I wish to start this blog by thanking Dr Simon Busuttil and also show my appreciation to INEWS, the Labour media. I was one of those who criticized the PN decision to ask for a no confidence against the Government. INEWS reported my position. INEWS also gave prominence to the reference made by Dr Simon Busuttil, during the Sliema meeting, to my position. He stated that it is legitimate for individuals, like myself, to ask why there is a motion against the Government instead of Konrad Mizzi.

In the wake of more interesting news that was published on Sunday, particularly the fact that Mario de Marco made use of a company that is owned by a friend of Keith Schembri and that this contractor deposits over one million dollars a year in a trust in the British Virgin Islands, the debate on this motion becomes frivolous. Let’s hope that such an unfortunate event will lead to a happier outcome or as the Latin phrase goes felix culpa. Why am I saying this?

Such a strategy would have made sense had it been made by the party in Government. In the wake of strong internal dissent within Labour, a vote of confidence would have been more appropriate to be requested by the Prime Minister to confirm that he still holdsa majority in Parliament. Instead the Opposition ended up doing the dirty work for Government.

Those within the PN who pushed for a vote of no confidence against Government do not know how our Parliament works. After this vote, in which the Government proved to all that it has a compact majority, the Opposition is now bound to respect parliamentary democracy and cease discussing the Panama Papers. Therefore, the Opposition ended up putting a muzzle to its own voice. Should the Opposition continue to argue about this issue, it would be showing that the Nationalist Party does not respect Parliament.

Many readers do not believe that this Panamagate is over. The controversy around Mario de Marco is a case in point. I am sure that we will hear more about these famous Panama Papers in the future and that is why I have been arguing that the motion should have been against Konrad Mizzi and not the government. The Malta Independent has proven that there is a national consensus that Mizzi must go. Despite Labour's propaganda only 22.9% of the Maltese population still thinks that Mizzi should stay. Moreover, I found Mizzi discourse in parliament offensive towards the free media. His speech reminded me of Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s reaction, when the latter was caught red handed by Alfred Sant on the wake of 2008 election in the famous Mistra scandal.

At the same time, after Monday's vote, one needs to admit that it was not easy for Government to bring all the ministers together. A vote against Government should have made this task easy, as none of the Government members could vote with the Opposition as they would have been voting against themselves. Moreover, unlike what the Opposition was stating, we do not have a coalition government and it is not possible to remove the Prime Minister. Had Government lost its vote of no-confidence, there was no way out for the Prime Minister but to ask the President for an early election, which is what happened in 1998.

Malta's parliamentary system works around the Prime Minister. He is the sole person to enjoy the right to dissolve Parliament before the natural termination of a legislature.

Now if more facts about the Panama Papers become public, which is more than likely, the Nationalist Opposition will not be ableto ask for a new vote of confidence on the same issue. Cunningly, Muscat or someone else has focused attention on Mario de Marco, whose position is no longer tenable.  Mr. Pierre Sladden has close ties with Mario de Marco and Keith Schembri.

There was a group of people, which included Pierre Sladden that conglomerated prior to the 2008 election. They worked and supported the election of Muscat to leadership and eventually his electoral victory. Now it is extremely difficult for such a group to be disbanded. This explains Muscat's difficulty to remove Keith Schembri or Konrad Mizzi. Should Keith Schembri be removed, whoever replaces him will have to accept to work with Schembri in the background.

This is why the name of de Marco was dragged into the equation. The message is very clear. Let us stop attacking each other and let us agree that Mizzi will remain in office and we will stop attacking de Marco. If the attack continues, Labour is making sure that if its deputy leader goes, then the NP too has to lose one of its deputy leaders.

One thing is certain as a result of this whole debacle, if Konrad Mizzi was aspiring for leadership, Panamagate has ruined his chances. At the same time, if Dr Simon Busuttil wants to win the next election, he either has to ask de Marco to resign or should he refuse, he must kick him out. I am sure that the Prime Minister is playing for time to see the Leader of the Opposition’a reaction and this explains why he implied in Parliament that the political future of Konrad Mizzi is uncertain. If Busuttil fails to do so, he will definitely lose the next election, and in two years’ time, de Marco's team will give Dr Simon Busuttil the boot.