Finally...

...the referendum is about to be held. It is one that we, voters, have so long waited for. It is now our democratic duty to vote and to show that we can assume our full responsibilities.

We must not be deterred from voting by all the efforts being made to diminish its political or binding nature.

Only one day before Eddie Fenech Adami announced the historic date, Alfred Sant published his reply to the offer made to him by the prime minister for consultation on the holding of the referendum and the general elections.

Dr Sant justified his stance on the referendum by referring to two referenda held before independence, saying these were merely "consultative".

When the two pre-independence referenda were held, Malta was a British colony and, consequently, neither Malta nor the Maltese electorate were sovereign in regard to the British government.

Prior to independence, there was no manner in which we could bind the colonial power finally and legally on anything. In fact, in a way, it is true to say that insofar as the British were concerned, whatever we did under their rule was consultative. Even the numerous constitutions that were granted to us by the British were subject to the overriding legal and constitutional supremacy of British law. In fact, constitutions came and went at their whim.

So why is the leader of the opposition quoting the pre-independence referenda to discredit the referendum to be held in independent Malta by a sovereign electorate?

Not just for historic record, allow me to quote from the official report of the Malta Independence Conference of 1963 held at Marlborough House.

The conference was called by the British government to discuss, with all the Maltese parties existing then, the future constitutional set-up of the island.

The conference was chaired by the then secretary of state for the colonies, Duncan Sandys. After confirming that the British government had already decided on granting independence to Malta, he said in his introductory speech that the remaining issue was to get the "representatives of all political parties to agree upon joint constitutional proposals".

He explained that the British government could not "divest themselves of their share of responsibility for Malta's constitutional future".

He concluded in a manner that is very relevant to Malta in 2003: "Should the parties fail to reach agreement, the outstanding issues could be referred for decision either to the people of Malta or to the British government as might be most appropriate".

Applying this to today, all we have to do to make the post-independence referenda binding even on the institutions is to eliminate "the British government from the equation", and to leave "the people of Malta" as being the "most appropriate" in order to decide.

Ironically, when the British, as a sovereign people, decided their own future with Europe, they did so through a referendum, the result of which has remained binding for the past 30 years.

The holding of a referendum is of great importance when, as was the case in 1964, there is no agreement between the political parties. As in 1964, the people are called upon to take a final political decision. Today, it is binding even on the institutions.

In colonial times, the colonial power felt itself free to bind or not bind itself on anything, but in independent countries there are no shackles to the ultimate will of a free and democratic vote.

Dr Fenech Adami's government has kept its word. Parliament has expressed itself according to law and the Constitution.

It is now entirely up to us to honour the decision by voting.