Bizarre comparisons and fuzzy messages

The Times (January 16) carried two articles, one by Mary Darmanin and the other by Richard A. Matrenza, both of which deserve comment.

Dr Darmanin ("The bishops and conscience") claims that the guidance recently issued by our bishops "disregards the opinion of a large section of the population", presumably by exhorting the electorate to take part in the referendum.

First of all, how does Dr Darmanin know what the opinion of a "large section of the population" on the referendum is? The forthcoming referendum has been scheduled for a long time.

Now that this referendum is imminent, a small number of individuals, some of them in a position to influence people, have suddenly changed their minds about this referendum. This does not mean that "a large section of the population" agrees with them. That is, unless there has been a secret referendum on the referendum.

Our bishops were not expressing an opinion on the EU. They only gave guidance to their flock how to behave in a democratic and Christian way in the context of the historic decision that awaits us.

The restrained tenor of the bishops' message certainly does not amount to "coercion" as alleged by Dr Darmanin. Neither can non-adherence to this guidance be construed as "sinful" (as implied by Dr Darmanin) by the faithful.

No amount of argumentation, including much pseudo-theology, can gainsay the right of the people to vote in a scheduled referendum or the democratic validity of a referendum on an important specific issue.

The power of a referendum surpasses that of parliament since it is a direct reflection of the will of the people. Few would deny that attempts to incite people to boycott a referendum amounts to thwarting a valid democratic process. So please, spare us all this talk about a "referendum not being the best way to decide the issue of membership".

Allegations of "denial of voice" in the "independent media" are unfounded. The very fact that two sizeable articles expressing anti-EU sentiment were published simultaneously in The Times of January 16 contradicts Dr Darmanin's claim.

As to her accusation of biased propaganda, lies, misinformation, etc, "dished out as official facts", this is a sweeping non-specific statement. If Dr Darmanin gives specific examples of such misinformation etc, then the matter can be discussed.

Dr Darmanin piles on more absurdity by comparing the proposed EU referendum question with the following preposterous question: "Should we impose the death penalty by lethal injection or electrocution?"

Even if Dr Darmanin's object was to discredit the referendum, it is hard to imagine a more grotesque comparison in what is meant to be a serious article.

Dr Darmanin maintains that there are actual alternatives to what she sarcastically refers to as "the two evils of yes and no" in the coming referendum.

To the basic question (in or out of the EU in May 2004), she wishes to add "not yet" or "not with this package". Now this would really cloud the issue and baffle the voter. Such a complex referendum question would force the voter to approve alternatives with which he or she may not necessarily agree - or, as Dr Darmanin tells us, he can abstain in order to "show the government that we (sic) do not want to vote on the question as it is put now". How absurd can one get?

Does Dr Darmanin seriously believe that, after years of gruelling negotiations with the EU on our conditions of membership, the government will go to the people with such a fuzzy inane question?

The decision facing Malta now is simple, namely, whether Malta is in or out of the EU on May 1, 2004. This choice is reflected in the proposed referendum question. To confuse the issue by introducing absurd alternatives is just not on. Let us keep things simple.

In the event of a predominance of yes votes, Malta will have endorsed the path to membership of the EU. If the electorate rejects membership, we just stay as we are now until something new has been negotiated.

Readers were treated to more vague rambling in a Talking Point ("The future belongs to us - outside the EU") by Mr Matrenza, who also seemed unable to make any clear points.

He tells us, for instance, that the voter must not be "confused by anything spiritual or religious which may be propagated by the pro-EU lobby in Malta".

Now this is very confusing. What (or who) is Mr Matrenza referring to here? Is he referring to the recent bishops' appeal to the people? Or is he referring to the debate on the "un-Christian principles of the EU" of some months ago?

Mr Matrenza might recall that a futile debate was started by none other than Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici who had exhorted the Maltese to steer clear of the EU because of its "un-Christian principles".

The pro-EU lobby was repeatedly drawn into debating this aspect in order to rebut Dr Mifsud Bonnici's argument by providing evidence that the principles of the EU were indeed quite Christian.

The next paragraph contains an incomprehensible sentence: "What is beneficial to the Vatican state as a temporal power is not and must not be confused with what His Holiness Pope John Paul II, as head of the Roman Catholic Church, is promoting and endorsing". This is a paragon of fuzziness; who is trying to confuse whom?

The remainder of Mr Matrenza's article is peppered with wishy-washy anti-EU epithets and gloomy predictions instead of solid arguments against Malta's bid for membership of the EU.

These include lofty, non-specific statements such as "the harsh realities" (of membership), how "today's adults will have saddled today's 11-year olds with the wrong decision", "The metaphoric carrot dangled before innocent young people portraying them the vast opportunities ... is a mirage",

"... the same opportunities were there even when Malta was a colony", and so on.

Other statements as "attracting investment and tourism to Malta has nothing to do with Malta joining the EU" are neither here nor there.

Now, in none of these instances does Mr Matrenza develop his argument or specify exactly what he is referring to; nor does he substantiate any of what he states as a fact.

Much of what he says amounts to no more than random non-sequiturs. To cap it all, after so much empty rhetoric, Mr Matrenza sums up by telling us: "The decision of the Maltese people must be based on hard facts".

Yes indeed, Mr Matrenza, that is precisely what is missing from your contribution.