Justice Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici would be happy if Malta were to "achieve something" on illegal immigration (editorial, The Times, March 31).

How about that! "Something" is just not good enough, is it? But that is always the way with the PN. Lawrence Gonzi achieved something - the asylum pact - and what did it get us? Zilch. Gunther Verheugen said so. The Nationalists, and The Times too, are happy to be in Europe and accept European handouts, but it's a European boot that is kicking us, so that makes it alright.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici does not want "to emulate Dom Mintoff in Helsinki". And The Times applauds - "Well put", it commented.

Both the Minister of Justice and The Times show themselves for what they are. Weak thinkers and poor salesmen of ideas. Because what they say actually weakens their very argument.

Mr Mintoff bent the world to his will by his "intransigence" at Helsinki. He got all the countries negotiating the CSCE set-up to accept his point of view. The US, the world's superpower, so often finds it impossible to get Russia or China, or both, to agree to its proposals. Mr Mintoff got all the world to think like he did. They accepted his argument because he stood up to them, using the veto. And Dr Mifsud Bonnici, and The Times, don't want "to emulate" Mr Mintoff. They could do, and are doing, much, much worse. Who would not want the world to do his bidding?

Would the veto help solve the problem, The Times asks, answering that it would not, though the idea has not been tried by us, though we are in such straits. But then The Times rather strangely contradicts itself by saying that "there is nothing wrong in using the veto when it is absolutely necessary to do so in the country's interest".

Who is to say what the country's interest is? The Times, which so roundly opposed independence for Malta? It is in our interest, right now, before summer, to demand effective action about immigration, and if that action is not forthcoming, it is in our interest, right now, to use the veto.