While the input and opinion of the Prime Minister on most matters is not only welcome but indeed of paramount importance, this was certainly not the case when he chose last Sunday, the penultimate Sunday before the 11 April spring hunting referendum, to speak up on the issue.

The leaders of both political parties have taken stances against the referendum and in favour of retaining Malta’s derogation from EU rules that have allowed successive governments to open the spring hunting season year after year - and each for their own reasons.

After their initial statements, both leaders had also pledged to not enter the fray, and that they would allow a referendum campaign to proceed unencumbered by political interference. That was a wise decision given that the spring hunting polemic has been riddled with political interference and controversy practically from day one. 

It started with the Nationalist Party having declared ahead of the EU accession referendum that spring hunting would be protected irrespective of EU membership, only for the European Commission to have hauled Malta before the European Courts of Justice on the matter a few years down the line.  The Labour Party, meanwhile, has made its own dubious pre-electoral pledges to hunters to safeguard the practice and to reduce rules and regulations government the spring hunting season which supposedly went over and above requirements imposed by the European Courts of Justice’s ruling on the matter.

But on Sunday the Prime Minister pushed the envelope by clearly and publically lobbying for a Yes to spring hunting vote on 11 April, despite his pledge to not do so.  During his ‘Sunday sermon’ he also repeated many of the tag lines being used by the hunters’ lobby. 

In short, he lamented the fact that law-abiding hunters face being penalised because of the actions of a few bad apples and that if spring hunting were retained he would ensure the authorities would clamp down on all illegalities.  He described the referendum as an issue of ‘tolerance and respect’ (towards the hunting fraternity) and argued that the Maltese people should be treated as equals with others in Europe, another old by still unsubstantiated line being regurgitated by the hunting lobby.

Not only that, but the Prime Minister also dragged the opposition leader into the fray by declaring that the opposition leader had said he was in favour of retaining the spring hunting derogation although he harbours a secret wish for the referendum to succeed.

It seems that the Prime Minister is intent on politicising the issue, despite the fact that he had promised to not campaign for the referendum. 

Asked about the matter on Monday, the Prime Minister played down Sunday’s remarks, saying that he had only raised the issue once since his initial statement, that his position in favour of retaining the spring hunting derogation was already public and that he had spoken the way he did on Sunday so that everyone would know exactly where he stood on the subject.

But is this not exactly what he said he would not do?

He then turned his guns on journalists present, remarking that they had spoken more about spring hunting during the campaign than he had.

It hard to single out one aspect of the Prime Minister’s remarks as the most outrageous.

Firstly, speaking the way he did on Sunday so that ‘everyone would know where he stood on the subject’ was exactly what he said he would not do.

Secondly, no media organisation or journalist to our knowledge had said they would stay out of the fray, and in fact the country’s independent newspapers, including this one, have taken a joint stance against spring hunting vis-à-vis the referendum.  Moreover, has Dr Muscat forgotten that he is the Prime Minister and that people stand up and listen when he makes statements such as these, and that he has a huge following that takes his every word as Gospel?

Thirdly, his baiting of the opposition leader to enter the fray belies the fact that the Prime Minister would rather see the referendum as a political test rather than an exercise of the people’s voices being heard.  It is hoped that the opposition leader does not take the bait.

 

This referendum goes over and above political considerations. A referendum called by the people on an apolitical issue as in this case is a sacrosanct right of the people and politicians need to stay out of it as they had promised.