Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/306555
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 4 MAY 2014 12 News EVER since former prime minister Dom Mintoff introduced the first regulations on hunting in the 1970s, the hunting lobby has been black- mailing the political class with their vote ever since. A pre-electoral pact signed with the Labour Party before the 1996 election, following a tightening of regulations by the PN government, may well have had a crucial impact in Labour's ephemeral victory at the time. This was followed by a pact signed with the PN ahead of the 1998 election, which proved crucial in se- curing the silence of this lobby in the EU membership referendum. The derogation on spring hunt- ing from the EU's Birds Directive has now come to symbolise the political might of this lobby. But a 45,000-strong petition to demand an abrogative referendum on the legal notice authorising spring hunting, championed by the Green Party and a coalition of NGOs, has changed the dynamics of this battle. With surveys showing an over- whelming majority against this prac- tice, the political class is being faced with a dilemma: whether to ditch past commitments to hunters or to stand by them irrespective of the popular will. Labour's commitments to hunters Inexplicably, despite riding high in election polls, the Labour Party signed a vague pre-electoral agree- ment with the hunting lobby on the eve of the 2013 general election. PN-leaning hunters were probably identified as one of those volatile cat- egories of voters which could shift to Labour, and keen on securing the largest majority possible, give Joseph Muscat's party a comfortable major- ity in parliament. The six-point agreement, signed on the eve of the election, speaks of the "correct" application of EU dero- gations on spring hunting and the trapping of songbirds. Labour also promised that once in government, it would also introduce fixed dates for hunting seasons in autumn and spring, and a consultation process would also take place to remove un- certainty and ambiguity from hunt- ing laws and regulations. Both parties to the agreement made it clear that the EU package "cannot and will not be reopened". The agreement was the result of two years of technical discussions between the Labour Party and the hunters' federation, led by Labour MP Michael Falzon, who is a hunter himself. After being elected, the Labour government removed some of the restrictions imposed on hunters like the wearing of an armband, the pay- ment of a special licence for spring hunting, and lifted the ban on hunt- ing on Sundays and public holidays. In a balancing act following outrage over various episodes of illegal hunt- ing, Labour drastically increased fines on illegal hunting. But the referendum on spring hunting risks upsetting this delicate balance. The options for Labour Labour has three choices: ditch hunters and abolish spring hunting to avoid a likely humiliating defeat in a referendum, support hunters in the referendum, take a back seat on the issue or try to avoid the referendum to retain the status quo. Each option represents a poisoned chalice for La- bour leader Joseph Muscat, who has to weigh between losing an ally and alienating the general electorate. Option 1: Ditching hunters Averting the referendum by stop- ping spring hunting would win Muscat brownie points in the liberal press and among young and more liberal voters who view hunting as an anachronistic practice and resent the political blackmail of an arrogant lobby. Ditching hunters would be in line with Muscat's reformist streak on other issues like civil unions, where he is not afraid of challenging traditionalists. Still, when it comes to purely electoral considerations, Muscat may well consider lobbies like hunters and fireworks factory enthusiasts as being in same league of gay activists – a pool of highly volatile voters who can switch sides. For while a silent majority is opposed to spring hunting, hunters are more likely to change their vote whenever their "hobby" is at stake. Muscat may also be wary of the attitude taken by the PN to this issue, fully knowing that the hunting lobby may switch sides at the first sign of political be- trayal. The cost of ditching hunters would be that of being accused of taking a u-turn and creating a re- sentful category of voters who would punish him for a broken promise. Option 2: Support hunters in the referendum Although opinion polls show a ma- jority against hunting, the Labour Party can still exercise considerable influence on its voters. If Labour actively campaigns for the hunting lobby – by, for example, calling on its supporters to abstain in the refer- endum – it can make life difficult for the anti-hunting lobby, which may find it difficult to reach a quorum. In fact, in the absence of a 50% turnout, the referendum will not pass. Yet the cost of this option would be that of associating the supposedly progres- sive Labour Party with a regressive lobby bent on protecting its privi- leges at all costs. While the Labour The hunting games What are the stakes for government and Opposition in the spring hunting referendum saga, JAMES DEBONO asks? Prime Minister Joseph Muscat FKNK CEO Lino Farrugia