MEPs must not give a false impression of what they do at the European Parliament. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli

Recently, I was approached to answer a number of questions for a quick interview on a broad range of issues. I agreed and was presented with a question paper covering subjects from immigration to spring hunting to flying the EU flag at sporting events.

Instead of a blank space allowing politicians to answer truthfully, in depth and cover a multitude of layers of any given issue and present the reader with their studied opinion, I was given a choice of multiple option answers, essentially: Yes. No. Maybe. I don’t know. Or something on those lines.

The idea seemed to be to create some form of online application that would match your answers with those of a particular candidate and tell you who best represents your views.

Now I believe that ‘there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers’ and that any question asked deserves a reply. But to reduce our political representatives to picking one predefined answer seems to me to be less of an exercise in seeking the truth and more of an easy way out.

Not being one to be easily put off, I answered the questionnaire, manually amending the written options given to me to better reflect what I believe. I can only imagine the programming difficulties I created for the app designer.

But that is the very point. Issues are rarely straightforward. The dossiers that I deal with every day are never all black or all white. Inevitably, each comes with its very own shade of grey and we need to have faith that the people we elect to represent us are capable of seeing all the angles.

Tough decisions cannot simply be reduced to multiple-choice answers. The Joseph Muscat way of one-liner politics is not the way we should aspire to emulate and it will not be my way. I have more respect for my constituents than that.

Too often, political thought is ignored at the expense of cheap headlines

Take immigration. My choice was whether or not burden sharing is feasible (in this case, I also changed the question – people are a responsibility and should not be reduced to a burden).

Immigration is emotive, precisely because we have allowed it to become a myriad of sound bites and irrationality without looking at the issue in enough depth or proposing solutions that do not even scratch the surface of the issue. Immigration is not only about sharing the responsibility or only about Muscat’s illegal push-back attempt.

It is about finding long-term solutions to helping countries in Africa get back on their feet; it is about reforming EU agricultural policies that only helps keep them in a no-hope cycle; it is about creating a system whereby people can apply for protection in third countries without having to cross a dangerous sea; it is about improving border management and tackling criminal gangs that prey on the most vulnerable of people; it is about better integration measures and visa policies; it is about having a proper system of fair sharing of responsibilities among member states; it is about reforming flawed EU legislation which does not work. It is about having a holistic, all-encompassing approach.

Remove one aspect of it and all you will have a half-baked solution.

Take spring hunting. EU law allows Malta a derogation for very strictly limited and controlled hunting in spring. Muscat’s plan to widen the rules means that even Malta’s hard-argued derogation is now under threat.

The almost-impunity with which some people illegally kill protected species is shameful but a government that promised everything to everyone must now face the consequences. We have already seen the first signs of an attempt to delay or not allow a referendum on the mater despite all the criteria demanded by law being fulfilled.

When the country is worried about rising unemployment and lack of job security, we were not asked about our detailed proposals to create a climate of entrepreneurship, investment and job-creation but about whether the EU flag should be flown at sporting events instead of the Maltese one.

It shouldn’t, by the way.

We should expect more from our representatives. Malta needs better than one-size-fits-all politicians. We need concrete proposals and steadfast principles. We need proper arguments that distinguish between our values, vision, ideas and experience.

At a house visit, recently, I was shown a fading photo of the first Nationalist Party Cabinet in 1987. A who’s who of political heavyweights that helped shape a generation and a country. It got me thinking. In this day and age, when political discourse is reduced to multiple-choice questions, how many of them would we elect?

Too often, political thought is ignored at the expense of cheap headlines, a situation no better personified than in our Prime Minister himself who, in the midst of a Cabinet uprising, resignations and reshuffles, hid from view, ignored the press and his public and chose only to communicate via a tweet. This country is bigger than the 140 characters #JosephMuscat graced us with.

I do understand that it may be more convenient for some people to digest single-word replies but we need to be careful not to give a false impression of what we – members of the European Parliament – do every day. We negotiate, we compromise and we thrash out legislation, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, page by page. Many things are complex, but then, when did complexity become a vice?

There is no magical iPhone app that is going to tell you who to elect. Do your research, ask your questions, assess the answers and vote. Make your voice known but, as for multiple-choice answers, you deserve more, much more, from us, your representatives.

www.facebook.com/Roberta.Metsola

Twitter: @RobertaMetsola

Roberta Metsola is a Nationalist MEP.