The right to choose - a citizen's point of view

One of my early schoolday memories is of an English teacher, Mr Carr, walking into the classroom and beginning each lesson with a "word for today". Besides learning such fancy words as kleptomania, funambulist and agoraphobia, we were also introduced to phrases having a particular meaning. Hobson's choice was one of these phrases. We were taught that this means, in reality, no choice at all.

Such is the situation that the Maltese electorate is being faced with, come the referendum asking for our decision on whether or not we should join the European Union. Before expanding on this, however, let me clearly state that I am not at all saying that membership is inevitable or otherwise. I am only trying to look objectively at the qualitative limitation of the choice being offered to us, citizens who depend for their information sustenance upon our leaders and opinion formers.

We shall be asked to vote yes or no. Here is where Hobson comes in. The Nationalist Party in government has long professed its belief in membership of the European club. The Nationalists, for years now, have been passing on information, as well as propaganda, in favour of membership. Anybody interested in finding out about the implications of membership has unlimited resources - unlimited both in scope and in source. So one of the possible choices, the "yes", can be arrived at with a basis founded on information. We do have the ability to make an informed decision for a possible "yes" vote.

What about the "no" option? Is it in fact an option? That is one question I would very much like to have an answer to. The Nationalist Party's position and proposal are very clear. I know what a "yes" is all about. It is a painstakingly hammered out agreement between Malta and the EU. It is not a wish, a desire or a utopia - it is a reality, an attainable reality, whether one is in agreement with that option or not.

A "no" decision, on the other hand, would be a blind step in an undetermined direction. We are now being regaled with the partnership label. What this partnership actually is remains a mystery. All we have been hearing is that partnership is the ideal solution for us, with the how, why and who still to be divulged.

A cardinal question that remains unanswered is the partner's (whoever that is) willingness to play ball. So far, we only know that that is the MLP leader's wish. No other information is forthcoming, and we have, to date, not heard pronouncements of a possible partnership option coming from a prospective partner-to-be. Even the MLP's TV spots only refer to what the party wants and not to anything that is actual and real. Does it not take two to tango?

The Opposition has also gone to great lengths to shoot down all that the government negotiated and achieved. For example, take the financial package. MLP spokesmen are saying that Lm26 million a year is too little, and we have articles, statements and even cartoons, comparing this sum to higher sums that may have been mentioned in the past.

Given a choice to vote between Lm26 million a year and Lm100 million a year, I am sure that I would vote for the latter. But the latter has not happened and, since it is no use crying over spilt millions, maybe a responsible opposition could at least have come up with a tangible alternative.

Making emotional, quasi-hysterical harangues about the government not having achieved what it desired is, to say the least, puerile. It embarrasses me as a Maltese to see the Opposition gloating with satisfaction and delight whenever the Government is perceived as not having been as successful as desired in achieving something for all of us.

Some shortfalls in the achievements have only served to highlight the high goals that the government set itself when it first embarked upon the negotiations. I was always taught to aim high in order to get the best results possible. Aiming for just a pass mark is definitely not a wise course of action.

An event from our relatively recent history comes to mind. On being returned to power in 1971, Dom Mintoff played "poker" with the British Government regarding the lease of the military base. His battle-cry then was "Lm20 million a year, or out!" The country held its breath as he went to Italy for the final "summit", the Copenhagen of 1972. He got Lm14 million, and on his return was hailed as a hero, Malta's saviour. By today's MLP standards, his negotiations were a flop. But in fact, were they?

So we have two camps, so to speak. The government is in favour of membership and is backed by the local Green Party, and also by most of the constituted bodies who have participated in the process, and fought tooth and nail to safeguard the interests they represent.

The other camp is against membership, but in favour of exactly what? In the absence of a real alternative proposal, the Malta Labour Party should not have opted for opposition for opposition's sake while idling on the sidelines, pointing fingers and cheering for the other side, but should have considered joining forces with the government and trying to get the best possible deal for Malta and its citizens - us.

Coming back to the choice. What choice, one might immediately retort. As a prospective voter in the upcoming referendum, I have a right to choose, a right that translates into a responsibility for both Government and Opposition to present me with the options for a choice. The government has now told me what a "yes" means. Could the Opposition now please tell me what a "no", besides being the negative of yes, means? Or am I asking for too much?