Editorial

The Prime Minister and Archbishop explained their decision to recommend the St John's Co-Cathedral extension proposal be dropped by saying that "a project linked with St John's... should not be an element that divides the Maltese public".

Yet this choice of phrase does not seem to square up with reality; since in the absence of a proper process to assess the credentials of the project the overwhelming majority of the Maltese public was not yet knowledgeable enough to form an informed opinion. What it did know was that the prospect of digging up a freshly repaved St John's Square hardly sounded like a great idea.

The issue was further clouded by the Archbishop's comments, carried today, stating that he had informed the Prime Minister "weeks ago" that it was not within the competence of the foundation to carry out a major project such as this without prior approval from the Church and the State.

This does not seem to reflect a certain reality either. There is no doubting that he communicated with Lawrence Gonzi. And in his wording Mgr Cremona was careful enough to use the term "carry out" the project rather than saying 'take the steps leading up to that'.

But it seems inconceivable that a senior Church figure like Mgr Philip Calleja was moving in the direction he was if he did not at least have the orange light from the Archbishop - who, significantly, refrained from saying whether he agreed with the project or not.

So what led to this is not clear. What is clear is that three distinct groupings, perhaps each with distinct motives, managed to create enough of a stir to kill it off at birth.

The environmental lobby led by the well orchestrated, though at times misinformed, voice of Flimkien Ghall Ambient Ahjar (FAA) got the ball rolling; saying there was no way on earth this project should take place. It could well have been right on this issue; though in the absence of a proper mechanism how could anyone testify to that?

Two other points cause concern: one is FAA's new-found tendency to seemingly object to any project being proposed; two is the personal direction which these objections have started to take.

Labour leader Joseph Muscat also waded in. While it cannot be ruled out that he was genuinely against the project, his handling of this issue did far more to enhance his political credentials than his green ones.

He sensed that all was not well on the government benches and capitalised on its slender one-seat majority with enormous success. By proposing the motion he seemed to place the Prime Minister in a corner even an accomplished negotiator like Dr Gonzi could not emerge from unscathed. And that can only count as a feather in his cap.

The third group which opposed this project came from within the Nationalist Party itself. And all the known ones at least, by coincidence or not, are disgruntled MPs. Some either believe they should have been in Cabinet, or not kicked out of it. All in some way or other are not enamoured with Richard Cachia Caruana. There is not an environmentalist among them.

An environmental lobby with the scent of blood, disgruntled Nationalist MPs and an opposition leader astute enough to take advantage of all the above presents Dr Gonzi with a problem, particularly as his proposal to relocate Parliament to the site of the old Opera House is next.