Before you became President of the Labour Party, you held jobs at the Malta mission to the then European Economic Community. Was this stint influential in your later position against Malta's full membership in the European Union?

Between 1970 and 1975, I served as second/first secretary at our Mission to the then EEC in Brussels which at the time also operated as Malta embassy for a range of countries which apart from Belgium, ran from Sweden and Finland down to France and Spain! As it developed, my work was mainly to administer contacts and dossiers with the European Commission first on Malta's application to have an association agreement with the then EEC under the Borg Olivier administration, and then to renegotiate that agreement and widen its scope under the first Mintoff administration. Another issue was how to adapt Malta's commercial regime with the UK, then based on Commonwealth preference to the fact that the Brits were joining the EEC/European Common Market (which then stood at six members) and were assuming the same commercial policies as the EEC.

In the course of that work, the main lesson was that relying on high flown "European" concepts to get things done did not count for much in practice, at least in so far as Malta was concerned (Mintoff would practise this and in my view failed to impress). Also that the EEC side was more interested in sticking to its rules than to make them work for Malta. At the time already, the administrative necessities of organizing European unity made for slow moving bureaucratic procedures at the rockface of diplomatic action, especially when the request was (by Malta post-1971) for concessions outside the box.

On another note, I am one of the few (possibly the only one) who can claim to having been in service in Brussels on EEC/EU business both when the UK joined "Europe" (1973) and when it left (2020).

You spent some time as editor of the Labour Party newspaper. How do you see the future of the traditional media in Malta, given that these last years have seen them struggle as they have become less popular? In a world where fake news has become the order of the day, how can traditional media maintain their credibility? Do you think that the State should offer more assistance, financial or otherwise, to traditional media in the best interests of democracy?

I was not an editor of any of Labour's newspapers but I launched two weeklies: Il-Ħelsien (a second format of the paper with the same name that Labour had published during the 1960s) in 1986/87 (editor - Evarist Bartolo); and the tabloid Kullħadd which took over from the former in 1993 (editor - Felix Agius), still extant.

The traditional media in Malta are following the same path of the quality print newspapers in Europe, such as the UK. The decline had started before the internet revolution "struck" when editorially investigative and report-based journalism was scaled down and replaced with rather boring and repetitive "opinion" pieces by columnists. The London "Sunday Times" was the prime example of this.

The "non-traditional" media on internet have flourished by mixing news, opinions and anything that could have entertainment or titillation value. Moreover, the easier, cheaper and more up to date access to "what's happening" of the social media has been - and will remain - a killer of traditional media.

Papers like Le Monde, El Pais and The New York Times (perhaps FAZ as well, and maybe some Italian newspapers) have been successfully pushing back with the dual strategy of keeping a steady print profile in the traditional way, tied to a strong internet product linked to it, access to which must be paid for by readers. Both products are agressively promoted. However I doubt whether this approach is viable in Malta given our "makku" size, aggravated by the fact that the Maltese public has been quite reluctant to pay for journalistic products offered over the internet. In general, as I see it, the future looks bleak unfortunately.

Regarding the introduction of government subsidies, that would be a truly thorny issue. Some subsidies are in fact already being allocated in the form of sponsorship by government agencies of features and articles, as with the Arts Council. However in general, who would be eligible for subsidies - independent media financed by private business? media organs of parties, trade unions, church? print or also internet outlets? Who would determine the choice of beneficiaries? What would subsidies consist of? How would they be managed?

As of now I have not seen any credible replies to these questions that would be suited to Maltese circumstances.

The party in opposition always complains that the national broadcasting station is a propaganda machine for the government of the day. Can Malta ever have a really objective national station? What can be done to achieve this?

Please tell me where there is a really objective national station and how it operates. I doubt whether anybody wants it. In a polarised situation especially in a two-party situation (but not only - vide France or Italy), the real concern of people - not least in Malta - is to ensure that when their party is out of power, they have a direct, substantive say in national broadcasting though they do not allow it when in power - and I speak from experience. So I prefer to leave an answer to this your question in suspense.

What Mintoff did to you, in a different way, is being repeated by Joseph Muscat to Robert Abela. When leaders such as Mintoff and Muscat stay on in the public eye, casting a shadow on their successor, it becomes harder on the incumbent leader. To be fair to you, when Muscat had taken over the reins of the Labour Party from you, you continued your political career but never tried to overshadow the man who succeeded you. Do you think it is wise for former leaders to remain active after leaving the leadership, in the way Mintoff acted and Muscat is acting?

In the past, when I felt that certain limits were being overstepped, no matter by who, no matter what the consequences were, I refused to go along. It is still my conviction that within an organization, political or otherwise, once the time has come for one to step aside, and once one has done it, action on matters that could affect leadership issues should be undertaken only if requested by the new leadership in succession or perhaps if a catastrophic meltdown has occurred. To be sure, this kind of issue does not occur only in political parties and governments, but in business corporations as well, and indeed in the Catholic Church at the highest levels.

Your two deputy leaders when you took over the reins of the party in 1992 were George Abela and George Vella. Both later went on to become Presidents of the Republic. Did you ever contemplate becoming Head of State or were you ever approached for the job?

Over the years I always publicly made clear my belief that it just does not make sense to have as President of the Republic ex-leaders of political parties. One of the few meaningful ceremonial attributes of the President is to serve as a unifying figure for the nation as a whole. And a major attribute of party leaders in our politically polarised situation, whether you like it or not, is to serve as main agent for the mobilisation of the party's supporters and to accept becoming the main focus of the antipathy, dislike and worse of the party's opponents. So how can a former party leader then serve convincingly as a President able to unify a nation's sentiments?

For this reason (among others) I was against the proposals for Mintoff and Fenech Adami to become Presidents of the Republic and said so. Clearly on this basis I never contemplated or would have accepted serving as head of State, said so publicly when journalists suggested it and thankfully the topic was never broached with me.

You have always sustained your socialist ideals. Does it bother you that the Labour Party, over the last 10 years, has adopted policies that took it away from the Left? Does it bother you that there are so many champagne socialists in Labour's midst these days?

To be honest, I never understood exactly the meaning of the term "champagne socialists". Apart from the fact that I detest champagne, it always seemed to me to apply nicely to certain well-heeled hangers on of the PN, when in government. Possibly to buy insurance for the future, they would sidle towards me during some boring reception, and making sure they were not being noticed, tell me that really their heart was with Labour but that unfortunately they disliked or disagreed with this or that item of Labour policy, so...

More seriously though, what intrigues me is this: When I first arrived in Malta after having spent some ten years abroad including the US (this was back in the late 1970s) Labour friends of mine considered me to be very right wing. Some even feared I was a CIA agent sent to spy on what Labour was doing. Over the years, this perception changed. I was slowly becoming perceived as left wing to extreme left wing. In recent years, friends from the European Parliament who visited Malta would tell me that their Labour Party contacts judged me as being hard left. But in my view, over the years, I had hardly changed my beliefs. If anything, I actually softened some of my views on policy making, more to the centre but frankly not as a response to the "Third Way" of doing things à la Tony Blair which I have always distrusted.

As I see/saw it, the Mintoff/KMB leadership anchored Labour to traditional left economic and social welfare policies. In my time, this was shifted to left-centre. In Muscat's time at the helm, Labour's centre of gravity shifted to centre-left, which proved to be an electoral winner. Whether this has provided the means for "champagne" socialists to enjoy their favourite tipple, I leave you to judge.

In your time as PL leader and PM, you must be credited also for not applying nepotism, which unfortunately has been common in the last 10 years. In your time as PL leader and PM, Labour had moved away from corruption which, again, is a common accusation that is levelled at the PL these days. Does this worry you?

Sorry, but I thought that right up to the 2008 election, we had provided huge proof of corruption in high places under the Gonzi administration. That was the time when Daphne Caruana Galizia for instance, was active on behalf of the PN, to cover up the disgusting affair at Mistra Bay by projecting Labour as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

So yes, I agree that corruption and nepotism should be rolled back and contested along all fronts, whether they're Labour or PN. My record shows that I was prepared to do this. One of the major sticking points in the 1998 saga over the Cottonera marina was precisely my suspicion that there was corruption in the air. But in contesting corruption on all fronts, I refuse to ally myself with forces which manifestly, on their record, are only prepared to mobilise when it can become a question of PN against LP.

The Labour Party has won a string of elections with a comfortable margin. This has happened in spite of scandals, such as the Panama Papers and the hospitals deal, and the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, and the resultant arrests and public inquiry conclusions blaming the State. The PL is often accused of "buying" votes with cheques and permits, while a culture of impunity has permeated our society. The Nationalist Party, for its part, remains a weak Opposition. Is Labour winning because it is seen as the better of the two evils?

There are two major reasons for what has been going on.

No matter what one thinks about how it has been done (and I have my reservations), the economy has grown on a consistent basis and the Labour government has rightly been careful to ensure that there has been sufficiently trickle down of the value added being accrued. Part of it has been motored by cheap imported manpower, having no vote in national elections, and which has not benefitted from any trickle down, but this has up to now had no electoral repercussions among Maltese voters.

Meanwhile, as you say, the PN Opposition remains weak because since almost 2008, it has been divided and internally distrustful. These problems were exacerbated as of the 2013 electoral debacle. To make matters worse, the PN does not seem to have an ongoing narrative about what it would do if in government. All the time it seems to be reacting to events, most of which are not of its making, or it is just plugging a negative message, mostly about corruption. That can only work politically when the economic situation seems bad, which has not been the case in the past eleven years, despite the Covid pandemic.

And then of course, as you say, regarding the worst of two evils, that is another factor that I have encountered. There are electors who are unenthusiastic about both parties but who believe that with Labour they have less to lose than with the PN.

With Sweden and Finland recently becoming NATO members, and given the wars that are taking place not too far away from us, especially after Russia's invasion of the Ukraine, do you think that Malta's neutrality as enshrined in the Constitution in 1987 is still valid today?

As I see it, the biggest danger of the moment for this country is not that it can be overwhelmed by the accusations, justified or not, of rampant corruption - though obviously this is a vital problem.

The biggest danger is that we drop our status of neutrality. That status as enshrined in the Constitution is still valid and needs to be asserted and retained, within the EU and outside it. With the exception of Independence, neutrality remains the most important political achievement of our nation. By openly refusing to join a military alliance we have defused completely the sense of threat to our neighbours, north and south, that fortress Malta constituted over the centuries. Still, our neutrality being an active one, does not prevent us from taking positions in conflicts near and far, as the Malta government has rightly done over the Russian invasion of the Ukraine in flagrant breach of international law.

Indeed, in and of itself, neutrality is country specific and is defined according to the security concerns which define a given country's situation. That of Sweden and Finland - geopolitical or otherwise - is completely different to Malta's. Their concerns are theirs to evaluate and deal with. How they do it cannot be relevant to how we deal with our concerns, and vice-versa.

To be sure, a huge problem for Malta in coming years as a member of the EU is that the latter is being transformed at a fast pace, into a military alliance under the banner of developing a security and defence policy. Allowing ourselves to be sucked into this development in coming years would be a huge mistake and goes against our vital national interest. If it ever happens that Malta gets integrated into an EU military system, that would be the only justification I can see as of now, for Malta to do a Brexit. Unfortunately, awareness of this particular issue remains weak.

Recently I have participated in a group of people led by Sammy Meilaq who are concerned about this. Under the title Neutrality and Peace, we have been elaborating a policy document (or manifesto) that places Malta's neutrality in the framework of an overall national security policy covering foreign policy, defence, the EU context and a whole range of security concerns, not least cyber security. I stand by it.

You have written books and are known to be an avid reader. How did you divide your time between your political commitments and your love for literature? Was there a book/books that had an immense influence on you? Now that you will have more time on your hands, are we to expect more from you in terms of writing? Do you have something in mind?

There was no division of time according to some specific plan. At slack periods, when it was convenient I read. Similarly, it's not really possible to identify one book/writer or more who influenced me "immensely". In part, this is because over the years, appreciations change. For instance, in my mid-twenties and by way of reply to your question, I would have mentioned the works of Marcel Proust or Luigi Pirandello. Today I would need to reread them to confirm or otherwise that they had influenced me so much and lastingly. If I have to mention though two books that I still strongly admire even after having read and re-read them long ago, I would select, in literature Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" and in political/management "science" Graham Allison's "Essence of Decision" (lately in a second edition with Philip Zelikow).

As to further own writing, I would like to continue with the story begun in the two volumes of  "Confessions of a European Maltese" and if I really get the time, write a "final" novel in Maltese that I have been turning over in my mind these last twelve years or so. We shall see.

Part 1: The 1981 election and the transition from Mintoff to KMB

Part 2: The 1980s’ bulk-buying system and public sector employment

Part 3: The Church schools battle and the 1987 constitutional amendments

Part 4: The post-1987 election years and the rise to the Labour leadership

Part 5: A new image, the anti-Vat position and the Cittadin Mobil

Part 6: The freezing os Malta's EU application and the VAT-CET changeover

Part 7: The clash with Mintoff and the collapse of the government in 1998 

Part 8: The return to the Opposition benches and the EU referendum

Part 9: Malta's first years as an EU country and the 2008 election

Part 10: Becoming an MEP, Malta's EU membership and the sale of passports

Part 11: How Maltese MEPs work in Brussels and Roberta Metsola