In a fortnight’s time, such voters as will bother to do so will cast their ballot in another election. The point is many of them must be wondering what it’s all about. It should be up to the candidates to do the explaining. They are the bravehearts who want a mandate to go to the European Parliament and do their business there. Again, the point is: what is their business?

The two main candidates for the European Commission presidency paid us a visit as part of their campaign. They want our vote and, in particular, they want us to vote for candidates who are ready to back their effort.

That being so, even they were little concerned with telling us in detail what they stood for; what the European Parliament was all about; how they would try to reshape it if they were elected.

Instead, they were keen to tell us how chummy they were with our two main political leaders. Joseph Muscat, the Prime Minister, and Simon Busuttil, the Leader of the Opposition, have both served as members of the European Parliament.

They did so with distinction. They made a mark for themselves and came back to Malta to win the two top posts. But what did they do that was Malta-centric in the European Parliament?

That question gains relevance when we try to examine what the candidates for the six Malta MEP euro-seats are not telling us.

In reality, the European Parliament is not focused that much on individual European countries. In country terms, MEPs are mostly attentive to what is going on outside the EU. They have their European duty to attend to, but not so much in relation to any specific country, including their own.

It matters, however, what it is that they do. We are not sending six MEPs to Brussels to discuss Maltese issues. At least, that is not the name of the game. Notwithstanding that, Maltese clothes have been merrily taken to Brussels to be washed and aired there.

Not surprisingly, then, some of the candidates who are seeking our votes are concentrating on precisely that – preparing to wash more dirty linen on the euro stage.

Their campaigning has little to do to their prospective value as euro-parliamentarians. It has practically all to do with how loudly they can call the other side names or how willing they are to paint the opposing side as the devil incarnate. That applies in particular to the way Opposition candidates present their case against the Labour candidates.

Those of them who are serving in the European Parliament include records of the arrows they fired at the Maltese government, and thereby at Malta, over there. The Labour MEPs say how well they shielded Malta against those attacks. The rest of the arrows in their quiver, and the shields, however, are mass produced in their parties’ armoury.

In reality the European Parliament is not focused that much on individual European countries

Again, the most strident voice is that of the Opposition candidates. They select the arrows which have the sharpest head honed on the scandal stone. Scandals are the theme of the Opposition. Practically whatever the government does is scandalous. Whether that has anything to do with the EU or not, the MEP candidates parrot the theme.

On their part the Labour candidates shield themselves and their side from the barrage. Frankly, they are not doing so very effectively. When ministers speak up in the House of Representatives they come across much more convincingly than the Labour Party does in replying to Opposition charges.

The Labour leader cannot be as convincing because during Sunday outings he feels he has to tackle all the charges levelled at his side in the previous week. The mind may be sharp, but time is limited. And detailed charges cannot be countered with brief counter-charges.

The Opposition leader too follows up his side’s attacks with summaries on Sunday. But again, frankly speaking, he doesn’t come across with much sting at all. Somehow, he hasn’t quite cut it. Very carefully he has staked out a modest claim, which is to win three of the six MEP seats on offer. He is most likely to win that bet. Yet he has said nothing about the votes’ outturn, probably thinking that Labour will still lead, but hoping that the general election surplus will be severely cut.

On his part the Labour leader has more or less conceded that he will lose a seat in a three-three outturn. He emphasises instead that, for the first time ever, the government side is expected to capture a majority of the votes, urging Labourites in particular to go out and do their business on May 24. In doing that he has resorted to Mintoff’s ‘soldiers of steel’ metaphor.

I’m not sure that rubs off well. That was 52 years ago. Remaining soldiers like myself are rather few on the ground, though they will enjoy the fact that they have not been forgotten.

The Labour leader, of course, did not intend a quantitative return on the 1960s metaphor. He was urging today’s supporters to show that they too, have spine. That they recognise Labour values and can rise above discontent that some of them have not been serviced as well as they want to, or at all, by the government.

That is always the bane of any government. Some people who voted for Labour expect a specific return. Drawing on my own experience, I can record that this category is not usually very large. Not large enough ultimately to swing a majority into a minority.

The government serves itself better by standing on its record for the whole country, which yes, belongs to all of us, rather than concentrating on a minority of grumblers.

I wonder if the grumblers’ agenda will be raised in the European Parliament in the future. Looking at the lot seeking our vote, I wouldn’t be surprised.