Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/444527
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 11 JANUARY 2015 11 that only strong backing from the Labour party would give them a fighting chance in the referendum. But a yes victory would also mean that Muscat would be relieved from this hot potato and contentious is- sue with environmentalists. On the other hand if the referendum does not pass either because of a no vote or if voting does not reach the quo- rum, spring hunting will remain an issue for years to come even if it may take long for environmental- ist to recover from the blow. In fact, if environmentalists are defeated on an emotional issue like hunting, the government will feel strong enough to push ahead on other issues where environmental- ists enjoy less popular support. The greatest dilemma for Muscat is what role to play during the ref- erendum campaign itself. This is because hunting brings to the fore one of the contradictions in Mus- cat's block, that between red neck hunters and the liberal bourgeois vote for whom he went as far as banning animal circuses. Muscat may choose to wash his hands by leaving it up to the people to decide. He may also play to all tunes, allowing individuals within his party to take a different stance on the issue. This would contrast with last year's MEP election when various Labour MEP candidates supported a petition aimed at de- railing the referendum and Muscat himself declared his support for spring hunting. So far not a single Labour exponent has pronounced himself or herself against spring hunting. Still with surveys showing that a majority of Labour voters tend to support the hunters' lobby, it is highly unlikely that any party offi- cials will support the campaign to abolish spring hunting. If Muscat takes the backseat hunters will conclude that Mus- cat has abandoned them even if Mus- cat may appease them by other concessions and by defying the European Com- mission on trap- ping. Hunters may well recall that Labour Party candidates in last year's MEP elec- tions were actively col- lecting signatures for a pe- tition aimed at thwarting the referendum. Muscat was himself ambiguous when asked on the petition during the campaign. If Muscat abandons them now, they may never forgive him. Moreover if Muscat does not s t a n d for them in the referendum, hunters could also punish him by ab- staining in local elections, which will be held on the same day as the referendum. He may choose to actively cam- paign on their behalf but this poses two risks, the risk of being defeated for the first time and the risk of al- ienating liberal voters. The conse- quences for Muscat ending on the losing side are not to be u n d e r e s t i m a t e d . For Muscat has so far won on every electoral appoint- ment, including the divorce referendum where he boasted of being on the right side of history. Still if he does campaign, environmentalists should not underestimate his per- suasive powers. Muscat may try to strike a bal- ance by taking a public but person- al stance against the abolition of hunting in spring while promising to stop the spring hunting season if it is marred by episodes of illegal poaching as he did in September when he stopped the autumn sea- son. Whether this will be enough to appease hunters who sup- ported him in the general and MEP elections remains to be seen. Muscat's decision of holding the referendum before the hunting sea- son starts instead of during or after the sea- son, favours the hunting lobby as it avoids the risk of illegal poaching marring the pro hunting campaign. Simon Busuttil: To take a stand or not For Busuttil much depends on what stand he will take in the referendum. If he remains non- committal he will not reap any benefits while hunters will still perceive him as the person who betrayed promises made before the 2003 EU referendum. On the other hand if Busuttil takes a clear stance in favour of the anti spring hunting campaign he may score points among liber- al voters, especially in a situation where Muscat supports the hunt- ing lobby. But in so doing Busuttil risks los- ing those hunters who support the PN even if it is doubtful whether the party can lose more votes on this issue than it has done already. He will also be attacked for going back on the promises made by the party to hunters in the past. But if Busuttil takes the back seat on this issue, by reiterating his stance for a more restricted spring hunting season, he will perpetuate the perception that he is not a de- cisive leader. The appointment of Charlo Bon- nici as spokesperson for hunting suggests that Busuttil's intention is to take some sort of stand. For it would be useless to have a spokesperson on hunting, if he does not express an opinion on the referendum. One legitimate argument Busut- til could use to justify not taking a stance is that he will be doing that so as not to politicise this issue. Even some environmentalists may be wary of Busuttil's support, as it could alienate Labour voters, who are essential for the referen- dum to pass. If Busuttil is associ- ated with the anti spring hunting campaign Labour voters may re- frain from supporting the coalition against spring hunting. But Muscat's support for the di- vorce campaign indicates other- wise. For although the PL did not officially take a stance, Muscat's personal stance helped a lot in mobilising voters but did not de- ter liberal Nationalists from vot- ing yes. Moreover if PN voters do not turn up to vote there is a risk that the 50% quorum will not be achieved. If the referendum passes and Bu- suttil would have remained silent, Busuttil would have missed the boat. If the referendum fails after a campaign in which Busuttil re- mained silent, environmentalists and anti hunting voters may well blame him for that. Arnold Cassola: losing another battle cry? In the case of an anti spring hunt- ing victory, AD would risk losing one of its main rallying calls as happened after the introduction of divorce. Yet once again AD will be vindicated for being on the right side of history in the third consec- utive referendum after the one on EU membership and divorce. AD would be the only party which was on the winning side on all three occasions. In the case of a no vic- tory AD will be blamed for helping push environ- mental NGOs into a risky gamble. For it was AD which first floated this idea and set the referen- dum engine in motion, despite the reluctance of some of the other environ- mental groups. Still, if suc- cessful, the referendum will prove the continued relevance of a party which changed history despite not being represented in parliament. News Post of Lawyer at the Office of the Attorney General A vacancy has arisen at the Office of the Attorney General Agency to fill the post Lawyer. The Agency requires a Lawyer to work on a full-time basis and be in possession of a Doctor of Laws degree with the necessary warrant to practice in Malta as a Lawyer. Letters of application, including a detailed CV and a copy of the warrant, should be addressed to: The Administration (ETC Permit 1/2015) Office of the Attorney General, The Palace, Valletta Closing date 16 th January, 2015 at 12.00 hrs. ETC Permit No. 1/2015 MPO Ref. 262/2005/I referendum: what is at stake? Arnold Cassola, Alternattiva Demokratika chairperson Opposition leader Simon Busuttil