Labour leader Alfred Sant insists that his "partnership" option is negotiable with the EU in spite of the doubts cast by European Commission officials. However, in an interview with Steve Mallia, Dr Sant steadfastly refuses to say how he intends to interpret the referendum result.

Are there any circumstances under which you would consider a referendum to be appropriate?

If there was a situation where both parties were in agreement on the goals of EU membership, a referendum would have made sense...

The motion that your party approved for this EU referendum said "you can either vote no, invalidate the vote or abstain from voting". What does this mean exactly, that you want to have your cake and eat it?

No. It means you have a choice. If you disagree with this referendum, if you disagree with the question in this referendum, you can either vote no, invalidate your vote, or just not vote. It's a choice.

But the choice doesn't include voting yes...

Of course not. That's the whole point. Do anything but vote yes.

Is that a choice?

Of course it is. If you agree with our recommendations, you have a choice over what to do...

But it excludes the main choice. The choice is yes or no.

Of course it's the main choice from the government point of view. It is the government that's going to decide when things are decided, how they are decided and the conditions under which they are decided...

How do you intend to interpret the result of this referendum that's going to be held - given the nature of your motion?

We'll see that when the outcome comes through.

But how are you going to interpret the people that don't vote... are you going to interpret that as a vote for the Labour Party or not?

We'll have a look at the result and decide on the basis of the result...

This is not a result I am talking about...

The outcome...

...It's not an outcome, there are only a few scenarios. It's quite easy to be able to say at this point...

I never discuss hypothesis as to the future, you know that...

Are you saying you have not considered this?

I am saying we will announce what we are going to say, what we are going to do, when the outcome comes through.

Have you considered it?

We will say what we are going to do when the outcome comes through.

What are you going to do if the referendum result goes against you?

We will look at the results and discuss it on the basis of the outcome.

Do you rule out that you will not claim that the people who did not vote, or who voted against, voted for the Labour Party policy?

We will take our position when the outcome comes through... I mean, don't beat your head against the wall...

Don't make me beat my head against the wall...

Well, well, well, well... it's up to you.

It's a simple question...

It's a simple answer and you understand what my answer is.

Did you ever consider boycotting this referendum?

In Malta, boycotting is a very difficult option, because people get discriminated against if they are perceived as boycotting something. This happened in the 1955 referendum... So far as we are concerned, we considered all the options.

Did you consider a boycott?

We considered all the options, except voting yes.

Were you in disagreement with other people in your party on how you should proceed on this issue, whether you should boycott it or not?

It was just an open discussion.

Were you in favour of a boycott?

I considered all the options and I knew what the problem of the boycott was.

But were you personally in favour of it?

No. I am in favour of the actual motion that came through...

All the way through?

Yes...

...I want to make the point that the way in which this referendum is being run is totally anti-democratic. If you have the government pumping Lm500,000, the European Commission pumping in €200,000 or liri...

Not for a referendum campaign...

Oh come on. It's spending them during the referendum campaign. And I know this because I know which company is doing it, OK.

It's to provide information on the question of membership...

But we can't provide the same amount of information with the same kind of money. I mean, if you ask me how are you financing your partnership programme, I can tell you: through funds that are being collected from our party faithful. Is that fair? Is that democratic?

Yes it's democratic because the government obtained a mandate in the last election.

So don't you have two positions that have to be at least equally represented? Don't you even recognise that? So the government, because it supposedly has this mandate, can finance how much it likes to push its views forward and the opposition or people who disagree with the government have to make do with the few quid they have. Is that fair?

But wouldn't you be the first person, if the government didn't do this, to accuse them of breaking yet another electoral promise?

Which electoral promise?

The electoral promise was that they would hold a referendum after negotiations are completed...

Didn't you read the letter I wrote the prime minister, where I told him to hold the election first and then hold a referendum afterwards?

But he is the prime minister...

So why did he send me that letter, just so I could tell him yes?

You would have to ask him that...

OK. But I tell you. There's no point saying mandate or no mandate. I made the offer, hold the elections and both parties would commit themselves to hold the referendum afterwards. Isn't that fair?

Do you ever foresee joining the EU?

Well, if we can get conditions like Gibraltar has, why not?

Presuming you win the next election, do you rule out joining as a member?

What we will be working towards is a partnership policy which will enable us to create a niche for us in European affairs that makes sense for Malta, that will create investment for us, that will create new interest for us, it will make us different, but still European.

Do you rule out joining?

I am telling you. We will work on a partnership option...

Does this exclude membership?

It never excludes anything forever. I never say never. But the policy we will be moving towards is through partnership, like I have just discussed.

But membership probably won't be available in several years' time...

I don't discuss hypothesis.

But partnership is hypothetical and yet you are discussing that...

No. In April. 1998, we agreed on a road map with the EU...

It's very vague, come on...

It's not vague at all. I tell you. It's a road map on how to achieve partnership. Switzerland at the same time on the same terminology was approaching the road map in the same way and 18 months later Switzerland concluded its partnership negotiations...

But Romano Prodi has told you that, on the basis of your proposals, you are not going to get what you want...

We have talked with the secretary of state of Germany for European affairs, the secretary of state of the UK, of France, the Greek prime minister, the Italian secretary of state and the Luxembourg prime minister, who told us "if there is a democratically elected government which offers this option of partnership - even though we disagree with it - we will negotiate on that basis".

We will discuss it...

We will negotiate on that basis.

All they've said is that they will discuss.

We will negotiate on that basis...

Is it fair to present the public with a scenario that's yet to be discussed?

Isn't it always oppositions that have to present scenarios that are yet to be discussed?

No. Opposition parties quite often present policies.

Of course, it's a policy. But the scenario of negotiation is that you have to negotiate first.

And how long is it going to take you to negotiate?

It depends how long the process takes.

Do you think it's acceptable to go to the public and say "look, I have not got anything in my hand". The other people have something in their hands....

They're the government. What do you expect?

I am asking you if it's acceptable for you to go to the public?

Of course it's reasonable. Frankly, it's completely incredible in my view that people in this country, apparently including yourself, believe that we should go to the people and tell them there is no alternative. Just accept it because the government has negotiated it. This is totally anti-democratic. Come on. Of course, the government has arrived at an end point in its process. But to tell the people, "look, we have no alternative but this and you have to lump it down your throat". Because the opposition is proposing an alternative that it will negotiate when it is in government. Isn't it obvious that all the opposition can present is an alternative that it will negotiate while in government?

Otherwise, what you're saying is this: "just accept the package, vote yes and let's go home and forget about everything else". That's what you are suggesting...

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. The government is giving the people an option over whether to join or not - so it's not just a question of swallowing this...

With all respect, it's not. Because once you say there is no alternative, they are saying, OK, you can vote yes or no but you have to vote yes...

Prof. Prodi has said openly - he could not have been clearer about this - that you cannot negotiate a better agreement with the EU than the package that was negotiated by the government that involves membership...

What do you expect Romano Prodi to say? And at the same time that Prodi is saying this, there is (Michaele) Schreyer, and even (Günter) Verheugen, who tell the European parliament that this is a very good deal - we have cut basement prices to join - and (Margot) Wallstrom said OK, all these countries will have three per cent of their GDP which they have to spend on environment and they have to get it out of their own pockets.

If I negotiate with somebody, and he tells me "you have very good negotiators", I start to suspect my negotiators, frankly... You swallow all that? We've gone back to the old colonial times frankly...

But in this case you have comparisons. You can compare what other candidate countries achieved... I think it's undeniable that Malta did well....

But Schreyer said the same thing for everybody. She said it was a bargain basement price across the board...

I think if you look objectively, Malta obtained more concessions than any other negotiating country.

I disagree. Again on this one.

Do you also disagree that the very people you are going to have to negotiate with are already telling you that it is impossible to get a better package?

A better package on what?

Than the government has obtained. Not only that but they are saying it's much worse.

It's a different contract. If you negotiate membership, it's one kind of contract, if you discuss partnership, it is another. So we will not, for instance, have to discuss the application of the Common Agricultural Policy which is going to cost us millions of liri. So that's already out of the window. We are not going to discuss certain criteria about how to implement, for instance, promotional policy on industry. So that's out of the window. So it's a different kind of contract.

But they have already told you that this kind of contract cannot be negotiated with them.

Not true. They said that as far as they are concerned, they don't want to do it. But I repeat: the secretary of state of Germany for European Affairs, the secretary of state of the UK for European affairs, the Greek prime minister - and these are the people that count, the French delegate minister for European affairs, the Italian under secretary, the Luxembourg prime minister... they all said, we disagree with your option. "We would like you to join. But if there is a democratically elected government with a partnership policy, we will discuss."

But the only options on the table are to join other countries such as Syria or Morocco, or you join the non member EEA countries.

Not true. Because Switzerland is not in the EEA for instance...

So, you still think that you can obtain an arrangement that hasn't yet been obtained?

Definitely. I know people are scaremongering about this, but it can be obtained, of course.

Who are you going to negotiate this with?

With the EU.

With Prodi?

With whoever it is in the Commission.

With Verheugen?

Why not, if he's there.

You've always said that you want the best possible relations with the EU....

Of course...

Yet when Verheugen came to visit, you personally said that if he shows us charts we'll show him how many bombs were dropped on Malta. Deputy leader Joe Brincat made a reference that we fought his grandfather in the war. Do you think this is the best way of forming the best relations?

Regarding what Joe Brincat said, ask him. Regarding what I said, yes, I found it demeaning that a Commissioner from the EU comes on the national television and tries to give us lectures on how generous he was. And that is something that no independent country should tolerate really.

But do you think your response is conducive to establishing the best possible relations with the EU?

Well, you'd better clarify things through. I mean, just trying to link dot, dot, dot, dot, is not the best way of having good relationships. Clarify the Is, cross the Ts, but don't let anyone patronise you.

Telling them that they dropped bombs on us?

Well, they did drop bombs on us.

I know. But they use these terms in Fawlty Towers. Serious political parties don't normally accuse the Germans of dropping bombs on them...

Nobody accused the Germans of dropping bombs on us. First of all, they did drop bombs on us. So it's not a question of accusing them. Secondly, my point is: don't patronise us. I don't accept people from abroad patronising the Maltese...

But you have to have an enlargement commissioner to facilitate that process.

Of course, yes. But I don't think he should participate in the internal political process. Mr Verheugen came here and told Dr George Vella he will do his best to make Labour lose the next election. Is that acceptable? By my standards it is not...

What would you say if he didn't come: that Europe was ignoring us?

I would have said that he's playing it the right way, the prudent way. Letting the Maltese now understand the package themselves and decide about it.

So you think people shouldn't come here to talk about...

Look, I've had lots of suggestions to get people from the other side of the fence to come to Malta during this campaign. I said no.

Is it because there are no people from the other side?

Well, I can tell you. We had quite a number of good possibilities and I said no to them.

Like what?

A government representative from Iceland, for instance.

They're a member of the European Economic Area...

Whatever it is...

...who are now being asked to contribute €500 million per year.

So what? What's the point here?

Can Malta afford that?

Who's saying that Malta would be asked to do that? I mean, you are jumping from argument to argument. Why don't you stick to the argument?

But the option he would have painted would not have been a partnership option, it would be opting out and the only thing he can talk about, and the only thing he has experience of, is membership of the EEA...

And the only experience Mr Verheugen has is getting people to join the EU under his terms, so? Mr Verheugen would probably not be in charge of partnership negotiations... because he is an enlargement commissioner. But the same argument applies... what you're trying to say about the Icelandic government representative would apply to Mr Verheugen, I mean, frankly...

Not really because Verheugen is a representative of the Commission...

.....on enlargement affairs. When there was something about budget, Schreyer came over. When there was something about the environment, Wallstrom came over.

I think Verheugen represents the Commission as a whole but certainly Prodi does and when he says these are the options, he is representing the whole Commission.

He is representing the executive arm of the EU. The political side of the EU is something bilateral with other countries and when we spoke to the secretary of state of Germany, the UK, France, the Greek prime minister, the Italian under secretary and the Luxembourg prime minister they told us we do not like your option, we prefer you to join the EU, but if there is a democratically elected government in Malta who wants to do partnership, we will negotiate.

If all these people are telling you that they don't like it, doesn't the penny drop and you think "maybe we've got it wrong"?

No. Because they obviously think about it in terms of their own interests. To go back to 1971, when there was the negotiations with Nato, all the Nato countries were against what Malta was doing.

In this campaign you have mentioned a number of companies you said they would be badly affected by membership. The majority of them have said it's not true...

Well, I mentioned about 30 companies and five have come out up till now. That's not the majority.

One of them closed down two years ago according to reports.

Not two years ago, but about five weeks ago. I can show you a report that was commissioned by that company on the effect of visas for Libyans.

But how many companies have actually come out and said they will be badly affected?

Do you expect them to say that?

Yes. Their future is at stake...

Oh really. If it was a Labour government they would say it but if it's a Nationalist government they won't say it.

Why?

Because they are afraid. Don't you know there are a lot of threats going round at the moment? I won't be able to show you, but I have reports...

What kind of threats?

Oh come on...

You mentioned threats, threats in what respect?

Threats in terms of whether they can stay on operating in certain ways, banking facilities, that kind of stuff.

And who are these threats coming from?

No comment.

Why?

No comment.

How can you just make mention of a threat and not back it up?

Because that's how it's happening. If you want to ignore it, that's up to you. You're an investigative journalist, go and ask people. And check on people. But then explain to me how this happens: that in mid-January an industrialist would say a certain thing and then three weeks later before television cameras he says things are not the same.

Explain that to me...

You have talked lately of studies of partnership being carried out... are you going to publish all of them before the referendum is held?

If we get them in time, yes, of course.