It has been another week of tit for tat in what has become a somewhat lacklustre spring hunting referendum campaign – lacklustre because it seems that all the arguments to be made have already been aired and it appears that the electorate has more or less already made up its mind as to how it will vote, or not vote, for that matter.

According to surveys, it appears that the ‘No’ to spring hunting camp has an ever so slightly comfortable lead. Of course, with two more weeks of campaigning left, more surprises may still be in store but by all appearances it seems that what you have seen so far is what you are going to get.

Given the lack of fresh stimulus in both the Yes and No campaigns, one must ask whether the respective campaigns have run out of steam. In fact, over the last week the one real stand-out moment came courtesy of one of the two people in the country who had vowed not to involve themselves in the campaign.

That was when the Prime Minister misguidedly chose to put his own two cents’ worth into the debate last Sunday by airing his views, on the penultimate Sunday before the 11 April referendum, effectively breaking his word that he would not do so.

The leaders of both political parties have taken stances against the referendum and in favour of retaining Malta’s derogation from EU rules that have allowed successive governments to open the spring hunting season year after year – and each for their own reasons.

After their initial statements, both leaders had also pledged not to enter the fray, and that they would allow a referendum campaign to proceed unencumbered by political interference. That was a wise decision, given that the spring hunting polemic has been riddled with political interference and controversy practically from day one. 

It started with the Nationalist Party having declared – ahead of the EU accession referendum – that spring hunting would be protected, irrespective of EU membership, only for the European Commission to haul Malta before the European Courts of Justice on the matter a few years down the line. The Labour Party, meanwhile, has made its own dubious pre-electoral pledges to hunters to safeguard the practice and to reduce the rules and regulations governing the spring hunting season which, apparently, went above and beyond the requirements imposed by the ruling on the matter by the European Courts of Justice.

But last Sunday the Prime Minister pushed the envelope by clearly and publically lobbying for a Yes to spring hunting vote on 11 April, despite his pledge not to do so. During his ‘Sunday sermon’, he also repeated many of the tag lines being used by the hunters’ lobby. 

In short, he lamented the fact that law-abiding hunters face being penalised because of the actions of a few bad apples and that if spring hunting were retained he would ensure that the authorities clamped down on all illegalities. He described the referendum as an issue of “tolerance and respect” (towards the hunting fraternity) and argued that the Maltese people should be treated as equals with others in Europe, another old but still unsubstantiated line being regurgitated by the hunting lobby.

Not only that, but the Prime Minister also dragged the Opposition Leader into the fray by declaring that he had said he was in favour of retaining the spring hunting derogation, although he harbours a secret wish for the referendum to succeed.

It seems that the Prime Minister is intent on politicising the issue, despite the fact that he had promised not to campaign for the referendum. 

Asked about the matter the following day, Dr Muscat played down Sunday’s remarks, saying that he had only raised the issue once since his initial statement, that his position in favour of retaining the spring hunting derogation was already public knowledge and that he had spoken the way he did on Sunday so that everyone would know exactly where he stood on the subject.

He then turned his guns on the journalists present, remarking that they had spoken more about spring hunting during the campaign than he had.

It hard to single out one aspect of the Prime Minister’s remarks as being the most outrageous.

Firstly, speaking the way he did on Sunday so that “everyone would know where he stood on the subject” was exactly what he said he would not do.

Secondly, no media organisation or journalist, to our knowledge, had said they would stay out of the fray and, in fact, the country’s independent newspapers, including this one, have taken a joint stance against spring hunting vis-à-vis the referendum. Moreover, has Dr Muscat forgotten that he is the Prime Minister and that people sit up and listen when he makes statements such as these, and that he has a huge following that takes his every word as Gospel?

Thirdly, his baiting of the Opposition Leader to enter the fray belies the fact that the Prime Minister would rather see the referendum as a political test than an exercise of the people’s voices being heard. It is hoped that the Opposition Leader does not take the bait.

This referendum goes over and above political considerations. A referendum called by the people on an apolitical issue such as in this case is a sacrosanct right of the people, and politicians need to stay out of it as they have promised.

Let us hope that, in today’s ‘Sunday sermons’, the leaders of both the main political parties choose to remain silent as they have pledged.