So there we have it: both party leaders have decided, for reasons that are obvious to anyone with an ounce of political nous, that they will be voting for the derogation on spring hunting negotiated when Malta adopted the aqcuis communitaire to remain in existence.
On a personal level, I would have preferred Simon Busuttil to take what I would call the high moral ground and come out with guns blazing against hunting in general, rather than just spring hunting. I would also like to own a Ferrari and have an unlimited supply of petrol, to say nothing of perfect roads, so that's not a particularly important consideration.
In a sense, it's perhaps not such a bad thing that following Muscat's quick reminder to hunters that he's on their side after he was forced to ensure that the referendum goes ahead, Busuttil took the issue out of the partisan field and made sure that now the decision lies with us, the people.
Unfortunately for the anti-hunting lobby, of which I am proud to been part for years, this might mean that the motion won't carry. The realities of life are such that lukewarm Labourites who might have bothered to vote against hunting will now feel it incumbent upon them to take their Supreme Leader's lead and vote "Yes" for hunting, while lukewarm Nationalists might feel they needn't bother to vote, now.
Luckily, your average generally Nationalist-leaning voter - as was shown in the general elections and in the divorce referendum - is perhaps more prone to allowing an opinion different to the PN leader's to hold sway over their vote, so there's hope for the anti-hunting cause yet.
Whatever, I will carry on pushing for a "No" to spring hunting and will remain anti-hunting even if the referendum is lost.
The reaction on Facebook and Twitter to Busuttil's position was interesting, though. When Muscat said he would vote four-square with the hunters, my personal reaction was "oh wow, what a surprise, not".
Most people seemed to come to the same conclusion.
On the other hand, obviously because Busuttil is held to a much higher moral standard than Muscat, as soon as he (Busuttil) said he was voting to retain the derogation, he was singled out for disapproval, and told that he had just lost the next election and lumbered the country with another five years of Joseph Muscat grinning at the helm.
This, as I said, is an interesting phenomenon and one that has been becoming clearer and clearer since the general elections.
Muscat promised much, very, very much and many swallowed his promises hook, line and sinker. When his promises started tramping around with feet of clay, as predicted by many including Yours Truly, instead of squealing like stuck pigs they way they used to when the PN in government did something not to their whim and fancy, the believers, in the main, simply adopted Muscat's own tactic and took the PN to task for what they used to do, oblivious to the fact that Muscat was now doing it, and worse.
It was ever thus, I suppose: a decent man who is seen, rightly or wrongly, to have slipped from his own high standards is a worse man because of that. On the other hand, when a bully stops thumping you, you thank him for stopping.
Such is life: in the meantime, don't forget to vote "No" to spring hunting, as I will be, just as I voted "Yes" for divorce although the PN's leader at the time had said he was voting "No".
That's because I think for myself, which is what you should do.