Di-ve
As the days tick away the insult gets bigger and bigger. It is an insult to the Maltese electorate from their government that is forcing them to take a decision which could irreversibly lock us into EU membership without having been given enough time to digest and understand what exactly are we expected to be voting for or against.
I will not bother the readers with the minute details of the acquis communitaire and the temporary transition arrangements negotiated to ensure that we are exposed to the impact of the single market only gradually. I will not go into the details of how the sugar coating at the front-end of the deal will quickly pass and we will be left with the hard stick under the sugar coating which will force us into a shape we are ill-suited for.
Although once we are at it I cannot but compare the EU negotiations concluded by government to a ‘barzelletta’ I once heard the famous deceased Italian comic Walter Chiari relate in the days of b&w television. A poor man went into a shop with just a few lire and he wanted to buy a jacket for his daughter’s wedding. There was nothing the shopkeeper could offer him within the price range except an out-dated jacket which was completely out of size for the poor man’s measurements.
The heartless shopkeeper thought this was a good opportunity to dispose of his obsolete stock and offered the jacket to the poor man for the price he could afford. The poor man tried the jacket on but was clearly disappointed with the ill-fit of the jacket. The crooked salesman advised the man that all he had to do to ensure that the jacket looked better on him was to bend his posture 10 degrees backwards, keep his left arm half raised whilst his right arm has to be kept down with his hands in his pockets whilst taking small breadths not to put too much pressure on the new attire. In short he had to deform the natural shape of his body to fit into the jacket. Isn’t that whatMalta
I will not bother the readers with the minute details of the acquis communitaire and the temporary transition arrangements negotiated to ensure that we are exposed to the impact of the single market only gradually. I will not go into the details of how the sugar coating at the front-end of the deal will quickly pass and we will be left with the hard stick under the sugar coating which will force us into a shape we are ill-suited for.
Although once we are at it I cannot but compare the EU negotiations concluded by government to a ‘barzelletta’ I once heard the famous deceased Italian comic Walter Chiari relate in the days of b&w television. A poor man went into a shop with just a few lire and he wanted to buy a jacket for his daughter’s wedding. There was nothing the shopkeeper could offer him within the price range except an out-dated jacket which was completely out of size for the poor man’s measurements.
The heartless shopkeeper thought this was a good opportunity to dispose of his obsolete stock and offered the jacket to the poor man for the price he could afford. The poor man tried the jacket on but was clearly disappointed with the ill-fit of the jacket. The crooked salesman advised the man that all he had to do to ensure that the jacket looked better on him was to bend his posture 10 degrees backwards, keep his left arm half raised whilst his right arm has to be kept down with his hands in his pockets whilst taking small breadths not to put too much pressure on the new attire. In short he had to deform the natural shape of his body to fit into the jacket. Isn’t that what
“I have asked and asked again why on earth is Malta the first of the candidate countries going for the referendum when the draft of the Treaty is not yet available in Maltese and when it is subject to further changes even after the Malta referendum date”
|
But the decision expected of us next Saturday is no barzelletta. It is as serious as anything that would normally require two-thirds of our parliament to agree upon. Instead of continuing to seek such consensus at the political level before bringing it to the people’s vote the government is simply forcing its agenda on us and trying to scare us out of our wits about the supposed consequences that would befall us if we dare to say no, not now, or please wait until I can think more about it.
I have asked and asked again why on earth is Malta the first of the candidate countries going for the referendum when the draft of the Treaty is not yet available in Maltese and when it is subject to further changes even after the Malta referendum date. I have asked why we do not do like Latvia is doing and hold the referendum on 20th September 2003 to give time for more serious and honest debate of the matter rather than subject the Maltese electorate to a distasteful scare campaign.
No answers. Clearly the date of the referendum has not been fixed with the national interest in mind. It has been fixed taking into account simply partisan interest to serve as a springboard for the PN general election campaign.
Whilst the Prime Minister stresses that the referendum is a national non-partisan decision, he has decided on its pre-mature date purely to serve his parties best political interest. This is crass hypocrisy which I condemn in the strictest of terms.
I am a Maltese citizen. I have a right to read the final draft treaty in my own language and I need time to digest it and understand the implications. I also need time to understand whether the Treaty offers me sufficient protection from unpleasant changes which may be cooking up in the European Convention which will be finalised before we are in a position to block it through our membership. Even if I were to have time to read and understand the Treaty and get convinced that on the basis of the Treaty, membership would make sense, I would still need assurance that the Treaty would not be changed without my consent.
But I am far from satisfied that this will be so when the European Convention is drafting a Constitution which in the clearest of terms is stating that the EU constitution would have supremacy over national constitution and that certain decision which are currently subject to unanimous agreement, most particularly the Common Foreign and Security Policy, will be subject to qualified majority voting once the EU adopts the new Constitution which could be done before Malta eventually joins in membership on 1st May 2004.
I have asked and asked again why on earth is Malta the first of the candidate countries going for the referendum when the draft of the Treaty is not yet available in Maltese and when it is subject to further changes even after the Malta referendum date. I have asked why we do not do like Latvia is doing and hold the referendum on 20th September 2003 to give time for more serious and honest debate of the matter rather than subject the Maltese electorate to a distasteful scare campaign.
No answers. Clearly the date of the referendum has not been fixed with the national interest in mind. It has been fixed taking into account simply partisan interest to serve as a springboard for the PN general election campaign.
Whilst the Prime Minister stresses that the referendum is a national non-partisan decision, he has decided on its pre-mature date purely to serve his parties best political interest. This is crass hypocrisy which I condemn in the strictest of terms.
I am a Maltese citizen. I have a right to read the final draft treaty in my own language and I need time to digest it and understand the implications. I also need time to understand whether the Treaty offers me sufficient protection from unpleasant changes which may be cooking up in the European Convention which will be finalised before we are in a position to block it through our membership. Even if I were to have time to read and understand the Treaty and get convinced that on the basis of the Treaty, membership would make sense, I would still need assurance that the Treaty would not be changed without my consent.
But I am far from satisfied that this will be so when the European Convention is drafting a Constitution which in the clearest of terms is stating that the EU constitution would have supremacy over national constitution and that certain decision which are currently subject to unanimous agreement, most particularly the Common Foreign and Security Policy, will be subject to qualified majority voting once the EU adopts the new Constitution which could be done before Malta eventually joins in membership on 1st May 2004.
“Whilst the Prime Minister stresses that the referendum is a national non-partisan decision, he has decided on its pre-mature date purely to serve his parties best political interest.”
|
Nobody has offered me any re-assurance that this cannot be so. Nobody has removed the feeling that whilst they are showing me the debba (Maltese word for a mare - female horse) they will eventually sell me the hmara (Maltese word for female donkey).
I am extremely suspicious that whilst on the economic front the front sugar coating is hiding the eternal disadvantages in having to compete wearing a bureaucracy that does not take at all account of our size and characteristics, on the political front they are forcing me into an ill-timed pseudo urgent decision to take away the most single important asset we have – that of having a political and strategic importance on the international level far bigger than our material size.
In my long years in the lending function in banking I have thoroughly learned that a prevalent percentage of loans that turn sour represent credits approved under the pretext of urgency. Decide in urgency and repent at leisure, as the saying goes.
I will not therefore even bother to honour the referendum with a negative vote as by doing so I would be validating it. I will just ignore it in protest that this referendum is ill-timed and that the Maltese should be given the opportunity of another referendum which will have the key characteristics that this pseudo-referendum is missing:
I am extremely suspicious that whilst on the economic front the front sugar coating is hiding the eternal disadvantages in having to compete wearing a bureaucracy that does not take at all account of our size and characteristics, on the political front they are forcing me into an ill-timed pseudo urgent decision to take away the most single important asset we have – that of having a political and strategic importance on the international level far bigger than our material size.
In my long years in the lending function in banking I have thoroughly learned that a prevalent percentage of loans that turn sour represent credits approved under the pretext of urgency. Decide in urgency and repent at leisure, as the saying goes.
I will not therefore even bother to honour the referendum with a negative vote as by doing so I would be validating it. I will just ignore it in protest that this referendum is ill-timed and that the Maltese should be given the opportunity of another referendum which will have the key characteristics that this pseudo-referendum is missing:
- The choice has to be explained clearly between membership and partnership and we have to have time to read all supporting evidence and demand explanations and/or proof for certain vague assertions.
- The resources for both sides of the arguments are to be fairly balanced and the electorate is to be spared a media bombardment – information not slogans please. There must not be any foreign interference as this decision we have to make on our own as our future is at stake.
- It has to be held calmly and not in the throes of an election campaign where even the colour of the tie you wear becomes partisan, let alone a national plebiscite.
- It has to be held by a government that commits itself, and has the facility, to execute the people’s decision without seeking to keep coming back until we decide the way they want us and then no more.
This referendum is an insult to my intelligence and I will not honour it with a vote. I have sought but not been given the answers. No answer – no vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment