In the course of a debate taking a full week and spread over nine sittings, MPs debated a motion proposing that parliament authorises the government to hold a referendum.
The motion was approved by 34 votes against 30, all members present voting according to their party line.
The proceedings of parliament were broadcast on radio and had strong listenership. Of rhetoric there was aplenty, of substance there was much less.
The referendum will be held on March 8, and the electorate (and the party machines) will zero in on the question to be put, namely: "Do you agree that Malta should join the European Union at the enlargement due on May 1, 2004?"
By now, politicians and the media have belaboured the issue to the point of exhaustion. They have spoken from their respective perspectives. Many did so with conviction. How many went to the core of the argument?
Electors with an open mind on the issue want enlightenment on three aspects that matter:
a) What precise terms have been negotiated for accession?
b) Does acceptance of such terms imply a clear-cut contract or does it imply acceptance of further undefined imponderables?
c) Is this a take-it-or-leave-it choice, or could it be postponed? Or is there an alternative?
If Malta were faced by a Hobson's choice, a referendum would be superfluous. Discussion is therefore in order and the foremost requirement is to be crystal clear on the terms on offer.
Who will escort the electorate to the gate of clarity?
It is the package drawn up and accepted at Copenhagen that needs dissecting with minute care. They are still dotting the 'I's and crossing the 'T's in Brussels in preparation for the definitive document, which will not be available before the end part of this month. Yet, the electorate is being asked to jump the gun and form an opinion, when conflicting claims are being made by government spokesmen.
On the one hand, the prime minister is claiming that "the present government had negotiated a unique arrangement with the EU which practically preserved the status quo".
On the other, the foreign affairs minister has boasted about "over 77 special arrangements granted to Malta". And, as the political vapour begins to clear, one immediately comes face to face with imminent realities should Malta join the EU - such as steep rises in certain food products imported from outside the EU, massive problems for the agro-industrial and other sectors, threats to the security of port and yard workers, the prospects of the introduction of VAT on food and medicine and so on.
These are not speculative ogres. They have a direct bearing on the future well-being of workers, farmers, fishermen, businessmen and consumers. These run in thousands and they have a right to know.
It is pointless to engage in abstract talk about restructuring and the abracadabra of economic engineering. Electors want to know about their own chances of survival. Like hungry sheep, they are looking up and are not being fed with the information vital to their future.
Before making a definitive commitment, it would not be unfair on the part of broad-minded electors to demand where the EU is going.
The EU is evolving at a vertiginous speed. In the next few months, the first ever EU-flagged force will take over peace-keeping from Nato in Macedonia and, by the end of the year, may also be ready to take over the larger Nato operation in Bosnia.
The EU Convention is facing several controversial issues, including the EU's aspirations to strengthen its power in tax and foreign policy, as well as in the balance between big and small member states and between the EU's different institutions.
Parliament did not weigh any of these aspects of the EU in the course of its recent exhaustive debate. Who is there to guide the electorate on the pros and cons before the referendum question is put?
While certain politicians and the media fill the air with irrelevant comment, much of which amounts to blatant propaganda, the voters are more preoccupied with the present and ask whether other options are feasible.
A referendum question that excludes choice is like the blinkers worn by a donkey. It restricts vision.
Many latter-day electors would, I am sure, refuse to wear blinkers and would be determined to look at the whole picture before making commitments that would threaten their own and their children's future.
Although I have tried to be as objective as possible in advancing the above arguments, I am sure there will be politicians and commentators who hold different views. Polemics are not the answer.
It is the detached sovereign elector that has to assess the circumstances and their fullest implications and then to make up his mind when and where it matters.