Labour must come clean

It has become customary for the Labour leader, Alfred Sant, to use the same mantra whenever and wherever he speaks. "Labour will be gaining credibility because it always said the truth." He is, of course, referring to all the "truths" promulgated by himself and his party during the referendum and general election campaigns.

The basic truth among all truths was that partnership rather than "full" membership was the best relationship that Malta should seek with the EU. He has continued to say so, irrespective of his acceptance of the people's verdict as expressed in the last general election. To a great extent, this makes sense - he can hardly so early in the day tell his followers that Labour presented the wrong option to the electorate. And yet that is precisely what is needed for Labour to gain credibility. Whether Dr Sant is the right person to do it is a matter that the party still has to mull over. We all know about Alfred Mifsud's position but we all know too how he was treated by the party because he argued in favour of his position publicly.

Only the other day, a Labour supporter put his views on maltastar.com issue No. 603. Referring to the confusion that reigns among MLP supporters, he continued: "after years of telling us that Malta will not fare well in the EU, now after the majority has spoken, the same people who tried to convince us of this aspect, are telling us that we must accept what's being thrust down our throat. This is one mother of a U-turn. Another in a series of U-turns done by the MLP. I and many others feel betrayed by the leadership over this U-turn, especially, after the leadership tried to convince us that partnership has won".

Labour has a mammoth task in convincing supporters like this one that they also agreed that a general election would settle the issue. Supporters who are capable of articulating their frustration so eloquently also recall Dr Sant promising yet another referendum on the issue during a Labour legislature. No wonder supporters are confused.

The time is quickly approaching when the mere mention of partnership becomes an embarrassment. And I get the feeling that some Labour media people have already reached this stage.

Is this why maltastar issue No. 601 left out Dr Sant's reference to partnership when it reported his talk in Hamrun a few days ago? It could well be that the people at maltastar.com have their own agenda and Dr Sant's futile assertion about partnership as an option does not fit this agenda.

Incidentally, not a few pro-Labour writers are for ever discounting Dr Sant's 22 months in government as a non-event, hence giving this present government a clear and uninterrupted run from 1987 up to the present time. The fact that those 22 months were characterised by the freezing of Malta's application to join the EU and the abolition of VAT, which between them caused untold economic and political mayhem, could explain such conscious lapses.

Dr Sant's truth phobia is becoming more and more apparent. In his "Proxy Points" (25), he claims that "the truth about the whole issue that was hidden by the PN government and its allies is coming to the surface" and again he cites "partnerships" as an example.

He uses an article by Ambassador Joseph Licari to prove his point. But the concluding lines of Dr Licari's article found no place in Dr Sant's points, that is, that the EU "will develop the concept of European Integration partnerships with each of the five states (western Balkans) and introduce benchmarks and checklists to keep track of progress along the path to membership".

Before the referendum and the general election, Dr Sant presented partnership as an ongoing relationship with the EU, otherwise why the allahares qatt, God forbid that Malta ever becomes a "full" member of the EU? Labour has got to come clean if it wants to gain credibility.

The latest stance taken by Labour regarding EU membership states that the MLP will see that "any potential benefits resulting from it will be spread fairly".

At last potential benefits are being mentioned. A far cry from the doom and gloom that the EU had in store for the Maltese. Spreading the benefits fairly should not present any tangible problems in certain areas.

Cleaner air, drinking water up to EU standards, better roads, consumer rights and other similar benefits will be enjoyed by one and all. If, however, Labour is referring to the financial package agreed between Malta and the EU, then there should be no problem as, according to Dr Sant, that financial package will leave Malta Lm70 out of pocket. (Press conference at Labour headquarters, August 18, 1998). Later, Dr Sant reduced the whole package to a million or two in Malta's favour, not such a largesse to spread about!

And then there is the issue of Malta's neutrality. On March 6, 2000, Dr Sant said in parliament that Malta's EU membership contradicts our neutrality. Now we are told that the MLP "had already acquired a declaration from the European Socialists that Malta's neutrality should continue to be respected by the EU".

Surely, such assurance was there for the taking well before the referendum and the general election.

Now that Labour has lifted its boycott of the media, they have to expect questions to be asked about such U-turns. And no glib wriggling as in the case of the Taliban label pinned on some EU officials by the Labour leader would be sufficient to extricate Dr Sant from his incredulous past.