Debate in parliament has clarified two issues

Writing this column on Wednesday morning, it is already possible to say that the opposition's contribution to the parliamentary debate on the EU referendum has already served two issues clearer: the nature of the choice that the electorate faces with respect to Malta's relationship to the EU, and the logical separation between the referendum and a general election. For the first clarification, we have Dr George Vella to thank; for the second, Dr John Attard Montalto.

Speaking in the name of the opposition, Dr Vella has proposed in parliament that the referendum question as phrased by the government does not reflect the true choice that the Maltese electorate faces.

The true choice, declared Dr Vella, is not one between membership and non-membership of the EU but a choice between membership and "partnership" with the EU.

Perhaps the prime minister should take up Dr Vella's suggestion and change the referendum question.

Let it read: "Are you in favour of EU membership in 2004 or 'partnership' in 2010?"

A referendum question should properly speaking call for a Yes/No answer. Still, it is amusing to consider what Dr Vella's reaction would be if the prime minister did take up his suggestion. One senses that Dr Vella would object to the new question, but on what possible grounds?

Suggesting that a Labour government would be able to obtain a European partnership by 2010 is realistic. It took Switzerland and Egypt - both countries with EU deals that the MLP says are very good - each seven years to negotiate their respective agreements.

And seven years are what divide a Labour government elected in 2003 from 2010. Labour has certainly been saying that it can negotiate far better than the PN government; but it has not so far hinted that its negotiating powers outstrip international norms, too. Further, if one calculates that a Labour government will find it practically impossible to begin real negotiations before 2005, a 2010 date also includes a generous estimate of Labour's negotiating abilities.

The second issue concerns the opposition's argument that since the EU question affects the entire programme of government, then the membership question is inseparable from the question that voters will face in a general election.

Well, not quite. It is true that EU membership (and non-membership) would affect the entire programme and strategy of national government. It is also true that since the opposition has declared that it will not consider itself bound by the referendum result, then in practice it will be the coming general election that will definitively close the membership argument.

However, that is not what the opposition has argued in parliament. Rather, it is claiming that the EU question is inseparable from a general election on logical grounds.

However, this is not true. There are three major areas of government - education, health, and social security - which are areas of national competency, according to the EU's own division of competencies.

Moreover, these are areas that Labour has been heavily criticising the government on. Even with Malta as an EU member, parents with children will want to consider carefully whether, for example, they like the very idea of a Foundation for Tomorrow's Schools, or the government's record on addressing relatively low literacy rates.

Taxpayers will want to weigh Labour's attacks on how the Mater Dei Hospital project has been run, and which political party they would prefer to run the national health service. Ditto for social security and the challenges that, say, pension reform raises.

Indeed, speaking in parliament on Monday, Dr John Attard Montalto, the opposition's speaker on industrial affairs, argued that the success of industrial policy does not depend on membership or non-membership of the EU, but rather on the policy designed by the national government.

Dr Attard Montalto's claim is controversial, but since it is the MLP that is saying that the EU issue is not separable from what government you vote for, then it is very significant that one of Labour's frontbenchers should be saying that on industrial policy the issues are indeed separable.

Furthermore, even with respect to other areas of government where the division of competencies within the EU is more complex, and where national governments need to participate in inter-governmental decision-making, it still makes a huge difference which government you have in power.

What kind of European labour market would you like to see - one with flexible employment policies, or one where employment conditions have a certain degree of standardisation? Your answer to that question will to a great extent depend on whether you are a socialist, a social democrat, a Christian democrat, or a liberal.

What kind of relationship would you like the EU to have with the southern Mediterranean? Your answer to that question will depend to a great extent on your wider political attitudes. And to the degree that Malta will participate in EU decision-making, then you will want to send a government minister whose political attitudes most resemble yours.

EU membership would not erode the significance of national electoral choices. The two issues are separable. And the Opposition should not make it difficult for voters to keep them apart. What God has kept divorced, let no man try to marry.