We are commemorating the 10th anniversary of Malta’s accession to the European Union. It would be of benefit to the younger generation to briefly explain what this country went through, even racing against time, to conclude negotiations with Brussels to make it eligible to apply and be accepted as a member of the EU.
Chapter after chapter were negotiated and concluded after intense discussions to obtain for Malta the best possible deal. This was done after the application had been frozen for months and Malta had a time frame within which to join the bloc.
One of the chapters included spring hunting. The electorate was given all the information before a deal was concluded on this particular chapter. We hunters were told in writing by the then Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami that hunting in general would remain unchanged.
Everyone knew about this deal and not one single person objected or protested (Alternattiva Demokratika included). Months later, the electorate was asked to vote in a referendum on whether Malta should become a member of the EU. It is recorded that Malta became a member with all the conditions negotiated in all the chapters including that of spring hunting.
In 2008, four years later, the EU took Malta to the European Court of Justice, after it had just won a similar court case against Finland. Malta was found guilty of applying wrong derogations but was given the privilege of applying a derogation for very limited spring hunting.
It is not democratic to use my vote to ask for another referendum on an issue I have already voted on
This came at a cost to the taxpayer and big sacrifices for the hunters, having lost years of spring hunting until a formula was established acceptable to both the EU and the Maltese government.
Ten years later, the Coalition Against Spring Hunting is insisting that politicians should remain tight lipped and not politicise the spring hunting issue. This is too much, and impossible for the following reasons:
Spring hunting has been in the electoral manifestos of all political parties including AD (against). Both the other parties were and are in favour of limited spring hunting.
Malta has had many discussions to arrive to the present formula to allow spring hunting and the electorate needs to be guided on the detail of the cost to taxpayers in acquiring the ruling in favour.
The electorate has to be reminded how many spring seasons were lost until the EU stopped infringement procedures against Malta.
The electorate has to be advised that the referendum in itself goes against the European Court’s decision to allow Malta to derogate in favour of spring hunting.
The electorate has to be clearly told that what is at issue is only two eatable birds which are not listed as endangered.
The electorate has also to be informed that despite the fact that these two birds will be nesting during spring, the ECJ gave a concession allowing Malta to derogate on spring hunting.
Rudolph Ragonesi, from the coalition, said Malta was living on a time bomb. A time bomb is a pre-programmed explosive device. The fact that 10 years have passed and this time bomb never went off is ample proof that this is only in the imagination.
Ragonesi accused FKNK of shifting the goal posts. Again, this is absurd because FKNK are, in terms of football, forming a barrier to safeguard their posts. Does the coalition expect to encounter unattended goal posts?
The referendum has to take its course and the electorate and all parliamentarians have to scrutinise what both petitions are asking. There were over 40,000 signatures asking for a referendum and there were more than double that asking for a cautious approach to this referendum.
It is the duty of all MPs to discuss in Parliament and explain/guide the electorate in their final vote.
The PN has a moral obligation to hunters because it managed to obtain what other countries have failed to. The PL has a right to safeguard what it has been saying all along, that spring hunting will remain.
These are the facts and no one can deny or misinterpret them. My vote was used to put Malta in the EU with all the ifs and buts accepted. It is certainly not democratic to use my vote, 10 years later, to ask for another referendum on an issue I have already voted on.