First things first!

I would like to say this to Harry Vassallo: my one and only interest is to see that the prime minister will sign the EU accession treaty on April 16, as he was authorised to do so by the electorate in the March 8 referendum. I am sure it is his wish too.

The March 8 spirit was quite tangible in the campaign in which MLP, PN and AD supporters joined hands and votes. Never will I forget the sense of unity at the Ta' Qali counting hall when on the news of the yes victory, Dr Vassallo, Arnold Cassola, Joanna Drake, David Casa, Laurence Gonzi, Austin Gatt, Joe Saliba, myself and many others all joined together as one in celebrating the event.

We celebrated on behalf of the many Labour voters who voted yes and who wished to have at least one Labour official at the counting hall acknowledge Labour's mistake. Together with them, we felt shocked at Alfred Sant's rude entrance into the hall. We were all dismayed at his pronouncements for Labour to celebrate, pronouncements contradicted by the figures collected by his own counting agents at Ta' Qali.

From that very moment it became clear that for Malta to become part of Europe, we would have to work hard so that the general election would confirm both the March 8 spirit of unity and, above all, the referendum result. This was, and still is, the one and only priority of the yes movement.

Naturally, Alternattiva Demokratika is a political party and political parties are there to canvass for votes to elect seats in parliament.

Until the electoral system is reformed, it is my duty and that of yes campaigners to ensure that the most efficient and sure pattern of voting is adopted in order to confirm the referendum result. I have, on at least two occasions, analysed not one, but four situations which may result at the election and came to one conclusion. For the yes coalition to repeat the March 8 result, the largest yes party must get the 50 per cent + one of all first count preferences.

Voters have a unique opportunity this time to vote across party lines and unite, giving the number one vote to the Nationalist Party.

Dr Vassallo says: "AD can get to parliament with a handful of number one votes in one particular district. If a mass of PN voters in the eighth district vote AD number two, AD will have its first MP and will still be excellent insurance on the EU membership issue no matter what Dr Bencini says".

If this is the case, then AD should appeal directly to its voters to give the number one preferences to Eddie Fenech Adami's party as the one and only insurance so that the largest yes party gets the 50 per cent + one at the first count.

His statement that "what it all boils down to is whether or not an absolute majority of voters will back the yes to EU parties. How many or how few will vote AD is an irrelevance in this regard...", is incorrect. The 50 per cent + one majority rule applies only if one party on its own obtains it. The Constitution does not recognise an absolute majority of yes to EU parties.

The election of an AD candidate could become a determining factor for the purposes of a parliamentary majority only if no party were to obtain the absolute majority of number one votes. This would become the desperate fallback solution once the certainty of the 50 per cent + one rule would have failed.

It would take us back to the elections of 1981 and 1971 where majority rule was threatened and the outcome could depend on whether it would be an AD candidate or an MLP candidate to be eliminated last in a particular district. This could depend on a mere five votes going one way or the other, as happened in 1971.

What kind of insurance is this when Dr Vassallo himself admitted that if seats alone were to count "there may be two parties at that point that are under-represented and the Constitution makes no provision for compensation. This means that, in fairness, the MLP may claim another seat to assure proportional representation and AD another two seats. Nothing of the sort will happen"?

So why on earth is he stating that seats on their own provide an insurance? What contradiction is this? By his own admission, AD may have two full quotas not represented in parliament and yet he advocates the election of an AD seat as the best insurance.

We cannot afford to risk resorting to fallback solutions which are closer to a lottery than to an electoral system. Until we reform the system, we cannot take risks. We must give our number one preference to the largest yes party.

I would be the first to campaign for a reform of the electoral system to make it simpler, more streamlined and more proportional. I would also be the first to campaign for a serious reform of the Broadcasting Authority which, to my mind, has left much to be desired.

Indeed, I would also be the first to campaign for a reform aimed at ensuring that party television stations be subject to a par condicio rule where a measure of objectivity is ensured. The sheer nauseating one-sidedness of both stations is reaching mind-numbing levels.

However, first things first. Those AD supporters described by Dr Vassallo as the "core of the core" voters who campaigned so hard over the past decade or so on these and other issues must keep in mind what we have managed to obtain in the March 8 referendum.

In this referendum, we did not vote to change the electoral system, to introduce a greater balance in our media or to reform the Broadcasting Authority. We voted for Malta to join the EU because we believe that by doing so we would be creating the environment in which all this and much more can be achieved. That is why I said first things first.

Unfortunately, the MLP has accepted that their leader will not sign the EU accession treaty on April 16. Our priority, therefore, is to strengthen the largest yes party by giving it the number one vote so that the accession treaty be signed and Malta will become a modern European country within the EU.