The Security Council, as everyone who hasn't been on the dark side of the moon knows, has finally got off the fence and resolved to do what is needed to prevent the thug Gaddafi from further brutalising Libyan citizens.

This provoked not a universal chorus of approval but a flurry of discussion online as to whether Malta can take part in military action or not, given the neutrality clauses in the Constitution.

Somewhat predictably, though not entirely, the views seemed to fall pretty much on the appropriate side of the party lines, at least insofar as recognisable names were involved.

One bloke by the name "wally" something or other gave us this gem, which I quote verbatim: "Why do we need to get involved? The British can fly their aging planes from Cyprus - which is much closer to Benghasi. The Americans can use their aircraft carriers to boost Obama's waning stature." Not a word about the way Libyan citizens, human beings one and all, are being treated, no reference to our humanitarian obligations, merely an egoistic, self-interested tirade, verging on the inhuman.

Let's not pussy-foot around any more on this one, shall we?

The Constitution is clear, except perhaps to anyone whose hankering after the past, including Mintoff's adulation of Gaddafi, blinds him.

In the event of a Security Council resolution authorising military action, it is open to the Government to request (should have read "invite" I suspect, but no matter) that our facilities be used for the purpose. No amount of squirming around or hiding behind a conveniently incorrect interpretation of the Constitution, will obscure this.

If there is an imperative reason in the national interest for us to emulate the Germans, then let it be stated and there's an end to it, but there is no Constitutional barrier to choosing to act in concert with the civilised world.