The argument for having or not having the George Cross on the flag (Thomas Zerafa, May 6) emanates from the fact that by now it should have transformed itself into a national symbol, something which does not seem to have happened. It was placed there for obvious political reasons in 1943 by a British monarch, who is also the head of the Anglican Church.

Public spaces – flags, monuments, city centres – elaborate our identity. While after independence the medal was politically retained with ‘local British sympathy-for-votes’ in mind, no Maltese citizen has yet identified with the George Cross as being a symbol of our representative distinctiveness – not any sports person, no institution, no euro coins, no bishop’s crosier, no airplane tail. Except for Times of Malta’s title banner, nobody associates Malta with the George Cross;nothing wrong there. This newspaper is a private commercial media product which has every right to choose its historic symbols.

People who wish to retain the George Cross argue that our national colours would be less distinctive without this British medal, which we share with at least 244 receivers.

Red and white, which seem to have served us well for almost a millennium, made a historical impact on many occasions, not least in 1919 as poignantly depicted by Gianni Vella’s painting (left) on the eve of our first representative government.

Red and white are common colours in vexillology but they also belong to several respected countries including Austria, Poland and Monaco. Those who retained colonial symbols have either preserved the British monarch as their head (like Australia) or are in the process of removing them like Fiji, Barbados and New Zealand.

I do not believe any of these countries harbour any animosity either against Queen Elizabeth or the British people.

According to the 1974 Constitution a simple majority in Parliament can remove the George Cross, two-thirds the red and white. That is a fact that, in itself, indicates two different levels of national importance.