Let reason prevail

Beyond any doubt, the self-proclaimed 'partnership' victory declaration by the Labour Party leader is unacceptable in any democratic society. The electorate has passed on its unequivocal verdict in favour of EU membership, and no one, absolutely no one, can change or deny this.

Though his interpretation of the referendum result is astounding, it is not entirely surprising. The 'rationale' behind this highly undemocratic streak is being made on the basis that the absolute majority of the electorate have not voted in favour of accession.

Instead of calmly analysing the result and evaluating the present circumstances and future options, he has opted to distort facts beyond reason, or should I say, recognition.

Furthermore, it was indeed astonishing to listen to the televised 'partnership' victory assertions outside the counting hall when addressing a number of foreign journalists. Here, he even claimed that "(EU) membership does not suit Malta", and "that" he further emphasised, "is what has been decided today".

What the Labour Party should logically be doing right now is assess the situation and reconsider its policies on the EU. Considering the referendum results, a proper and sober assessment can only be made if it is first accompanied by a 'softening' of their EU policy, if not outright post-mortem on their 'partnership' proposal.

But will reason prevail? This, in my opinion, is the key question. Logical as all this might sound, is it realistic to expect such a re-consideration?

An immediate observation, which comes to mind when placing such a question, relates to the stark contrast arising from the initial 'victorious' reactions from the Labour leader as opposed to the reaction of the Party's secretary general. Here, the secretary-general was reported to have said to the press after leaving the counting hall that through this decision (referendum result), the people of Malta will have to share the burden of (EU) membership. Considering this, and if ever there was a need to reaffirm the referendum result, such a statement from the secretary general clearly underlined the result in favour of EU membership.

To further emphasise the need for a rethink in the Labour Party's EU policy, reference to some past pronouncements would seem highly appropriate and of particular relevance today.

In an interview with The Malta Independent on October 13, 1996, shortly before the 1996 general elections, Labour deputy leader George Vella promised that if the Nationalist Party won that election the Labour Party would reconsider its opposition to the EU. Specifically, he was reported to have said: "If the electorate re-elects the Nationalist government then Labour would realign itself to the realities of the situation and we would reconsider our opposition to the EU. A Nationalist government in the next five years would continue to integrate itself with the EU in all aspects and so it would make sense to reconsider our stand".

Back in November 1998, and as reported in The Times of November 16, 1998, when speaking about the Labour Party's position on EU membership, the then outgoing foreign minister, Dr Vella, argued that the Labour Party was closely monitoring the process in Malta and in the EU, and how the situation was evolving. He argued that the party could not ignore developments and would continue to work in the country's interest.

When asked about the criticism being made by EU officials that Malta-EU relations were similar to a switch, which was switched on and off, he contended that Malta's direction, as a democratic country is decided by the people. Here, he argued that "If the people decided against membership in 1996 but two years later changed their mind, everybody should respect the people's verdict".

To shed more light to all this, reference to what was stated by two European Socialists shortly after the 1998 elections is also being made.

Michael Elliott, a European Socialist member of the European Parliament- Malta Joint Parliamentary Committee, stated: "Naturally, I am sorry that a sister party has lost the election. I understand that the new government will pursue actively its application for membership, and on the EU side we can expect a fairly positive response, and that things will move relatively speedily".

Of particular relevance to the need for the possible 'softening' in approach on the Labour Party's EU policy is Mr Elliott's concluding statement: "This means that by the time of the next general election, Malta will be most, if not all, the way towards membership of the EU. The MLP should therefore accept the inevitability of membership. Naturally, as a member of the Group of the Party of European Socialists (PES) I hope that the MLP will come back to power and I look forward to welcoming them into the PES Group in the European Parliament".

Even the then Socialist leader in the European Parliament, Pauline Green, had called on Malta's political leaders to stop "see-sawing" over EU membership. Ms Green had urged the political parties to open talks to establish the country's stance on the EU. She added: "As far as Malta's EU membership application is concerned, our position is to respect the democratic will of the Maltese people. But the time has come for Malta to stop jumping from one side to the other", appealing to the political leaders to "sit down and reach a clear decision".

Within this post-referendum scenario, no political party can legitimately ignore the outcome without seriously risk denting its democratic credentials. Furthermore, and as a consequence of the referendum results, some serious strategic thinking from the Labour Party is necessary when assessing its EU policy. Otherwise, the absence of this could risk relegating the Labour Party to the days when it was unelectable. For the good of the country, and indeed the Labour Party, one can only hope that, sooner rather than later, reason will prevail.