendum, next Friday being the silent day for reflection,` I am probably expected to make an appeal to vote no, abstain or cancel the vote.

I will not do so.` My appeal is on the contrary to the government to postpone the referendum.` Not that I harbour any hope that this will even be considered.` But, if the Prime Minister means what he says that this should be a national above politics decision, the case for postponement is clear.

We are being requested to approve or disapprove membership on the basis of a Treaty still in draft form in the English Language and which will only be approved in the final format by the European Parliament on 9th April 2003, one month after the Malta referendum.

The draft English version of the treaty was published on-line on 26th February 2003 and in 10 days I am expected to read over 4500 pages. With it for good measure I have to read the Dr Ali Bayar report running into 128 pages and the endless reports being dished out by various organisations, Labour sources included.

`I continue to maintain that the referendum date has not been chosen in the national interest but has been dictated by pure partisan politics in an attempt to use it as a springboard for the general elections which will follow hot on heels if the wished referendum success materialises.` Malta is the first of the 10 candidate countries going for the referendum. The country harbouring the most division of opinion in its ranks is being made to go first rather than being allowed more time for the information to seep through and for further attempts to be made to find a compromise agreement for holding a binding referendum. The only other country with a comparable division of opinion on the subject, Latvia, will go last for the referendum i.e. on 20th September 2003.

Apart from Malta only Slovenia and Hungary will hold the referendum before the Treaty signing ceremony of 16th April 2003 but in any event after Malta`s referendum. In both countries the referendum is a mere formality as its results are a foregone conclusion.

I continue to maintain that the referendum date has not been chosen in the national interest but has been dictated by pure partisan politics in an attempt to use it as a springboard for the general elections which will follow hot on heels if the wished referendum success materialises.

To make it much worse not only is the electorate not being allowed sufficient time to consider and reflect on such an important matter, but the little thinking time left is being filled with a bombardment of misinformation` which denies the possibility of genuine thinking electors to reach informed conclusion.` `Putting it in simple words this government brought an economic malaise that can only be cured through shock therapy.`

The referendum can only be truly national if people are allowed more are more time to think, when it is not held in the throes of an election campaign and when both arguments are given commensurate resources to state their case and justify, where possible proof, their assertions.

One of the best sources I came across on this matter, is strangely enough the much talked about Dr Ali Bayar study on the macro-economic impact of membership. While Bayar`s case of membership economic benefits are not impressive and certainly I conclude that they emanate from econometric models which has no sensitivity to local realities and is wrongly built on the assumption that the alternative to membership is the status quo of the bad economic performance of the last 10 years, Bayar`s analysis of the current economic malaise is objective and impressive.

I think the whole issue can be summarised by quoting Bayar on the declining GDP performance of the last 10 years.` Bayar says: `This gives rise to the question whether this declining GDP growth rate can be reversed.` In our view this can be achieved however the economy need a `shock` to break in the decline.` EU membership could provide the required shock.`

Putting it in simple words this government brought an economic malaise that can only be cured through shock therapy. Do people understand that what`s on offer is ultra-shock insensitive treatment to be administered by the EU according to their rule-book through membership, or precision` therapy administered in partnership with the social parties to` ensure that the least protected can be spared the pain they are in no position to endure.

This is the reality of the choice in front of us and people need more time to realise it.