Relatively cheap consultant

Apparently, John Common Citizen (JCC) has no expert advice to give to the powerful since he did not figure among the selected few during the past four years. Nonetheless, he is now about to be consulted twice on two important issues.

JCC must decide whether Malta should join the European Union or stay out, and on the next team to be entrusted with the government of our islands. Both are issues of utmost national importance that are bound to have far reaching consequences. Let us for a while forget all about the costly consultations of past years and focus on how JCC could reach his conclusions.

Obviously, it would be a very hard task for JCC to discern between the two issues since these are intertwined with each other at various points. A mature distinction requires enough time between the two decisions, but I fear that the national agenda does not foresee such a pondering gap.

JCC is being supplied with huge amounts of data from the political parties and from other constituted bodies such as trade unions and finally through the media. Some would try to discredit JCC by implying that he would use his verdict according to his political party loyalties. But there is little proof that JCC is that gullible.

...but no cheap consultation

It is no secret that many consultations of the past years have yielded prefabricated results. For example everybody in his right senses should know that the shift from St Luke's to the Mater Dei Hospital ought to happen in the shortest possible time. Yet if the consultation had been ordered in such a way as to give advice on a transfer that should take three years, then it is obvious that the consultants would find enough reasons why this should take that long.

In such cases, consultations may satisfy the requests of their commissioners but are often not even worth the paper they are written on. JCC has no reason to prostitute himself. At the end he knows that he cannot poison the meal he would be forced to eat himself.

Since JCC is not the proverbial trout, politicians try to minimise their risk at the ballot boxes by analysing current polls. Yet JCC has developed his own devices to bypass polls. This explains why some polls in 1996 and 1998 showed results favourable to the government. In both instances JCC decided to contradict polls.

This time one could rest assured that JCC would gather sufficient data on which to base his decisions. He knows that data could be manipulated and he would therefore examine this information against the background of past and present government performances. Spin doctors could be of some help to the mighty but not cunning enough to hypnotise JCC over and over again.

Moreover JCC knows very well that election campaigns are full of promises. When all the contenders promise everything at the same time, JCC simply reverts to other parameters. He would be very sceptical against those politicians who suggest that money poses no problem. He would reject old menus in new dressings. Above all he would recognise the old cook even if the latter succeeds to disguise himself in the best of forms.

No, JCC is not an expert and he is no genius. At individual cases some JCCs may be deceived, but in his general vote JCC tends to be very accurate.

Referendum comes first

JCC knows that the negotiating team had a very hard time in Brussels along with 11 other candidates. The outcome of the negotiations was a very good one in the prevailing circumstances, given that the EU was this time unwilling to grant the usual bonanza to the prospective ten member states.

JCC would nevertheless be judging whether the outcome is good enough for the country in general and whether he wants to rely on the Labour Party to forge a better deal outside the family.

JCC would be perhaps made to believe that his verdict would settle not only his fate but even that of future generations. There is nothing new or bad about this. His doubts would only be aroused when one side tries to sell its stand as if it were a sacred revelation. JCC would therefore resist those quarters that depict his decision as if it were a vote against the sacred interests of a whole nation for generations to come.

There are many attempts to prove that a yes vote would be the logical one with the hint that membership is the only option and therefore JCC has no alternative. However JCC is likely to ignore that on two grounds. Had membership been the only option for Malta, our negotiating team would have had a weak position vis-à-vis the EU from the beginning and this would belittle our team and its achievements. On the other hand, such inevitability would render the 'consultancy' obsolete and JCC hates to present just an alibi.

Likewise JCC would be against the exploitation of the referendum result. He could be fair and witty enough to make a distinction and truly give a separate verdict even if he is called to cast his vote at the general elections shortly after that of the referendum.

JCC could be in favour of membership and then decide to vote Labour in power at the ensuing elections. That would be a hard nut to crack for all the political parties. JCC would have dared to present them with 'contradictory' realities.

A new Labour government would have a difficult task to negotiate a new deal with Brussels when it slams the door on membership that would have just been backed by the majority of the electorate. This explains why Labour is in a dilemma. Its choice is that of being "friends" with Europe and not "brothers", i.e. share the same house as members of the same family.

The new government would be in dire need of arguments. How could it explain to the EU that the Maltese majority expressed its wish to be "brothers" but now the new government is opting to be only "friends"? To date, the Labour Party has been trying without much success to sell its "friends" option as a mutual symbiosis with Europe, by forging a deal whereby both parties could thrive together, but with separate bills and without sharing the same roof.

On the other hand, if Labour does manage to convince JCC to vote No in the referendum, the present administration would have lost its main justification of staying in power any longer. Attempts to remain in power would only increase the inevitable defeat at the general elections.

...and the elections soon after

Whatever the outcome of the referendum and that of the general elections, Malta would have to face its future. Malta cannot keep on living without shouldering its responsibilities.

The next government would have to tackle outstanding reforms in our national insurance system and render it sustainable. Everybody knows that our health system is overburdened. The running costs of the new hospital would render the situation even worse. The same could be said of our national pension scheme. A rather stable number of workers could no longer come up for a continuously increasing number of retired persons.

The environment too needs a new holistic approach. Our own health together with the whole tourist industry is being jeopardised through the negligent treatment of our waste. We cannot go on pretending not to see these problems. JCC cannot tolerate lies any more. He wants to see something being done about this now.

The new government would not only have to make Malta more competitive with a lower national debt and structural deficit. It would primarily have the mission to bridge the prevailing divisions in our country and let the best team work together with JCC (and not just with well paid consultants) for a better future. No result would be the end of the world if Maltese really learn to live together. It is only from that day onwards that our country would be heading for real prosperity.