We are nearly 10 days into the heated arguments over the Labour Party’s new power plant proposal and the crossfire shows no sign of slowing down. Two former ministers, Michael Falzon and Joe Grima, have said they think that, in the end, people will have to go with whom they trust more. That may well happen. But it would be scandalous if it did.

Whoever is getting it wrong is either deeply incompetent or mendacious (or both)- Ranier Fsadni

Even if the side that’s getting its facts right (whichever it is) wins the election just the same, the electorate would have been let down by Maltese journalism. There has to be a better way for the media to help us sort out the issues other than just to report what each side is claiming.

The issues couldn’t be more important for our finances, economic growth and the stability of our likely next government (since Joseph Muscat has staked his political survival on the success of his plan). Is there no way to verify some of the claims? Should it really come down to trust?

I understand very well the case for saying that it does. As Falzon said, after only two days of debate, so many numbers are flying about that it can only make people dizzy.

Meanwhile, my argument that some of the key issues can be independently verified seems to be undermined by what some of the experts themselves say. All three of the independent experts interviewed by Reno Bugeja, in the last edition of Dissett, at one point or another claimed insufficient knowledge of one or more of the points of controversy.

So where does that leave the rest of us, especially since several of the expert claims supporting one side have been contradicted by someone else who, at least at first glance, should know?

For one thing, it should leave us unimpressed by anything civil society organisations or lobbies say about anyone’s plan. They’re not in a position to know. Just because they want lower bills doesn’t mean bills will be reduced by the first, second or third proposal that comes along. The wish is potent enough to be father to the thought but bills cannot be lowered by the power of thought alone.

More importantly, however, the public discussion so far should have us up in protest. It’s been conducted far too narrowly. All along, those journalists who have sought to bring in independent expert opinion have assumed that the only experts we need to hear from are scientists, technologists and engineers.

In fact, there are technical issues involving other pro-fessions. First, there is legal technicality. Legally speak-ing, can Labour bypass the tendering process?

The importance of the issue goes beyond law. Labour’s case is that the country needs to embark on a fast-tracked process. It is the key advantage, Labour says, over the pipeline option. But that means that if the project cannot, legally, be fast-tracked, the key advantage would be gone.

Here’s what I mean by scandal: should it really boil down to trust on this one? Are there no independent legal experts who can say who’s right, PN or Labour? What are we waiting for to get established authorities – legal specialists, European Commission officials – to give a considered legal opinion?

The second technical issue, which is not an engineering one, concerns long-term agreements in the gas market. Ten days into the debate, and we’ve only had isolated voices speak about the possibility of making a 10-year agreement that fixes prices in the way Labour would like.

Konrad Mizzi has claimed he can offer examples of such agreements. But do we have to continue to wait for him? Is there no one in the world – if only the energy editor at an authoritative news organisation – who can set us right on this?

Once again, it’s no trivial matter. Acquiring such an agreement is a hinge of the Labour plan. Without it, the plan fails. We won’t even need to sort out the rest of the controversy to make up our minds.

These two issues require expert opinion. But the expert answer involves no numbers, only a few simple words. Perhaps, depending on how the question is asked, no more than a ringing Yes or No.

It’s quite clear that, on each of these two key issues, one side is getting it badly wrong. There is no space for a truth that lies somewhere in the middle. There is no middle, no grey area. Either something is legal or it is not. Either a certain kind of gas purchasing agreement is still common or it is not.

Whoever is getting it wrong is either deeply incompetent or mendacious (or both). Whoever is this incompetent or mendacious shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the levers of government for the next five years.

Shouldn’t our media be helping us find out who it is?

ranierfsadni@europe.com