One for all and all for one

Before the technocrats in the Maltese corridors of power decide on the colours of the ballot boxes that are to be used for the referendum, one should consider the origins of the idea of holding a referendum, the changing conditions, and the possible outcomes. It would then become evident that the holding of a referendum may even be detrimental to joining the European Union.

Way back in 1998 the electorate was confronted with snap elections. The Nationalist Party committed itself to EU membership but was cautious enough to promise a referendum before joining. It wanted to show the electorate that a mandate to be re-elected to power would not automatically mean voting for membership.

At that time EU enlargement was expected to take place during 2002, i.e. well ahead of the next general elections in Malta. Indeed a referendum would have made much sense at such a stage.

Perhaps it was because of this belief that the present administration has concentrated all its efforts on membership. It had to make good for two lost years and it was therefore determined to close all the chapters in time.

The enlargement project was then delayed by the EU. It could not take place during the year France and Germany are facing general elections. Enlargement is no vote-catcher in the member states.

This delay in itself does not justify the scrapping of the referendum. Such an opportunity, however, is being presented by the Leader of the Opposition in his constantly reiterated determination not to abide by the outcome of a referendum. It became obvious that the membership baby would only be able to survive if the Nationalist Party were to win the next general elections.

The EU, fearing a repeat of 1996, is being assured by the Maltese government that the will of the Maltese would be settled before membership through the general elections.

Three to one against membership

The four possible outcomes also reveal a clear indication against holding a referendum. First, there could be a positive referendum followed by a Nationalist victory at the general elections. This is the only outcome that would favour membership but it does not necessarily support the holding of a referendum.

The other three possible scenarios speak against membership. A positive referendum followed by a Labour victory would not result in membership. Dr Alfred Sant has made it clear enough to the electorate that a general election victory would legitimise him to stop short of membership.

A third possible outcome could be a negative referendum result followed by a Labour victory. Labour must then at all costs abide by the results.

A fourth, rather unlikely outcome, would be a negative referendum result followed by a Nationalist victory. Brussels would not be amused and the PN would lose face going for membership with a lost referendum.

What should the PN do? Hold another referendum? Even if the electorate would consent to membership some months later, the EU would be more reluctant than ever before to let Malta in. All would then curse the moment of having held a referendum in the first place.

Odds are three to one against membership. This has to be remedied and the only way to do so is to drop the referendum and settle for a one-to-one fortune, which is given at the general elections.

A negative referendum result could come true if negotiations fail to meet expectations (especially short-term financial benefits) of the majority of the Maltese. People could also vote against membership if the referendum is held in an overkill atmosphere.

This would be the case if abundant state funds are allocated for the campaign and for the holding of the referendum itself. Overkill might also be sited in the text of an unfair question, which would have to be answered with an equally unfair yes or no.

The referendum could also backfire if it transpires that it is being held just to honour a pre-election promise.

Moreover, if the referendum is held simultaneously with the general elections, it could easily be interpreted that the Prime Minister is sparing himself from holding two tiresome electoral campaigns within a short time.

Fatal splitting of votes

The main argument in favour of the referendum - that it presents the most clear-cut expression of the will of the electorate on membership - could easily be counterbalanced.

It has become crystal-clear that the membership baby would still be in a prenatal state (even after a positive referendum result) at the time of the next general election.

Therefore those who wish Malta to become an EU member must this time vote for the PN, irrespective of their other political beliefs. Those who are against membership should equally vote Labour even if they have voted PN in the past. The membership issue is indeed worth changing sides for during the next general elections.

Some technocrats are overseeing the risk that the holding of the referendum is opening the opportunity for a fatal splitting of votes. Some are being made to believe that a vote for membership could as well be followed by a majority for Labour during the general elections when it should be obvious to all that the unborn baby would not survive the slaughter of its own mother.

Membership is an endeavour to secure the political stability for Malta within a still uneasy basin and to present Malta as a business location forming part of a common market that is already a global player.

There would be no gains without pains of membership. Labour is pointing at these pains without telling the people that staying out would eventually mean greater pains.

We all know what Labour would do if it were to win the general elections after a positive referendum. We could just as well assume that a Labour government would also discard membership if no referendum would be held in Malta.

But it still makes a difference in favour of membership (postponed by five to seven years) by not holding a referendum. The EU would surely not interpret a lost general election in the same way as a negative referendum.

A referendum on EU membership in Malta is unlikely to find the support of more than 52 per cent of the electorate. Given the fluctuation of the Maltese electorate, such a majority could easily be reversed within a short time.

Moreover, a slightly positive referendum would not impress the EU whereas a negative referendum would settle the fate of Malta vis-à-vis Brussels for the next two decades. It is highly irresponsible to incur such a risk.

A new PN now

Nonetheless, Nationalist officials that are so keen on a double vote should ponder the possibility of giving PN members the opportunity to vote for a new party leader now instead of holding a useless referendum. Such a vote could be held in a very short time - about 15 months ahead of the general elections.

Dr Fenech Adami could then concentrate wholly on the work of his Cabinet. On the other hand the new party leader, free of any other responsibility, should focus fully on the future (more inspiring) policies of the party, its total renewal and on the electorate.

With such a tandem there could be sufficient reason for floating voters to vote PN even if at present they are not impressed by the performance of the outgoing Cabinet and much less by the handling of the party structures.

Lack of motivation is in the air even among once zealous party supporters and this would not be overcome simply by a reconstructed party headquarters or by the opening of a new hospital.