Boycotting the Ides

All right: so I got it wrong. It is not the first time it has happened. And up to the last minute there was the risk that this very Sunday, there would be further evidence that I am making a bit of a habit of it. That does not mean, if I may say so without undue humility, that I was wrong regarding the build-up to the referendum on whether Malta should join the European Union on May Day of 2004, the next enlargement date before the Union sets such thoughts aside for around five years or so.

On Bondi+ three weeks ago I had predicted two things. One was that the prime minister would probably set the referendum for February 22 but that, in any event, he would not go for March 8. I had also opined that the Labour leader would not ask the party to boycott the referendum, whenever it was held. On Tuesday, fresh from a relaxing trip to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, after barely a nap, the PM went along to advise the President to issue a referendum writ for March the eighth.

Many were expecting that this morning the annual conference of the Labour Party would vote to boycott the referendum, dispelling any notion that I was other than a false prophet. I lay no claim to prophetic powers, but can only give way to faith to take away my habit of forming strong opinions, if I can first of argue them convincingly enough to myself. Whether they persuade others is, needless to say, another matter. Let me reiterate my arguments. At least I have my PC as a captive audience.

I felt that the prime minister would opt for a late February date because it is in Malta's interest to get the first leg of the issue out of the way. There is too much unease and uncertainty about the looming gate to the future. The referendum would not light the way on its own. A general election would have to follow. A Yes majority in a referendum on February 22 would have allowed an election to be held before April 16, when the countries invited to join the EU in 2004 are expected to sign the accession treaty in Athens.

A country can sign the treaty and seek ratification between then and May 1, 2004. A number will be doing that. None face the possibility that the referendum will yield a Yes decision, but a general election will cancel that if a new Labour government is true to its leader's word - that this time he would withdraw, and not merely freeze again, the application for membership.

I excluded March 8 for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is a date that is too close to another one that troubles the superstitious, the Ides of March. But what befell Julius Caesar on that fateful March 15 can never be forgotten. The mighty Caesar was knifed to ribbons at the foot of the Pompey statue in the temple of Venus. So much for power and love. Unlike his predecessor, the current Nationalist leader is not superstitious.

And anyway - he would tell those who are - he did indeed keep away from the Ides of March. The 15th is a full week after his chosen day and, as Harold Wilson held, a week is a long time in politics.

I argue that March 8 was not ideal for a more concrete reason. It coincides with local council elections in a chunk of the Maltese Islands that covers around 40 per cent of the electorate. That may well have been a major factor why the PM opted for the second Saturday in March. It has been very evident that he is concerned that the Labour Party might boycott the referendum. Twinning it with local council elections could influence the outturn.

Questioned about that, he told The Times last Thursday that holding the referendum and the local council elections was an "adequate" decision. Why such a strange description, "adequate"? Because, the PM explained, "it would save he electorate from having to vote on two separate occasions." Under further probing he said he imagined "it could lead to a higher turnout for both the local councils election and the referendum."

Not so, prime minister. Very clearly only 40 per cent of total voters will be "saved" from having to vote on more than one occasion. That does not adequately approximate to "the electorate". That was why I hold that holding the referendum on the same day as (any) local council elections is not a correct decision (as against holding the referendum and the general election together).

Electors should be treated equally, in all respects. It is not enough to stress, as the prime minister and the referendum writ did - and the President too, for what reason I fail to follow - that the (referendum) vote should be secret and free. The 60 per cent of the electorate who reside in areas where no local elections are due this year will be able to mull over the referendum in conditions different to those who are also asked to elect their local council.

If, as may be possible, the underlying message is that if there is a boycott, both those who go out to vote and those who do not will be denied their right to secrecy regarding their views, my objection becomes more valid. If there is a boycott, unless it extends to local elections, people who vote in the latter will have their freedom of thought protected, but those in other areas will be 'exposed', whether they go out to vote, decide to obey a directive to boycott or, for whatever other personal reason, to stay away.

Will there, in fact, be a Labour boycott? There will not, as will be confirmed this morning, after a Friday night twist in the tale.

Parties make their own decisions, not least according to what goes on behind the scenes. My own aversion to a boycott stems from the way I view personal rights. I believe that whatever an individual finally does should be left to him to decide, in conscience and with whatever conviction. A decision need not be a Yes or a No. One might go into the ballot booth and, once there, laugh or cry, scribble sarcastically or dawdle prettily.

My own belief is that one should use one's right to form an opinion and to express it clearly with a Yes or a No. But to demand that one does so, or to tell anyone not to do either, would be interference with one's freedom of thought and behaviour, though historical circumstances can give legitimacy to the boycott tactic.

Whatever the circumstances, to order a boycott woiuld have been, among other things, a transparent ploy. Aside from the fact that, were there to be a boycott directive, those who did not follow it would have been promptly identified by the political parties, allowing fudging of the actual effect. Those who cannot vote, or who do not wish to vote out of indifference or in protest over some matter, can be included in the boycott total. The true effect of such a ploy, or variations of it, cannot be conclusively argued.

Whatever the arguments about how the date was set and why, boycott or no boycott, the referendum die is cast. If a reasonable aggregate of replies results on March 8, nobody shall be able to ignore the outcome. The percentages of Yes and Nos will be related to the total of those entitled to vote, less say six per cent, the historical average margin of non-voters in general elections.

If there is a Yes majority of those who do cast a valid vote, and it converts into around 47 per cent of the unadjusted total of those entitled to vote, the prime minister will be able to stride to Athens to sign the accession treaty with dignity, though still not certain what the general election will bring. If there is a Yes majority that translates into quite lower than 47 per cent of those on the electoral register, the PM would still go to Athens, but without much bounce.

If there is a No majority there may be those who will recall that Julius Caesar mistook the warning given to him about the Ides of March and mixed up the actual day.

All of that is several weeks away. The drama has yet to unfold, upfront as well as furthermore backstage. Whether it leads to political knives being unsheathed or sabres rattled remains to be seen...