As a famous late American baseball legend whose name escapes me once said, “It’s like déjà vu all over again”. The very thought of another referendum on spring hunting, which means another fierce campaign by rival lobbies and yet another emotional crescendo leading to a discussion off the list of severely weathered national issues, does make many of us feel somewhat perplexed. Even those who, like me, had voted no to spring hunting, find it is too soon and the result still highly predictable.
It is only three years since the referendum that sought to abolish the spring hunting season altogether was held, and that’s when voters narrowly decided in favour of retaining it, originally agreed to by EU negotiators during the accession talks. BirdLife Malta existed then, why had it chosen to remain silent? Political motives?
However expensive to hold, particularly for such a small nation as ours, referenda are an important gauge in every democratic society, but it does not mean we have to end up repeating them until one side finally gets its way. Would not the other side then start a new process to have yet another referendum in the hope of reversing the earlier decision? Do we really have to again spend so much time and energy tiptoeing through the democratic tulips when a reasonable wait for an encore makes so much more sense?
I am not rescinding my view on the issue and if, in the foreseeable or not so foreseeable future, another referendum to put an end to spring hunting is held I would still vote as I did. Please give us, the down-to-earth ladies and gents of the electorate, a break. BirdLife’s insistence that “the prospect of seeking a second referendum was raised because of government provocation” sounds incredibly hollow given it is talking about a government which actually accepted and fairly ran the first referendum.
The NGO, which has done as much sterling work in its field as it has spent time tediously pestering even the bona fide hunters on the island, took exception to the consultative Ornis Committee’s proposal of moving the spring hunting season for quail to coincide with the peak migration of turtle doves. It referred to the fact that the said committee includes government representatives, but avoided saying that it also includes representatives from the hunting and bird conservation sectors, as well as respected experts from both.
Environment Minister Jose Herrera has been taken to task for insisting, when speaking in his personal capacity, that the electorate had already had its say and quite rightly argued that “once a decision is made, that’s it. I don’t think it is reasonable to hold a referendum again on the same topic in such a short time frame”.
One can see the common sense and practicality in Dr Herrera’s thoughts on the issue. He asked: “What is the point of a referendum if it is held and an opinion has been expressed only for it to be held again a few years later?” Many people, for example, are putting the same question with regard to the Brexit issue in the UK. Just because a referendum result does not happen to tally with your own view of the issue under the public lens does not warrant another quick second referendum in the hope that this time it will go your way.
Time will of course tell when another referendum on spring hunting is due. The cycle of generations will see to that and it’s on BirdLife’s side. With the recent introduction of 16-year-olds to the electorate, it is very likely that hunting and bird-trapping traditions will not stay long on the national back burner. Three years is certainly not enough of a break from the contentious issue, and I find the insistence on it rather arrogant and impudent, especially since the NGO does not seem to offer any cannon fodder against the Opposition party, which also clearly does not want to antagonise the hunting community.
When Alfred Sant’s Labour had misinterpreted the EU membership referendum result to suit its political stance at the time, it had provoked a wave of contempt among the pro-membership lobby. Imagine if there had been a call for another quick referendum on the issue before or after Malta had taken the step of joining the Brussels-based Union! Hell would have broken loose, with the “yes” lobby and their conservative media buddies condemning even the idea by a resort to fast-food thoughts on democracy and “the people have spoken”.
Today no one in Malta seriously entertains the idea of another EU membership referendum, but it can happen any day, any time in the distant future. After all, the Brexit referendum took place after the UK had been an EU member state for no less than 43 years (there was an overwhelming vote to confirm in 1975, but that was only meant to cement things on an issue that had been decided earlier without consulting the electorate).
That is only the future. Again, no one can predict what will become of Italy under a new populist, anti-Europe government if they ever get round to forming it. The generations there have shifted in their decades-old cycle. The same will one day apply for spring hunting in Malta.
***
Only one Blue Lagoon
I see that the Thai authorities are seriously considering banning tourist boats from entering the world famous Maya Bay where the 2000 blockbuster film “The Beach” was set, to help protect the reef. It is estimated that up to 5,000 people a day visit the small stretch of sand on the island of Koh Phi Phi Leh.
On reading the item, I could not help identifying the Maya Bay problems with our own Blue Lagoon at Comino. One irate tour guide complained about “full trash bags thrown off the boats” and “boats knocking corals and destroying everything”. The bay’s popularity has, over the last 18 years, taken its toll on the environment with reports that up to 80 per cent of the coral in the bay is now dead, destroyed by anchors, people standing on it, and pollution from sun cream and fuel.
Effective measures have been taken over the years to protect Comino’s Blue Lagoon, but they are never enough. While losing the Azure Window to Mother Nature was considered a major, inevitable event, the same cannot be said of the Blue Lagoon if we do not protect it more than we have done so far. Human imprint has already had its consequences, and losing the lagoon because of it would be losing a unique physical feature that cannot be retrieved, nor replaced by some other similar spot as people seem to have done in the case of the Azure Window. There is only one Blue Lagoon.