Stanley Baldwin, a distinguished British Prime Minister in the 1920s and 1930s said: “You will find in politics that you are much exposed to the attribution of false motive. Never complain and never explain.”

It is a maxim to which I normally steadfastly adhere.

However, the Minister for Foreign Affairs’ fervent letter (‘Anti-Isis coalition’, March 9) demanding an apology from me for impugning his reasons for Malta not joining the coalition against isis in Paris last September, demands a response.

I respect George Vella and, therefore, utterly accept that nowhere did the minister state that the reason for Malta not joining the coalition was because of our neutrality. I apologise unreservedly for stating that it was.

However, I am left deeply puzzled at the Foreign Minister’s reaction.Were it not because of the neutrality clause in the Constitution, why on earth did Malta take such a dog in the manger attitude about joining the coalition when the rest of the European Union and almost half the free world saw no difficulty in doing so?

On grounds of international solidarity, national self-interest, diplomatic advantage and as a clear expression of moral repugnance at Isis jihadist extremism, this does seem to have been an error of judgement, whether or not our neutrality was ostensibly the reason behind it.

The rest of my article of February 25 stands.