Of course the recent shenanigans in Parliament are childish. We have seen politicians of all colours and nationalities resort to infantile behaviour when pushed into a corner.

But, politicians’ behaving immaturely does not go down well with the electorate. We think that we have voted in responsible adults and find out that they can quickly degenerate into squabbling juveniles.

It is all part of the political game, as the Prime Minister knows only too well, and both parties partake when it suits. I understand that the Labour Party (PL) were correct in trying to amend the minutes of what happened, on Thursday 6 May, but what a farce.

As I wrote in my column last Sunday, since despite all the posturing, “at the end of the day all MPs will vote with their party regardless, it is taken as read that all opposition motions and amendments will be defeated by one vote”, hence the PL’s frustrations and the furore over Mario Galea’s wrong vote.

And that is why the opposition is digging its heels in. The latest non-cooperation move has come about because Joseph Muscat and his party’s MPs do not have much room to manoeuvre and all they can do is cause as much disruption as possible.

However, if the allegations that Tonio Borg fabricated that Justyne Caruana voted against her party to save the Mario Galea lost vote are true, then that goes beyond political playoffs and falls into the truly shameful category.

The public needs verification and fast on whether our Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Tonio Borg just made the whole thing up to save the PN from accepting the Opposition motion condemning the government over the way the contract for the extension was granted.

Until that is done the PN should be worried. The public in general, from what I hear on the streets, is sceptical about the Delimara extension contract. “Fishy” is how many are describing it.

Furthermore, Tonio Borg’s intervention on the conflict of interest Labour motion on Charlo Bonnici (PN), saying that he did not see any direct, or even indirect pecuniary, interest with the subject matter of the motion has seriously dented his credibility.

Mr Bonnici works for Zaren Vassallo, who won the civil works contract of the Delimara extension, and his direct boss was Alex Tranter, then chairman of Enemalta, who himself was regarded as having a conflict of interest by the auditor general.

It is incredible that a Cabinet minister, and a lawyer to boot, can claim that one’s salary has no bearing on a pecuniary interest. As I concluded last week it is pretty obvious to anyone who can walk and chew gum that anyone working for someone with a vested interest in the debated contract did indeed have a conflict of interest.

As the Nationalist Party meets at its general council this weekend, it would do well to conduct a bit of retro and introspection. It needs to stop burying its head in the sand and confront the serious issues that are alienating the electorate.

As Tonio Borg told his colleagues on Friday evening “Serious parliamentarians did not play games - neither in Parliament nor out of it”, one wonders whom exactly he was referring to.

Going back to the developments in Parliament on the vote approving the minutes on the Delimara extension contract has only served to confuse the issue further. Unfortunately, it seems that the only recordings that have been presented came from a PL source and if any exist from a PN source they have not surfaced.

No wonder that the Parliament sitting was such a shambles when the minutes of that evening had to be approved.

Anglu Farrugia, the deputy leader of the PL, called for an amendment to the minutes with regard to the voting on Thursday night. He presented a recording to show that Justyne Caruana voted “yes” and not “no”, as Tonio Borg alleged.

He read a sworn declaration by Dr Caruana saying that she voted in favour of the Opposition motion. He also read a sworn declaration by Joseph Muscat and all the Labour MPs saying that they had heard Dr Caruana vote “yes”.

Yet, the leader of the House, Foreign Minister Borg, insisted that the minutes as presented to the House were accurate and did not need to be amended.

So is he claiming that the recording presented was not authentic? The fact that Parliament had its speakers turned off for such a crucial vote hardly inspires confidence.

That opposition amendment was also defeated with 35 against and 34 in favour.

Unfortunately, the public perception is not as confident that the minutes were accurate on that score. Surprise, surprise, another amendment, moved by Dr Farrugia, asking to delete references in the minutes to the second vote taken on Thursday night, saying that vote was ultra vires, was also defeated 35 to 34.

And that is the way the evening proceeded, with every single amendment proposed by Labour being defeated by one vote.

Alfred Sant, the previous Labour leader, disputed the wording in the minutes about the Clerk and the Clerk Assistant because it was not specified who they “reported” to.

I am assuming that this referred to Justine Caruana’s alleged vote against her party, especially since Dr Borg said this part of the minutes had already been voted on and could not be discussed further.

Justyne Caruana rose to question why the Clerk had not raised her doubts immediately, if the vote had not been clear last Thursday. She also wanted to know who had raised doubts about her and said she would not allow anyone to frame her or lie about her.

She said the minutes mentioned her but not others. This was discrimination with complicity between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chair, she claimed and demanded that her name be removed.

The Speaker suspended the sitting for a ruling and came back saying that Dr Sant was in order, as this was a correct time to raise any objections to the minutes, but the Chair (the Speaker) itself could not amend the minutes once they had been presented to the House.

Dr Sant then moved an amendment, which of course was also defeated by 35 to 34. Then Dr Caruana reiterated her call for a ruling on the points she had raised and the sitting was again suspended at 11.15 p.m.

In response, 15 minutes later, the Speaker, Michael Frendo said that since the clerk was abroad for health reasons, he would as Chair give a ruling in the future.

To which Carmelo Abela (Labour) said the minutes could not be approved unless the ruling was given. However, the Speaker ruled that the House could proceed since no amendment was being requested.

Mr Abela argued that the Chair could give its ruling in another sitting and the minutes could be approved then, but Dr Frendo said there had been ample opportunities for amendments and he did not agree with Mr Abela’s argument.

Dr Caruana then moved an amendment to remove her name from the minutes claiming discrimination because the names of other MPs had not been smeared as hers was.

This was naturally defeated.

I say naturally not to imply the amendments’ irrelevance, but because of the futility of the whole time-wasting voting travesty.

Dr Sant said that the pending ruling requested by Dr Caruana could affect the minutes. If the minutes were to be approved, how would they be amended, if necessary, in the future, on the basis of the ruling once the Chair could not amend the minutes itself?

The Speaker said the MPs had been given every opportunity to move amendments and time had come to proceed to the final vote on the minutes. He did not think, at this stage, that the ruling would affect the minutes, as Dr Caruana had requested information.

She had of course done more than ask who had “framed” her. Her amendment was that her name should be removed, claiming discrimination.

When Dr Sant insisted on his point, the Speaker suspended the sitting to give a decision.

At 12.35 a.m. the Speaker ruled that Dr Caruana had requested information. He said that in terms of Standing Orders the Chair was requesting the final vote on the minutes.

The sitting was again suspended at 12.36 for the final vote on the minutes.

The minutes were approved without any of the opposition amendments, just before 1 a.m. with 35 votes in favour and 34 against.

It took seven hours of Parliament time for the minutes to be approved. In fact of course the government side of the House approved them, since the opposition disapproved strongly but lost on the vote on every amendment to rectify what it saw as a true record of what took place.

[email protected]