Joseph Muscat said he was the underdog (sic -33,000 majority) but wanted to be the first party in government to obtain the largest number of votes in a European Parliament election; yet he hedged himself from the possibility of losing his party’s fourth seat – just about with a difference of around 200 votes. So we have an underdog, who confirms a massive majority and loses a fourth seat very narrowly. I’d like to know what a real underdog is. All this reminds me from of some insurance or similar advert on Sky television depicting a small pitiful dog, covered in bandages.

The truth is that Labour more or less retained the majority it obtained in 2013 and the Nationalists won a third seat by a whisker, as they won the 2008 general elections after all – so the signs of what was to come were already there then. Simon Busuttil took a great risk in stating that he was looking at a third seat, not at winning a majority of votes. What would his future have been had he not won that third seat? But he played his cards well, if only just about, and thus has procured a basis for his survival. Although I was disappointed to read his statement that he will not commissioning a report of the EP results. If ever there was a need for a truly independent and objective report it is after this election and not that in 2013. In the latter general elections the writing was clearly on the wall – had been since 2008. This time round many expected some sort of inroad. So why not investigate properly and seriously?

But the most interesting point in all this are the elusive 80,000 votes; those who did not collect their vote or did not vote. Also interesting, though ominous and worrying, are the number of votes obtained by Norman Lowell’s “Imperium Europa”, even surpassing Alternattiva Demokratika. I would dare state that the 80,000 consisting of the following: a sector which doesn’t vote anyway; switchers (from the PN, of course) who regretted voting for Labour in 2013 but were reluctant to return to the PN; Labourites who were disappointed with their party, either because they were excluded from “Malta Taghna Lkoll” or they disapproved of the mistakes and gaffes committed in year one; and Nationalists who were disappointed with the new leadership of the Nationalist Party, seeing that nothing had been achieved since March 2013. And by nothing being achieved I am referring to concrete, down to earth, “going back to your people” results.

Imperium Europa (Norman Lowell’s stick and all) is another matter altogether. I believe there were two factors in the overall creditable vote. Firstly, there are people, particularly in the south (where IE got the most votes) who are genuinely concerned and seriously worried about the influx of migrants – and not because they are racists. Secondly, Norman Lowell and Co. are a convenient conduit for Labour supporters to express a protest vote, such as, for example, those in Marsaxlokk and Birzebbuga who have to face a gas tanker, which they oppose. These people wanted to vote, but they would not vote Labour or Nationalist. Further, in a country which is basically sick and tired of politics and politicians , sick and tired of arrogance and sick and tired of impropriety, it is attractive to play at the Norman Lowell type of game, even if just for fun. But I must repeat and stress once again that the man is dangerous and all democratic political parties (including “L-Ajkla!) must beware and get together to form a common strategy to snuff out this sort of outfit; although one cannot but say that it has been a trend throughout Europe. So it is a transcontinental problem which must be tackled jointly by the European Union and particularly, its Parliament.

We had, I presume, 104,000 hunters marching down Republic Street on Monday, with trolleys of (we are told) petitions. They were met by the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for hunting (and trapping, of course), being also a hunter himself, I believe, and legal advisor (I stand to be corrected) to the Federation of Hunters, Trappers and Conservationists (sic). So how many conflicts of interest do we count? The Government should have sent someone else to receive this petition instead of ‘Mr Conflict of Interest’. Now, OK, the latter is going to place the petition on the Table of House of Representatives (trollies and all?). Such a petition does not carry the legal weight of the signatures collected for an abrogative referendum on spring hunting.

Who are the people who signed this petition? It will never be verified whether the 104,000 or so signatures and personal details are authentic. Have they been signed twice by the same persons; have they been falsified? The 40,000 signatures collected for an abrogative referendum will be checked one by one by the Electoral Commission. That is the difference. And in any case, a mere petition is certainly an expression of will but nothing more. We have had loads of petitions presented at Parliament’s doors and those of the Prime Minister over the years. Has anything become of them? Perhaps ‘Mr Conflict of Interest” will present a motion in the House, but God forbid, for the sake of democracy, that a mere petition is given prominence over or even overrides a constitutional right that is the abrogative referendum.