Editorial

The Labour Party has one major problem to solve first before contemplating a much-needed overhaul following the three defeats it has had since 1998 - two elections and a referendum. It is that over the country's direction. In the space of just over a month, the people decided twice on the issue, leaving absolutely no doubt now of its wish to see the island firmly anchored to the European Union.

A number of Labour Party people seem quite prepared to accept a change in their party's policy over the issue - if the party were to decide to make such a change. They feel, quite rightly, that once the majority of the people have decided in favour, the matter ought to stop there and the party should now respect their will in full. On his part, the Labour leader, Alfred Sant, says Labour should work according to the new circumstances. The party's policy would have to be more explicit than that.

Other Labour people write as if they want to stand firm in their opposition to membership. They pin down defeat to what they believe is the electorate's gullibility. Quite arrogantly, they still feel the party knows better than the majority and are sure the time will come when those who voted in favour will rue their decision.

Contrary to what this second category of supporters feel, however, most people are convinced that, as time goes by, the likelihood is that more Labour supporters will realise that Malta's place is within the EU as a member. True, the pain may be more apparent than the gain in the first phase of membership, precisely because the gain will take longer to become evident but what gain it will be!

Labour knows now that if it decides to remain firm in its stand against membership, it would continue to run against the people's will. It is bad enough as it is to have missed judging the electorate's mood in time so badly. To persist in error would now be catastrophic.

So, what stand will the Labour Party take now? Will it accept the people's will or will it persist in error?

The best prospects for the party would appear to lie in the acceptance of the people's will and to fashion, within that parameter, a policy aimed at exploiting the benefits. Labour should never have been so categorical in its opposition to membership. Indeed, it did not appear to be so at first but then, as the negotiations proceeded, it adopted a firmer stand.

Labour had been repeatedly told it was making a big mistake in closing the door to membership but it preferred burying its head in the sand, sticking to its "partnership" proposal. In the light of today's situation, Labour now has an opportunity of reassessing its stand in a bid to come out with a clearer policy, one that would inspire confidence among its own supporters.

If it manages to draft a policy that draws a measure of national support, then the way would be clear for it to get to grips with the task of reorganising the party. More than anything else, Labour would need to make sure that whatever it proposes to the people it would have to be credible.

Now that the people have shown in clear manner which way they want to go, Labour should accept their will gracefully and work for the success of what is now a national goal.