I'm at something of a disadvantage this week, because that which took my fancy is a story I could only glimpse, being as it was on the placard that shouts MaltaToday's wares to the world - and I don't make a point of reading more of MaltaToday than that. So I've no idea how much of even this briefest of brief stories is true. Or what the paper's angle on the story was, which is possibly the more interesting of the various aspects of the piece, given that MaltaToday always has an angle, though it's not always possible to divine it.
The story was that "Muscat hints at change to neutrality clause" or words to that effect, the reference being to the clause in the Constitution which provides that Malta is a neutral country. This is one of those clauses that can only be changed by a two-thirds positive vote of the House, so the government would need Labour's "yea" if it wanted to change the clause.
Precisely why anyone would want to do this is beyond me, frankly. It was a pretty ludicrous clause in the first place, when the Mintoff/KMB paranoia about all things foreign reigned supreme (did anyone say Foreign Interference Act?) but, at least, there was the excuse that there were two major power-blocs in the world and there was a glimmering of sense in our having a reason for not lining up with either of them, our vulnerability being pronounced.
Of course, Dom Mintoff's realpolitik being what it was, our so-called neutrality was more designed to try to play off the West's fear of the Soviet bloc and try to scavenge some crumbs from the rich kids' table. His slogan was Malta First And Foremost, which gave him a handle onto which to hang his beggar's cap.
But this neutrality thing is no longer relevant, if relevant it ever was. Now the power struggle is not between East and West, at least insofar as military might is concerned (and neutrality is only relevant in military terms, realistically), but between terror and stability, and you can't be neutral in that struggle.
That's not to say that the world should merely ask "How high?" when the Yanks say "jump", as they seem to think should happen. Look where that sort of kow-towing attitude got Bambi Blair and we, the thinking classes, should always take a good long look at anything the US wants us to do, even though it's Barack Obama who wants it, not that Texan who used to run the place.
To be fair, though, the Americans' is a filthy job and the rest of us are lucky they've opted to do it, but to get back to that which Joseph Muscat was hinting at, what the heck was he on about, assuming (and it's not always a safe assumption) that MaltaToday was accurate in its story?
Coming hot on the heels of Mr Mintoff's surprise visit to Labour's HQ (so surprising that the photographer who just happened to be lurking around reception only just managed to get the shot) what was Dr Muscat doing reminding us all about yet another aspect of Labour's policy package, which gave us the collective willies?
Those of us who are not dazzled by the youth and radiance of the current leader, or blinkered by the dour brilliance of the Mintoff/KMB tandem already referred to, know that when it came to foreign policy, Labour's record is not precisely the best thing since sliced bread.
We were best, best friends with some pretty weird countries, such as the wrong Korea, and Mr Mintoff counted among his buds such honourable men as Nicolae Ceaucescu. Human rights were not much to the fore of our international mates' minds, which led many a cynic here at the time to muse on the alacrity with which our esteemed leaders in those cheerful days adopted their friends' points of view.
So what was Dr Muscat doing bringing all this back to the front of our consciousness?
Quite apart from anything else, this neutrality thing is so silly nowadays that invoking the notion leads people like me to wonder whether Labour hasn't anything better to do with its time. No-one, apart from some dyed-in-the-wool Labour reversionists or a bunch of starry-eyed idealists who haven't realised that the world has moved on and then some, gives what might be called a rat's bottom about neutrality as a political concept anymore, and it probably provokes as much incomprehension and bafflement among the great unwashed as climate change.
In connection with the latter phenomenon, did you spot the vox pop carried in this paper last Wednesday? Without fail, the people questioned knew less than flip-all about the Copenhagen conference: it was depressing to think that each of these people thinks that he or she has as much right to have his or her point of view taken into consideration as I do.
Depressing is hardly the word for it.
imbocca@gmail.com
www.timesofmalta.com/blogs