The prime minister said this morning that if the no confidence motion is approved by parliament, he would advise the President to dissolve parliament and call an early election.

However, he was always optimistic and believed in the truth. The country should not reach that stage.

Dr Gonzi was speaking during the no confidence debate in Parliament.

Dr Gonzi said that however valid Dr Franco Debono's arguments were, he expected all MPs to make their views known but to do so within the limits of what was expected of them by the government and the party. Otherwise, no government couldfunction .

He rhowever emained ready to reach agreement for all MPs to form part of the government's work.

Dr Gonzi said early in his speech that the country at this delicate juncture did not need an election. What it needed was policy stability, particularly in economic and financial affairs and in relation to developments in Europe and North Africa. This was what had guided him throughout the current crisis since it came to the fore on January 6.

Dr Gonzi warned that a mistaken decision now could cost the country and its people, particularly in the jobs and investment sector.

What the country needed was policy stability to give peace of mind to investors and also to the workers.

The government never dictated to anyone what the state should do but it created the right environment for the economy and the individual to develop. That was why it was this governemnt which held the best employment record.

DISAGREEMENT WITHIN THE PARLIAMENTARY GROUP

Stability did not mean that different political opinions, even within the parliamentary group, were not tolerated. One should persuade, not impose any opinion.

During this legislature he had faced several instances when there was disagreement within the parliamentary group. In some instances, it had been very tough going.

To have disagreement was not extraordinary, but the party continued to debate and always found a way forward.  That was only achieved because in every circumstance, the guiding principle was the national interest. If needs be one even humiliated himself in the interest of the country.

After are, politics was the art of compromise - compromise which did not undermine fundamental guiding principles and values.

To stamp your feet and be stubborn was a mistake.

The government was now facing another difficult situation stemming from serious disagreement with a Nationalist MP. What was different from previous disagreements was that the leader of the opposition had seen an opportunity to topple the government.

In such circumstances, it was evident that his hunger for power got the better of him. He was blackmailing the government, not on the basis of its policies, neither with his votes, but with the vote of somebody else.

This was an opposition leader who had said that the end justified the means.

Dr Gonzi said he had to decide on what was best for the country.

He had asked himself whether he should take the easy way and surrender to this blackmail by the leader of the opposition, and fall to its trap. His reply, Dr Gonzi said, was well known. He refused to ignore the national interest.

It did not mean that he was always right, Dr Gonzi said. He always admitted his mistakes in the past and where possible, tried to make amends.

For Dr Muscat, being in power came first. But the national interest came before being in power and no one in his right senses believed that in this delicate juncture, the country should seek an early election, if it could be avoided.

The governemnt was now in the fourth year of its term. This was the period when projects were maturing, but were not ready. The opposition had found the Nationalist Party focused on national issues. The government and the party were not focused on billboards and ties, but on national bread and butter issues.

But Dr Muscat had chosen what to him appeared the most attractive option - to topple the government when it was at its weakest, even if the country would suffer. He was not surprised, Dr Gonzi said. This was Labour's track record. One could remember the Labour scaremongering, including that by Dr Muscat, ahead of EU accession.

Then after EU accession, Dr Muscat changed position and even became an MEP. That was political opportunism which was now much in evidence again. For political convenience he was also not disclosing Labour's policies.

Dr Gonzi recalled that last November parliament debated and approved a confidence motion. The government then moved the Budget which was debated in November and December with 32 division votes being taken. All amounted to confidence votes in the government.

It was worth recalling, Dr Gonzi said, that just two weeks ago, when the Opposition moved the no confidence motion, it also proposed capping the debate to just one sitting - or 70 minutes for each side. This was in stark contrast to standing orders, where, because of the importance of no confidence motions, MPs could speak for an hour instead of the normal 40 minutes. The government would have nothing of this arrogance.

The Opposition then realised its mistake and withdrew its procedural motion. The very fact, however, that the Opposition wanted to gag MPs on such an important subject was a disgrace - at a time when in the Arab Spring people were fighting for freedom of expression.

It was useless claiming that the confidence debate in November was completed in one sitting. He did not have the decency to say that before the November debate, the Opposition and the government had agreed that the debate would take one sitting.

That was vastly different from the guillotine procedural motion which the Opposition had now sought, without seeking any agreement.

The Opposition was accusing the government of scaremongering, but it was the opposition's own actions which were scary. They had wanted to gag those who disagreed with them.

FRANCO DEBONO'S PROPOSALS

Dr Gonzi said he had carefully heard and considered what Dr Franco Debono had said. He agreed with his points, such as on Constitutional and institutional reform and wanted to carry them out. Some of them were already in the government's programme. Reforms in the justice sector were already before the House.

Issues such as party funding legislation had been presented before the House Committee for Democratic Change, but the Opposition walked out of this committee.

"In substance, I do not see difference which justice no confidence in the government."

However, Dr Gonzi said, he disagreed with Dr Debono's methods. However valid Dr Debono's arguments were, he expected all MPs to make their views known but to do so within the limits of what was expected of them by the government and the party. Otherwise, no government could operate.

He remained ready to reach agreement for all MPs to form part of the government's work.

If this no confidence motion was approved, he would advise the President to dissolve parliament and call an early election.

However, he was always optimistic and believed in the truth. The country should not reach that stage.

Everyone made mistakes. He made mistakes, so did the government, but all considered, this government did not deserve to be toppled. It deserved the confidence of the House.

He would have been more worried if this no-confidence motion was motivated by serious unemployment and queues of people seeking work, with no hope for them, as was happening abroad.

Happily, however, this was not the situation in Malta.

Malta was also not in a financial crisis. Nor did not have a failure in the educational sector. Indeed, the number of students in post-secondary education was continuing to rise fast.

He would have been more worried if the no confidence motion was moved had the government reduced children's allowance or pensions. But the government was doing the opposite.

He would have been more worried if this motion was moved if the governemnt bowed to Gaddafi's threats and returned his aircraft.

But no one could accuse the government of such actions.

He would have been more worried, Dr Gonzi said, if this no-confidence motion was moved because the economy was stagnant or tourism was failing. But, again, the opposite was the case. Tourism was setting new records and the economy was performing better than other countries.

Therefore, the Leader of the Opposition had not given a single reason for his no confidence motion. He just wanted the government to step aside.

Malta was on the right course, and the worse thing that could happen now was to go for an early election.

Dr Muscat however, wanted to create his own virtual reality. He claimed Malta was in a state of disaster when reports by international institutions belied him.

At the PL general conference last Sunday, Dr Muscat made a speech that was interesting for those who wished to write his biography. But he had not made any policy proposals.

He had not said how Labour would boost the economy, how Malta would have energy security, how social services would be sustainable, how schools would continue to improve and how stipends would be retained. What was he proposing that was different from the government?

While Dr Muscat was speaking about his childhood on Sunday, the government was focused on the Iran situation, the EU reaction, and the strong impact which the developing situation would have on Malta, particularly with regard to higher oil prices. But all this was irrelevant for Dr Muscat. On Sunday he continued to promise to reduce power tariffs, without saying how.

While the government was seeing how the power station extension could come on stream earlier, to save money for the country, the Leader of the Opposition was announcing his election candidates.

Dr Gonzi said that independently of when the election was held, the government would still focus on the national interest. It would not make promises which would derail the all important national priority to keep the deficit in check.

It would have been better, Dr Gonzi said, if this debate was used for a discussion on what Labour was proposing in the national interest.

The country, he concluded deserved better.

The speech is still in progress.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.