Prime Minister Joseph Muscat faced a mini-revolt within the Labour Party during the 2013 election campaign when he publicly proposed making changes to Malta's neutrality clause, without consulting the parliamentary group and PL delegates.
Ivan Grech Mintoff, the nephew of former Labour Prime Minister Dom Mintoff, said yesterday that Labour insiders were shocked by this sudden change in direction by Dr Muscat.
At a time when the PL was presenting itself as a united movement, in sharp contrast to the fragmented Nationalist Party, such a revolt would have been potentially damaging to the campaign.
Mr Grech Mintoff says that although he was no longer part of the PL at the time, he had spoken to many insiders who were angered by the lack of consultation over potential changes to Malta's neutrality clause.
He said that Dr Muscat was "warned" that if he continued to speak publicly about making changes to the neutrality clause, people within the party would publicly declare their opposition.
Ultimately, a gentleman's agreement was reached in that Dr Muscat agreed to refrain from making any further public declarations about the matter, which would only be taken up again after the election.
Speaking yesterday at the launch of his book entitled Neutrality as enshrined in the Maltese Constitution and its relevance today, Mr Grech Mintoff says that everyone within the PL agreed on the need for a change in government, and therefore did not want to endanger the election campaign due to the issue.
Neutrality should not be subject to whims of foreign powers
He argues in the book that Malta's neutrality clause should not be subject to the whims of foreign powers like the EU.
He is adamant that Malta should not be drawn into any EU military campaigns in Libya.
This week, EU ministers said such a campaign in Libyan territory would involve "a broad range of air, maritime and land capabilities".
Such capabilities will include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; boarding teams; patrol units (air and maritime); amphibious assets; destruction of traffickers' assets from air, land and sea, including the involvement of Special Forces units. Such actions, EU ministers resolved, will take place "along the coast, in harbour or at anchor [against] smugglers' assets and vessels before their use".
In the past, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has spoken of providing "logistical support" to a potential United Nations-mandated peacekeeping mission, though ruled out sending any Maltese troops to Libya.
The UN has not, as yet, signed off on any such missions in Libya.
Government back-bencher Marlene Farrugia, who was present during the book launch, said the government is in no way lobbying for war.
"We are trying to promote dialogue and working for peace within the EU institutions," she said, while making it clear that she was speaking in her own personal capacity and not as a government spokesperson.
Dr Farrugia said that the "huge immigration problem" with all its implications might raise the need for "different solutions," and the government would like nothing more than to have peace in Libya.
She pointed out that it is not as simple as getting the two rival government in Libya around a table for talks, as there is a third power in the country in the form of the Islamic terrorist group ISIS.
"The Maltese government's wish is to help in any way possible to promote and broker a peaceful solution," she said.
Countering this, Mr Grech Mintoff argued that if the government was serious about such a proposition, it should not be looking at forming part of a military campaign in Libya, but should instead be actively working to bring the two sides together.
He pointed out that there has been no debate on the matter in the Maltese Parliament, and Maltese MEPs do not understand Malta's neutrality clause and what is happening in Europe.
Dr Farrugia said it's true that MPs have been kept in the dark about the matter, even within the Labour Parliamentary group.
She drew a parallel to the American University development at Zonqor Point, saying she had to suffer the "humiliation" of finding out about the project though the investor's lawyer rather than through the Prime Minister.