There is this sneaking suspicion that we all love a controversy, more so if it happens to be an issue that provokes national debate. As a nation, we seem to thrive on such inexhaustible sources of everyday hubbub, but we also enjoy coming to a climax with an election (no saucy pun intended) or a referendum.

Finally, however, there is also a welcome trend towards killing these issues once and for all, though some will continue to persist with their jarring of the national psyche. Since independence in the mid-1960s, itself a controversial new chapter that only came more or less to a close in the late 1970s with the historic - and real - closure of the foreign military base, attitudes to such issues as civil marriage, European Union membership, divorce, civil union and hunting have been more or less tribal in both content and treatment. Most of these issues, if not all, can still be felt simmering somewhere near the edge of daily public debate.

There was no referendum on the civil marriage issue, but many still remember the racket raised in the media and inside some churches at the time, over the introduction of this important civil right. Some of those crusaders are with us to this day, still lamenting the fact that Malta is no longer a fundamentalist state where religious beliefs can overrule citizens' rights. Decades later, however, the divorce referendum thankfully put an end to all their forlorn hopes.

The EU membership referendum result also drew a line under a controversy that had the nation divided on almost 50-50 lines. It is a reflection of the positive nature of some of our major politicians that the issue has not been declared dogma, but was rightly accepted on truly democratic grounds. This nation loves a debate, but it has somehow grown out of its infantile attitudes of the past. Or has it?

The civil union law in Parliament soon after the March 2013 general election left a sour taste in the mouths of those who had ardently hoped the Nationalist Opposition would agree to change its view on such matters. Its debacle in Parliament over the issue was as big and as resounding as the hefty electoral defeats at both national and European levels.

Now we have another referendum to contend with, this time on spring hunting. Hunting, like all the other big issues, has been haunting us for far too long on radio, television, the newspapers and the social media. I feel good about the fact that we are getting what we were promised - a referendum minus the direct (and hopefully indirect) involvement of the big political parties.

The Labour Party has already said it intends to let its MPs and members vote as they wish - for or against spring hunting, with Prime Minister Joseph Muscat going even further by giving a consistent personal view of it all.

Characteristically, the Opposition leader has, at least up to the time of writing, been slow and hesitant in reacting to the referendum news. His party, he said, still needs to discuss the issue before making any pronouncements. He even refused to reply to journalists asking about his own personal intentions, which is hardly surprising. One needs to remember that Simon Busuttil was a protagonist within the Yes camp during the 2003 EU membership referendum campaign and he was directly involved in the pre-accession talks with the "Brussels sprouts" that eventually led to Malta's spring hunting derogation from EU laws.

Will Busuttil now agree to vote for the abolition of the derogation he helped negotiate in the first place? Or will he support its retention? People wait with bated breath.

Once this controversy's head is eventually axed, what next to debate inside the nation's living rooms? Probably the Gozo bridge/tunnel project. That should be fun too. I have never been one to hide my intentions. It will be NO, i.e. ban spring hunting, and NO to destroying Gozo's secret to success as a unique destination - that stretch of water that keeps it safely different from the mainland.  

***********************

Downright Downers

There is no denying that the MHRA represents some of the major stakeholders in the tourism industry and one would expect it to be monitoring and commenting on issues and developments that can have an impact on its members. However, one cannot help being irked by their horrible public display of patronisation concerning the collapse of Cyprus Air in relation to the current state of affairs at Air Malta. While the MHRA has every right to express its concern, it certainly should not address the members of other unions involved in the negotiations aimed at salvaging our national airline after many years of political interference and, as one blogger put it, "politically bungled decisions".

It was unquestionably unfair to address a so-called section of Air Malta employees as if it is they who are holding the nation hostage when they have, in fact, been there for decades, keeping the tourism industry going even in the most difficult times, such as when British Airways decided to stop flying to Malta. These MHRA downers seem to have preferred to overlook the contribution made by all Air Malta employees and their unions to effectively harmonise the national effort at bringing the company back from the fringes.

To use the Cyprus Air catastrophe as a lever was uncalled for, callous and highly divisive, when we should all be looking forward to seeing a leaner, more efficient and better-equipped Air Malta. The last thing we need is these MHRA downers.

*********************

 Royal woes

Some people take exception to my expressed views on matters that actually do not concern me as a Maltese citizen. My inate hostility to royalty in general, and the British royal family in particular, is often misconstrued as a futile attitude, an argument I have always rejected on the basis of how our past as a colony was scrutinised by the former masters' media and institutions, as many American institutions after all do today, as if they own the world.

It is consoling, however, to know that my views are not always met with derision by many British friends. Take the British republican movement, for example. It has been in existence for decades and its list of members boasts an incredible number of public figures, from artists and politicians to rockers and writers. They know theirs is a long and almost impossible battle to win, the nearest they got being immediately after Diana's tragic death in Paris, when the royals instantly became unpopular with the vast majority of hard-working citizens of Britain.

Since then, things have actually got worse. There are new attractive royal in-laws and new royal babies to be fussed over, so it's easy to win back some unmerited kudos.

In contrast, however, there is always the royal escapade to rock the boat, as with the recent case involving Andrew and allegations of under-age sex on the other side of the Atlantic.

The Republicans have quickly gone back on the attack and are busily responding to media enquiries and raising questions about the affair, going as far as to declare that the prince is "not fit to be in public office". They insist that his actions and friendships leave his position as a representative of the British nation untenable. Even the mainstream media have been busy, with all the usually pro-royal papers and news channels asking serious questions about Andrew and the future of the monarchy.

The British Republicans have been asking what the UK government knows about the allegations and when it was made aware of them, and whether it has lobbied the US to protect Andrew from legal action.

If Andrew were a government minister, he would have been forced to resign long ago - particularly in the light of recent media coverage. The problem is, he hasn't got a real position from which to resign: you can't resign from a family.