A few months ago I wrote that a referendum was needed and I stand by it. Not because Europe is a biblical threat or because the association agreement should be rejected by the system, but because no Government should spend millions, adapt structures and advance along the European path as if the country had already said yes. The future of Andorra is not the heritage of any party. However, defending the referendum does not mean accepting a confusing, improvised vote or made on a legal fog. Precisely because the consultation is essential, it must be clear. What cannot happen is that the citizen is called to vote for a feeling: the fear of some, the enthusiasm of others and, in between, a text that not everyone understands yet, not everyone has seen clearly enough and not everyone knows how binding it is. The Government has had years to do real pedagogy and has too often preferred PowerPoint propaganda. He has had time to explain costs, waivers, guarantees and consequences, but the debate remains stuck between slogans. Some sell Europe as if it were life insurance; others present it as if it were a national eviction order. And in the meantime, the country is waiting for a grown-up answer to a grown-up question. That’s why the dilemma is not a yes or no referendum. It is a referendum with light or a referendum by hand. Voting the fog can be used to close a political file. Voting with information serves to legitimize a historic decision. And Andorra does not need a ballot box to get out of the way. You need a ballot box to really decide. And doing it late can’t justify doing it wrong.
