For the first time ever, our electorate will be asked to vote in an abrogative referendum, this time to decide whether the derogation on spring hunting is to be abolished or not. I believe that for the first time ever, Maltese citizens will also have the opportunity to cast a vote on a non-political subject with very little input by politicians in the ensuing debate.

Many have expressed the opinion that politicians should not refrain from engaging in a debate. To a certain degree I agree that the political class should not be barred from expressing opinions in debates of a non political nature, however the problem is that there is always a risk that if, for example, the political parties ask their followers to vote one way or the other on such an issue, a rather technical issue would be turned into a political football which could turn the whole thing into a farce.

Yes, I truly believe the subject matter of this referendum is technical in nature. The decision people need to take is whether to allow, or not, the killing of birds during spring when they are on the way to breed, a possibility allowed by a derogation in the Birds Directive negotiated by Malta prior to joining the EU. Is hunting birds during this period sustainable or not? Are the current systems introduced to ensure the safeguarding of this sustainability adequate enough and followed to the letter? What do objective experts have to say about this? One of the arguments put forward by the Yes front is that other EU countries have also obtained derogations and no one challenged such a right. Is this correct? Can someone possibly speak objectively about this issue so that the electorate will be able to vote with a clear mind? Another point raised by the Yes side is that if the No win then its arriverderci to other pastimes. Is this correct? Does our referenda law permit the abrogation of pastimes even if they are not regulated by any law unlike the spring hunting issue?

I would like to follow interesting debates that tackle these and other similar issues to consider both sides of the coin and help people decide in a rational manner.

As I have already stated, both political parties have decided to take a back seat in this debate and fully agree with this stand. This does not mean that individual politicians cannot and should not express a personal opinion on the issue. Of course they should. In fact, both party leaders have declared their personal voting intentions and have also stated that their MPs, local councillors and party activists will vote as they wish in the referendum, so much so that a number of MPs and local councillors have already expressed an opinion. And nobody should take it against any person who does so whatever medium they use to do so. In this regard, I would like to express my solidarity with PN councillor Marco Spiteri and AD councillor Ralph Cassar who both declared their intentions primarily to their voters but received some flak from the hunting lobby. I would have done the same if this had been done to others with a different opinion.

Many expressed surprise when the PN leader announced that he will be voting 'Yes' in the upcoming referendum. I feel that Dr Busuttil was extremely clear in his justification of his vote. He was involved in obtaining a derogation for Malta and helped defend it all the way even to the European Court of Justice. He was part of the side that had given its word to the hunters that when Malta joined the EU the hunters would still safeguard the possibility of hunting, albeit in a limited and controlled way, during the season. It's true, many years have passed and possibly Dr Busuttil could have been justified in changing his stance but consistency is very important for him.

This is why under his leadership the PN did not change its position on spring hunting and hunting in general following the 2013 general election. The party in Opposition wanted to be consistent with its actions when in government. Despite this position, we did not hesitate to ruffle the hunters' feathers when we refused to accept their petition, which we interpreted as an attempt to disrupt the referendum process. Furthermore, irrespective of this position, as the Opposition we were very critical whenever the balance obtained by a Nationalist administration was put in jeopardy through government action. We have reminded all many times that this government could never take objective decisions related to hunting due to its pre-electoral commitments to the hunting lobby.

We take such decisions because we are free to take them. We take them without fear or favour. We cannot please everyone all the time. Probably on this issue we have pleased no one but we still took the decision which we believe is in sync with our values and our quest for consistency, fairness and balance.

As for me, I feel that it would be unethical to speak about my personal voting intentions for the simple reason that following the latest reshuffle I was appointed spokesperson on hunting and trapping. Whenever I speak on this subject, I will do so on behalf of my party and will also retain a working rapport with all parties on this issue. I do have an opinion and will obviously be voting on 11 April; however in the meantime I will be listening to all arguments and retain a balanced view on this issue.

I invite you all to take active interest in this issue. Listen to what both sides have to say and then use your right and fulfil your duty on 11 April by voting in the referendum.

Charlò Bonnici is a Nationalist Member of Parliament