When the Prime Minister announced that the referendum on spring hunting would be held on April 11, the Nationalist Party had just started to discuss the matter as part of the democratic process within its internal structures. However, by that time, the referendum had already been marred with spin.

It had lost its credibility, thanks to Joseph Muscat’s way of handling it. This is because he decided to publicise his voting intention and, continues to do so, in favour of spring hunting, which, of course, will have a bearing on the way Labour supporters will vote.

In doing so he has, obviously, given an unfair advantage to the hunting lobby from the very start.

The fact that Muscat assured us that Labour would not be campaigning on either side of the debate was intended to mask his true intentions. Labour not campaigning does not change the fact that he had announced his voting intention, using his position of strength as Prime Minister.

He has tricked the electorate to think that his party is not taking sides. It is because of this kind of trickery that a practice supposed to augment and improve our democratic institutions has lost its significance with the electorate.

The abrogative referendum was introduced by a Nationalist government in the mid-1990s in line with the party’s commitment to and legacy in empowering citizens in a healthy and thriving democracy. To do so, it has always been considered necessary that trust in the process is a must. Yet, Muscat betrayed what was entrusted to him, when he put his own popularity, political survival and growth above the country’s legislative and democratic interests.

Marketing for Muscat means honouring the multifarious promises he had made prior to the 2013 election.

Since he was elected to power, Muscat helped and granted favours to those around him. He has been exploiting public sentiment for his political gain, leaving values out of it.

It is numbers that count for Muscat’s government. Yet, the definition of a true leader should be that of one who leads by example, one who is motivated by what the country really needs. A true leader is one who takes unpopular decisions because it is the right thing to do.

Muscat preferred to make promises to both the hunting lobby and to environmentalists before the 2013 election, in the process fooling both.

Joseph Muscat has been exploiting public sentiment for his political gain, leaving values out of it

It is because of his irresponsible way of doing politics that Muscat is being held hostage by the hunting lobby to the detriment of us all. Yet, as they say, what goes around comes around, and the hunting lobby have only itself and Muscat to blame if the derogation for spring hunting is abolished altogether.

It is because Muscat gave the impression during the electoral campaign that once he is in government hunters could act with impunity that this unprecedented situation has arisen. His government reduced law enforcement in the countryside to ridiculous levels.

On the other hand, it was a Nationalist government that negotiated the derogation before the EU referendum to allow spring hunting. Then, there was a valid reason for doing so and Simon Busuttil was amply clear.

Had the derogation not been negotiated, there was an imminent risk that the referendum for EU accession would not have gone through. The PN government knew what the repercussions would have been had ‘partnership’ won. It was because of people like Muscat, who were a threat to the possibility of our country joining the EU, that we are being held to ransom by the hunting lobby today.

Once again, the PN acted responsibly in the best interest of the common good of our country’s citizens. It must be said that Busuttil’s position as leader of the Opposition is what it is because he was part of the team that negotiated the derogation prior to the EU referendum.

It is for consistency’s sake that he cannot go back on his word. As one who had negotiated for limited hunting, he could not see himself voting against. On the other hand, he gave a free vote to the PN parliamentary group and the party media is balanced in its coverage of the issue.

The difference between Busuttil and Muscat is clear: the latter is pressurised by his populist kind of politics while Busuttil is considering what is best at this point in time.

Muscat knows too well that by declaring that he will be voting in favour, even if the referendum is won by the Yes vote, he could say that he is forced to respect the people’s will and that his party was always in favour of the derogation.

If the No camp wins, he will say that he was in favour of maintaining the law but, because of the referendum’s result, he will have to sanction the derogation.

Muscat is more interested in coming out of it squeaky clean.

My intention is not to state my voting preference. However, I hope for voters to make a conscious choice, considering those who believe in the well-being of our environment over and above those who are hiding behind a false definition of what minority rights are.

Justin Schembri is a PN candidate.