Retaining a collision course

The political divide on the membership issue should be kept as narrow as possible and has already lasted for too long. The party machines should have three to four months to settle it and it will be all over. A referendum set for Thursday, May 1, 2003, followed by a general election on the second Saturday of that month, could offer the best solution.

Such a double vote in a very short time would have many advantages. The uncertainty over the issue would be eliminated. Malta could look with a clear decision into its future. In the aftermath, both political parties would have the opportunity to think about the next steps for Malta and could perhaps take up the notion of the leader of the opposition that we should concentrate more on the internal matters that need urgent and disciplined attention.

Moreover such a double vote could be seen as a double phase election within a short time as is customary in countries like France and Hungary. The trend of the first phase is normally confirmed in the second one.

Both the referendum and the general elections are firmly related to each other with the Opposition Leader contributing the bigger share towards this evident connection. At the coming general elections, the electorate should be held as the referee to reconfirm the outcome of the referendum. It makes no sense to request a confirmation from the referee nine months later whereas nine days (or even less) would be the perfect timeframe.

In case of a negative referendum result, the present government would have lost the basis for its existence. By clinging to power after a lost referendum, it would bring about more stagnation. Hence an immediate election would be the better choice.

On the other hand, a positive outcome should be carried forward on its balance as soon as possible. By proclaiming the election date prior to the holding of the referendum, the Prime Minister could not be directly blamed of exploiting the referendum, given the possibility that this could also bring an adverse result.

However the PN would be incurring a limited risk. By procrastinating, this risk could only increase and this explains why Labour has not cried foul after the 18 months outlook. General elections held a long time after the referendum could clearly be seen to favour Labour.

Besides, the idea of holding the general elections nine months after the referendum is an attempt to keep Malta in an intensive electoral campaign for at least one whole year. Both parties would be out for a hot summer, something that the Prime Minister has pledged to avoid. A double vote in a short span of time is the guarantee for one campaign, thus sparing both parties the burden of two campaigns.

Furthermore synergies related to technical matters could be exploited. Maltese abroad could be brought once over to vote for both elections. The Electoral Commission could avail itself more or less of the same officials to monitor both elections. Everything would have to be set up once instead of twice. In the aftermath Maltese should enjoy a hot summer without hot political debates.

Quo vadis PN

It seems that the Nationalist Party is set to play only a minor role during the referendum and the coming general elections. The EU membership issue has been made the causa prima of this government and it is therefore determined to use all resources at its disposal to reach this goal without relying too much on limited party funds.

One has to go back to the 1996 nightmare to understand this development without however having to endorse it. The freezing of Malta's EU membership application came as a late summer thunderbolt that traumatised primarily the PN leadership.

To make matters worse, the relaunching of the EU option failed to achieve national consensus from the very beginning. The MLP's opposition to EU membership came promptly and culminated in the party leader declaring he would not be bound by the outcome of a referendum.

All this has made the PN leadership determined not to let history repeat itself. This time the trophy must be won, even if this means a high burden on the taxpayer.

The PN electoral strategies are all based on the national gravity of the membership issue. The party is sort of hibernating into a self-denying, state-bearing subordinate role. From now on, Dr Eddie Fenech Adami would increasingly avoid bottom line party politics and sharpen the image of the statesman who acquired the best deal for Malta.

If PN supporters do not vote for their party out of sheer enthusiasm for their party policies, they should at least be obliged to show their gratitude towards the outgoing elder statesman and vote with full responsibility for the future of their children, whatever this might mean (perhaps that half Malta has turned mad against its young?).

Regrettably in Malta we do not have the necessary reservoir forming an independent lobby that could speak out with more credibility in favour of membership. So the pro-EU lobby has to turn on the PN for full support instead of relying wholly on state-funded institutions.

Time out for MIC

It must be acknowledged, though, that the PN had a mandate to open negotiations and to go for a referendum. There is no need to say that negotiations necessitated a concerted effort from all involved. Moreover, I cannot detect anyone in Malta who will not be affected by EU membership in some way or another.

Therefore the government had to embark on a campaign to inform the Maltese. The Malta-EU Information Centre was appointed precisely for this purpose and, once this job is finished, it should be dismantled.

By the end of this year, MIC should have accomplished its job to make the Maltese acquainted with the EU institutions and to explain the impact of the negotiations for Malta. Its role is to inform and not to persuade. By January 2003 there would be no MIC function left which cannot be taken up by the EU directorate at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or by a DOI hotline.

Given the national division on membership and the lack of trust in the MIC by half of the electorate, it is up to the political parties to carry on the final game until the referendum and up to the next general elections.

State-funded consultancies in favour of EU membership should likewise be brought to an end as soon as possible. Both MIC and the said consultancies could be doing the best job, but since they are appointed by the government that wants to be re-elected precisely on the merits of its efforts towards membership, their mere existence could not only be provocative for half the taxpayers, but also counterproductive to the cause itself.

There is no need to say that any campaign in favour or against EU membership has to be financed by the political parties unless the present government wishes to provoke the use of more drastic means that bring about even more division.

Unconditional loyalty

The Labour Party leadership has yet to overcome the trauma of 1998. Not every show of strength or clear expression from a party exponent is necessarily contesting the leadership. The party must free itself of its self-inflicted pressure to reinvent the circle since not everything in Malta is moving in the wrong direction.

Labour has done extremely well in the last local elections but nobody excludes that it could do better. Lost sheep have been recovered and the party ranks are being closed. The party is determined to present a united front. Notwithstanding all this, a clear programme has yet to be shaped.

Even in the absence of such a programme, one could note that Labour supporters are becoming increasingly determined to back their party, especially on its EU stand. This determination grows even bigger when the Prime Minister urges Labour opponents to express their dissent against the party line on the EU publicly.

One should therefore not underestimate the 'no' vote in the referendum. At the crucial point, all Labour supporters would back their party and by the end of the negotiations there might be others ready to support Labour on its EU stance.

The PN is missing the point when it states that Labour offers no alternative on Malta's relations with Europe. In some important points, the PN has yet to persuade the electorate that the membership option is the best for Malta and the right way to do this is to highlight the advantages of membership and not to insult the opposition.

Having said this, I believe that no political party should be made to suffer financial disadvantages because it offers an alternative to the ruling party.

I still hope to see Malta join the EU in the near future, even though I would have wished to see a more united country taking this step. It is imperative now to contain political antagonism at political party levels and no fuel should be poured into the fire by (mis)using state funds and other state resources.

If the Maltese majority backs EU membership, it should be invited to show its support by an evident contribution. In the absence of a large independent platform, party enthusiasm in favour of membership should be instilled up to the remotest corner. State-funded and long campaigns are likely to boomerang against membership.