Three choises for the Nays; four for the Ays

Maltastar



This is an extract from an article titled CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE REFEREDNUM I published on 24th March 2002 in the Malta Independent on Sunday when commenting on the aftermath of the victory Labour achieved in the local elections of last year.

QUOTE Labour`s` success at next general election could well depend on taking a leaf from the experience of the independence referendum. Rather than just seeking a straight yes/no fight Labour should include in its net all who are not prepared to vote yes to EU membership on current terms. Labour should include in its net those who say no as much as those who say not yet, and do so by either not participating in the referendum or by invalidating the vote.

As Labour today celebrates a premature Freedom Day, it would do good to remember that to grow the local victory into the richly deserved national one, smart choices have to be made before for the EU referendum.` To remember also that it in the referendum it would not only be facing the PN with enriched resources from our tax money, but the whole structure of the EU,` eager as they are to see Malta melting is sovereignty, thus` taking back what Labour had acquired in the seventies` reverting` to independence style 1964. UNQUOTE

This is not to impress that I have any special 6th sense to foretell the future.` If I have any powers, it is the power of persuasion to make the right choices at the right time. `If I have any powers, it is the power of persuasion to make the right choices at the right time.`

As for me personally I have already expressed the view that they would have had to carry me to go and vote in the PN consultative referendum. I made my decision based on three reasons:

If I vote in such a referendum I would not want to choose between EU membership and non-EU membership. I would want to choose between EU membership and Labour`s Partnership Policy. Those who argue that our referendum law allows purely a Yes or No reply surely need to use a bit more creativity to see how the question could be made to fit a Yes or No reply while the electorate make their choice between Membership and Partnership.

The referendum I would vote for has to be truly national, away from the electoral heath and with both sides being given fair access to balanced resources without foreigners trying to push their preferred option down my throat.

The government holding the referendum has to be one that has constitutional authority to execute the electorate`s decision.

I am grateful therefore that my party gave me the possibility to abstain.` And wilful, certainly not careless, abstention from voting in the referendum after forming an informed opinion is certainly a rightful and valid way to express myself.` I do not accept criticism from any Curia recommendation that I have a duty to vote.` A duty to be informed yes, a duty to decide yes, but a duty to vote no. Non-voting is in itself a decision.

Turning to those who still feel inclined to vote yes I would suggest caution. Vote yes as much as you want if with the yes you mean not only to get Malta into the EU`s bureaucratic straight jacket, sacrificing our flexibility and power of differentiation, but also if you mean that Malta should continue to be governed by the PN notwithstanding their arrogance, their incompetence and their advanced state of decomposition through corruption and favouritism. `The Labour team is rearing to go with new ideas, zeal and determination to lift the country from the ruins and state of degradation it has been driven into.`

If on the other hand you are inclined to vote yes because you `acknowledge that the PN has mismanaged the country to such an extent that any future Maltese government, will have problems in addressing the deeply ingrained problems without the discipline imposed upon us by a foreign agent like the EU, my appeal is to reflect and reflect hard.

The Labour team is rearing to go with new ideas, zeal and determination to lift the country from the ruins and state of degradation it has been driven into.` We are not just confident, but positive that we can get this country back on its feet again.` Only then would the country be in a dignified position to take smart irreversible choices about our future, united as one nation, confident of our rightful place amongst the peace-loving nations of the world.

Let me cite just one instance of where the partnership option is superior to EU membership.` Malta has the characteristics to make it to a successful international financial centre specialising in private banking, chipping business away from Luxembourg, Switzerland, Lichtenstein and other micro-European states.

The negotiated package whereby Luxembourg, Switzerland and other small states have been allowed to retain their banking secrecy and just adopt withholding tax model is far superior from the obligation Malta has already accepted that as EU member we would have to adopt full disclosure for all deposits.` Cross-border private banking is greatly influenced by secrecy protection (not applicable in case of criminal and money laundering activities) and shies away from jurisdictions adopting disclosure rules.

But Switzerland has been allowed not just to retain its secrecy advantage. It has been allowed to retain 25% of the tax revenues deducted at source.` This would amount to billions of Euros in net cash revenues.` Opulent Switzerland is destined to become richer thanks to staying out of the EU and dipping its fingers in EU tax revenues.

Under the Partnership policy Malta can adopt this policy without much need of persuasion.` Under EU membership we have already given up what EU member Luxembourg has fought and succeeded to retain.

Partnership, the best choice, is certainly applicable for the development of Malta as an international financial centre.