Yes, being consistent with our choices

Last year we voted Yes at the referendum and soon after we confirmed that vote by sustaining the main yes political party which has ever since independence consistently promoted the political project of making of Malta an integral part of Europe.

The double yes vote is now entitling us to vote a third time, to elect the Maltese candidates to sit in the European Parliament. This time neither the government nor accession are at stake. The choice however still remains between the party in government and the opposition parties. It is vital that this vote be fully consistent with the choices and therefore the process which we started by our double yes vote.

The Nationalist Party certainly wins the prize for political consistency where Malta-EU relations are concerned. For the PN independence had its logical progression in membership. Election after election the PN electoral manifesto always re-affirmed its commitment that Malta's future lay firmly in Europe.

The Nationalist Party is entrusted to effect the delicate and difficult economic and social reforms necessary for Malta to become an effective and competitive partner within the largest market in the world. Many think that the 'Battle for Europe' ended in 2003 with the electoral results. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the years, internal political divisions on Europe and contradictory signals to our European counterparts have meant that our preparation to reap the undoubted benefits from the EU has still to be completed.

This therefore is not the time to give contradictory messages to the present leadership. The confirmation of confidence in the present government is not to give the party which has been in power for so long a 'blank cheque mandate' that it can rest on its laurels. Far from it!

To confirm confidence in the present government would mean to responsibilise it. It would mean to reaffirm its mandate to perform what the electorate entrusted it to do in 2003. To do what is necessary to reform the economy even if at first it may hurt. It would mean above all finally putting the political agenda on the backburner to stop debating internal soul-searching issues on Europe.

In other words to get on with the job.

If the government were to fail, then the electorate has the duty to pass on the task to the opposition parties at the next general elections in the full respect of our EU membership.

By then it is sincerely hoped that the opposition parties, the Labour party and Alternattiva Demokratika, would have got their act in order to menace effectively the government on a truly consistent and effective pro-EU political platform.

Within the opposition, the gap on Europe seems to be narrowing. Both, historically, had a late start on the EU and both are in the process of getting to terms with this new reality. It is important therefore to assess each of the opposition parties' consistency. The MLP seems to lack credibility as a pro-EU opposition party while Alternattiva still has to work out a credible left-wing alternative-government programme which does not feed on protest votes.

It is evident that within the MLP, consensus on Europe does not exist. Their internal debate on accession is far from over. In fact one distinctly feels that a difficult ceasefire on the EU seems to have been reached. The first contradiction which exists within the Labour Party concerns their very leader.

Not only has the party retained the leader who when returned to power in 1996 froze the application to join the EU, he is also the very same leader who vowed not to sign the accession treaty if he were returned to power in 2003, in clear contradiction to the wishes of the electorate expressed at the referendum.

A second contradiction exists in that a significant number of No voters at the referendum have publicly declared that consistency would dictate that they vote at the local councils but not for the EP, still following Dr Sant's directive at the referendum as applied to the European elections.

A third contradiction exists in the very list of the MLP candidates. Wenzu Mintoff has, in the mould of his leader, survived many contradictions to reach his current position. Up till now Dr Mintoff''s varied political career seemed consistent on his anti-EU ticket: As Labour MP in 1992 and party activitist during the referendum and the 2003 general elections, he always followed the party's anti-EU position.

Even more dramatic is Joe Debono Grech, who has survived from the 1970s Montoffian division of Europe into that of "Cain" and that of "Abel", onto the freezing of the EU application in the 1990's and finally adopting the MLP's opposition to the referendum and the MLP electoral position in 2003.

I sincerely hope that our Labour Euro MPs will not become like those other MEPs who campaigned for the no vote during our referendum convinced that there existed no contradiction between being Euro MPs and denigrating all that smacked of the EU!

Contradictions which certainly do not help the building of a new and stronger Europe.

Alternattiva may today have gone a long way from when they were led by the Wenzu Mintoff-Toni Abela tandem, until recently two convinced opponents of the EU. Few realise that it was only in the run-up to the referendum that Alternattiva formally adopted a Yes position, in fact after the formation of the Yes movement.

Alternattiva are therefore undergoing a profound change from their traditional position of being merely a reaction to the Mintoffian excesses to a more pro-European position. Harry Vassallo has done much to further this important transition - a transition which has still to be completed through its maturing into an alternative left-wing, Green opposition party to the present centre-right party in government.

The Greens are allied to the Socialists in government in Germany and to the centre-left opposition in Italy. In both cases in contradiction to the European ideological counterparts of the Nationalist Party.

Some of the hottest issues discussed at the European Parliament involve a democratic clash of values involving the human person and its relationship with society. This European debate is not a Catholic-lay divide as was first mis-stated at the beginning of this campaign. It cannot be denied that on the most controversial issues the Greens are firmly to the left of the battle and therefore the local Greens should find no difficulty in aligning themselves ideologically at the left of the European spectrum from the Christian-Democrats.

I will not mince words. The Greens contributed to the EU cause during the referendum. This however does not make them Demo-Christians, Nationalists or in government.

They are in opposition to the Nationalist government and as such have to evolve the economic and social programmes necessary for Malta within the EU should the centre-right fail. The centre-left is currently divided on Europe and it is only if they reconciled their profound differences, particularly on Europe, that the left could become a modern pro-EU alternative to the present government.