MP queries opposition's change of heart on referenda

Nationalist MP Jason Azzopardi yesterday wondered in parliament why the Labour Party in opposition was now refusing to accept the outcome of a referendum on European Union membership when six years ago its leader had insisted on the people's right to express its wishes by means of referenda.

Where was the MLP's and Alfred Sant's consistency? Which was the correct stand on referenda: the one being expressed now or the one which Dr Sant himself enunciated in parliament in January 1996, Dr Azzopardi asked. The game of political opportunism debased politics, he added.

Dr Azzopardi said the MLP was adamant that the outcome of a referendum on the EU would not be binding. Such a declaration, he insisted, was a blatant insult to the sovereignty of the Maltese people.

What Labour was effectively saying meant that the Maltese people did not have the right to decide on their own future and that such right rested with the MLP.

Dr Azzopardi recalled that on March 25, 1993, Dr Sant had declared that had he been in favour of EU membership he would hold a referendum on the matter.

Then, on December 12, 1995 the present deputy leader of the MLP, Joe Brincat, had said that in the case of Malta's future relations with Europe the people should make their own choice through a referendum.

In June 1998, Dr Brincat had said that electoral manifestos were mixed grills but referenda were straight and more democratic.

Dr Azzopardi quoted extensively from what Dr Sant had said during the January 1996 parliamentary debate on a bill amending the Referenda Act.

Among other things, Dr Sant had said that a referendum could effectively respond to society's wishes on specific problems dividing that same society or on issues that transcended party lines.

Thus, why were the MLP and Dr Sant himself now saying they would not endorse the outcome of a referendum on an issue that did go beyond party lines, Dr Azzopardi asked.

Dr Sant had declared in parliament that the holding of a referendum was a good principle in modern times but this had to be based on an efficient working of democracy which parliament should represent.

Dr Azzopardi recalled that the opposition had voted against the bill in question - providing for the holding of abrogative referenda - because it insisted that a referendum could also be held to propose laws and not just to remove them. The government had replied it felt one should first start with the abrogative referendum and then move on to the next step.

The leader of the opposition had in 1996 said that the principle of referendum should be accepted and recognised. However, Labour was now unwilling to accept that, Dr Azzopardi continued.

He said Dr Sant had even proposed on behalf of the opposition that a propository referendum could be held for the introduction of measures that never featured on the governing party's electoral manifesto.

The opposition had also insisted that the government should give the people the opportunity to have a direct say in certain decisions. Yet, now, the opposition was saying it would not recognise the outcome of a referendum and would only go by what the people decided in a general election.

Almost 90 per cent of respondents to a recent survey declared they expected the people's wishes to be respected by the political parties. Indeed, the people's word had to be heard as their's would always be a sovereign decision. The people should be consulted and should have a direct say in self-government.

Dr Azzopardi said that in the case of the EU, the country should go beyond party politics because it was a decision that affected future generations. Hence, the people's insistence to have their decision respected. Woe betide those who ignored the people's desires. That would mark the beginning of parliamentary dictatorship, Dr Azzopardi concluded.