Editorial

The results of the opinion poll which this newspaper has commissioned seem to confirm the growing trend in favour of joining the European Union.

The findings are particularly relevant since they come very close to the referendum to be held in March - possibly March 8, to coincide with this year's round of local elections. Voting intentions in a general election, which should not be too far away, are also quite clear and point to a Nationalist victory, no doubt based on a realisation that - given the Labour Party's opposition to membership and refusal to be bound by the referendum's outcome - voters cannot afford to see their express will in favour of membership overturned by an MLP victory in a general election.

So it is possible that the EU membership issue will, single-handedly, propel the Nationalist Party to victory. The EU issue, after all, has dominated the local political scene for the last three or four years, i.e. since the PN, in the wake of its resounding election victory in 1998, threw itself vigorously into a resumption of Malta's EU membership bid which had been "frozen" less than two years before by the MLP (elected to power, mainly, on its promise to remove VAT, and now committed to retain it!).

The PN government has pursued that objective single-mindedly, winning for Malta a place at the negotiating table in February 2000 and eventual acceptance as a member, ready to join nine other countries at the next enlargement on May 1, 2004.

Constantly at the back of the Nationalist government's mind, and spurring it to achieve the best possible membership conditions, was the commitment, solemnly undertaken before the September 1998 elections, to consult the electorate in a referendum once the complete membership package is negotiated and its contents are known.

Dr Fenech Adami naturally feels bound by that commitment, which has to be carried out before the government's term runs out. Faced by the MLP's unremitting opposition to the referendum as the most democratic form of electoral consultation on a specific issue - an exercise, one has to remember, being carried out in all the other nine accession countries, possibly except Cyprus (where it will be held if the island's reunification takes place) - the Prime Minister last Friday week took the highly unusual step of offering to decide jointly with Dr Alfred Sant, the Opposition Leader, a date by which the general election will be called (thus offering to share, in effect, his jealously guarded prerogative of calling the election at a date of his own choosing) in return for a joint appeal by both party leaders to urge the widest possible participation in the referendum, with an election to be held shortly afterwards, independently of the referendum's outcome.

In his reply last Friday Dr Sant insisted that the general election be held before the referendum, which would in turn be held within a specified period by whoever wins the election. However, the referendum's outcome would not be binding on the government unless 60% (that's a considerable shifting of the democratic goalposts) voted one way or the other - and that only for the duration of the legislature (i.e. a maximum of five years).

The Prime Minister's reply came within less than 24 hours and was predictably scathing. He called the conditions attached by Dr Sant to the referendum as a sign of the "contempt" in which the Opposition Leader held the people's sovereignty, which is the basis of democracy. His qualification of 60 per cent approval also showed, the PM continued, that the Opposition Leader was convinced that the majority approved EU membership.

Besides, Dr Sant wanted the Prime Minister to renege on his electoral commitment to hold a referendum once the membership negotiations are concluded. Dr Fenech Adami reminded the Opposition Leader that the electorate in 1998 had given a mandate to the Nationalist Party to resume the EU membership bid and to conduct negotiations, and had rejected the Labour Party's alternative of a "partnership" with the EU.

Indeed, in insisting that the question of EU membership be resolved in a general election rather than in a specific-question referendum, Dr Sant conveniently ignores the fact that the electorate had given the PN its go-ahead to seek EU membership in 1998... and also in 1992, 1987 and 1981! By what logic is the result of those elections not binding on the MLP, as far as EU membership is concerned, while that of 2003 would be?

No wonder the Prime Minister told Dr Sant that once he had rejected his proposal, the referendum would go ahead in March and the general election would be held on a date he would decide "in the best national interest"! The battle lines have been clearly drawn. The choice in the referendum is clear; it is equally clear in the general elections to follow.