After a national vote, in a general election or referendum, one side is obviously upset by the outcome. Yet the reaction of the losing side of the UK Brexit vote was unusually strong.
Petitions and demonstrations of disappointed voters immediately demanded a retake. The media explored the notion of ‘buyer’s remorse’, interviewing people regretting their choice. The gravity of the consequences began to sink in.
Buyers sometimes regret a purchase, made impulsively or without checking the label. But the shop may not exchange goods, or perhaps you have lost the receipt. You are lumped with it.
Why this sudden Brexit remorse? There are always, inevitably, swathes of people who vote without thinking too hard about it, and those who are dissatisfied. In this sense, this referendum was no different.
One reason for the shock and distress is the closing of doors. A ‘Remain’ vote could still have left the door open for ‘Leave’ in the future, but not vice versa.
The very idea of holding referenda has been questioned. Should people vote on complex questions? Perhaps the big issues should be left to their parliamentary representatives, who might know more.
I don’t agree with that line. People vote for MPs and their political manifestos in general elections. What could be more complex, unpredictable and unreliable than that? Members of Parliament or governments do not always take great decisions. I disagree with UK voters wanting to leave the EU, but referenda often do have a good outcome.
In March 2003, Malta held its own EU membership referendum. At the time, 53.6% of the voters voted to join the EU and 46.4% voted against. There is wide consensus today that it was the right decision.
As in last week’s UK vote, there was also an ‘out’ camp in the Maltese referendum in 2003. The Malta Labour Party, then in Opposition, was against joining the EU. Some of their arguments, as in the Brexit ‘Leave’ campaign, revolved around immigration.
A main fear was an influx of ‘foreigners’ into Malta, who would invade the island and take all the jobs, leading to unemployment for the Maltese.
The net profit and loss of this unnecessary political gamble has yet to be calculated
Last week, the Maltese government announced that work permits for jobs in restaurants will be granted to non-EU nationals as there is a shortage in the labour market. Maltese passports have been put up for sale to whoever can afford them. Perhaps the British will now buy them too. So much for the fear of an invasion and unemployment.
Eurobarometer surveys showed that the Maltese were among the best informed on EU membership of the countries who joined in 2004. Maltese voters made the right choice, despite half our MPs being against membership. Politicians can be pretty misguided too.
Our own Prime Minister today, Joseph Muscat, had campaigned strongly against EU membership. I am very glad that he has changed his mind, but it is a sobering thought that he got it so wrong on such a major vision for this country’s future.
I just hope that he is not getting it equally wrong on those big contracts kept hidden at Castille, which are the subject of many unanswered press questions. Why are they not published? They have huge and long-term implications, such as on the future of Malta’s energy sector or its health service. Like Brexit, it will not be easy to reverse the outcome if mistakes are made. Like high-rise buildings, they will be here to stay.
Another referendum in recent years was on divorce. The Nationalist government of the day respected the voters’ mandate and introduced divorce legislation, but Lawrence Gonzi personally voted against it in Parliament for reasons of conscience as did several other MPs. Again, I am glad that the decision was taken out of the hands of politicians through a referendum or we might still have no divorce in Malta.
The referendum on Spring hunting did not have the outcome I wanted. The leaders of both main political parties voted in favour of retaining the practice but left a free choice to their MPs. People followed suit and voted to retain Spring hunting, by a small majority.
Ironically, the hunters themselves have just called for a hunting moratorium on one of the two hunted species, turtle doves, due to concerns about a serious decline. This problem was flagged by the ‘No Spring Hunting’ camp during the referendum, but ignored. In my view, allowing the continued killing of birds in Spring was not a good decision by voters.
Referendum results are a mixed bag. They don’t always achieve the desired outcome. Yet of course they can have positive results. Most importantly, they empower the electorate to reach beyond specific parochial or partisan concerns of their MPs.
One of the main weaknesses of the Brexit referendum were dishonest elements in the campaign. Politicians tried to influence voters with claims which were either misleading or untrue.
Will these politicians be held accountable if leaving the EU turns out to be the wrong choice for Britain? Not really. The voting public must carry the can. Some heads have already rolled and more may fall, but the net profit and loss of this unnecessary political gamble has yet to be calculated.
petracdingli@gmail.com