Few matters have angered a swathe of the electorate more than the way the government has handled the hunting issue. It is not that those who are against hunting were unaware of the fact that a position paper had been drawn up in the negotiations with the EU Commission before the 2003 referendum. Of course they were, or at least, they should have been, as they had also been - or, again, should have been - aware of the political promises the Nationalists had made to the hunters both before the referendum and the subsequent general election. What mostly irked those who are against hunting - and their number is growing, not diminishing - was the way the Nationalists justified their move to allow spring hunting.

In the run-up to the latest round of local council elections, they constantly pointed out that once those who were against hunting knew all along that hunting had been part of the EU membership package, they could hardly say now they have been deceived. Well, no, they can not, for, yes, they knew - or should have known - that hunting had been made part of the package, at least as presented by the Nationalists. But surely the majority of those who voted for membership mostly looked at the wider dimension, at the country's best interest, not at whether or not hunting would be allowed in the spring.

With such an important matter as EU membership at stake, they could hardly have done otherwise. In fact, they really had no choice, since equating a vote for membership with whether or not to keep spring hunting would have been illogical.

Which is why so many people felt insulted when the Nationalists kept bringing up the argument that they had a mandate to do what they did. The Nationalists could hardly backtrack from the promises they had so unwisely made, but then, in keeping to what they had committed themselves to, they ought to have worded their "justification" for their move differently, and not make it sound as if the electorate had a choice.

The Nationalists badly misread the sentiments of the people who are against hunting. No one, least of all the European Commission, has said that Malta has no right to a derogation. What the Commission is saying is that this right does not mean implicit acceptance, and that the derogation has to be justified. In other words, this means that a position paper is no carte blanche.

One minister has said that the government had made it clear before the referendum that Malta intended applying for the derogation and that the Commission had taken note of this. But it has now transpired that in the Commission's view, the reasons given by Malta do not justify the derogation. Indeed, according to European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, the Commission has found that there were "sufficient alternatives" in autumn "and so we have not granted any derogation". So, contrary to what the government must be thinking right now, "taking note" is not exactly the same thing as approval of an application to derogate.

The Nationalists have only themselves to blame for the sticky situation they have found themselves in over hunting, which is not to say that, come the next general election, those who stayed away from the polling booths at the recent local elections would necessarily do the same. In all probability, the "wider dimension" will once again take precedence over other matters, however irritating the other matters may be.