M.O.T.S plus Hate

Maltastar



M.O.T.S. means `more of the same`. That is how I can describe the PN election campaign and logo.

What came out clear during the first week of the campaign was how shocked the PN were by the referendum result.` They can put on all the make-up they want.` They can pretend that hell feels like heaven.` Nothing will change the facts.

Everybody knew well beforehand that the referendum contest was between the YES camp and Labour`s triple choice. The challenge was accepted, no questions asked.` Nobody complained about Labour`s triple choice.` Nobody suggested it breaks any rules. On the contrary the YES camp expressed over and over again that they were at first confident and then sure, to get an overall majority. They were supported by friendly opinion polls suggesting an overall majority ranging from 55% up to 72%.

`Their eternal ally, The Times, gave a diametrically opposite interpretation to the same referendum result from that it had given in 1956 to the Integration Referendum and in 1964 to the Independence Referendum. Consistency for The Times is colour coded.` Labour not only stuck to its triple choice but actually implemented it. We forced nobody to go out and vote. We even counselled sick sympathisers not to take the trouble to go out` and to reserve their energies for the general elections.` Local election results prove it. Several prominent Labour figures, including the Leader himself, actually abstained from the referendum vote.

To prove how wise they are after the event, the PN, seeing they failed in what they took for granted,` tried to change the rules. Suddenly positive abstentions and cancellations were not to be counted.` Suddenly Alfred Sant`s and my own positive abstentions counted for nothing.

Their eternal ally, The Times, gave a diametrically opposite interpretation to the same referendum result from that it had given in 1956 to the Integration Referendum and in 1964 to the Independence Referendum. Consistency for The Times is colour coded.

But facts speak louder than words. It took the PN five clear days to come out with their election campaign logo. They were forced to blow the whistle when they had lost the platform upon which they had prepared their election campaign and had to start all over again. The only billboard they could come out with during the first days of the campaign was a hate billboard consisting of just text and perfectly copied from Borg Olivier`s 1976 campaign. Even then they could produce better visuals than the hastily put together hate billboard!

And to prove that their imagination hit rock bottom they had to borrow GID from their 1998 campaign, XOGHOL from their 1987 campaign and SERJETA` from Labour`s 1998 campaign.

I am now more convinced than ever that the 12th April 2003 election date was imposed on them from Brussels. Dr George Vella, mentioned it yesterday and quoted Agence Europe report confirming what I always suspected.

12th April is the latest date the election could be held to abide by the EU insistence that the Accession Treaty should be signed by governments that either command a strong Referendum result in favour of accession or have an electoral mandate which carries them till the real accession date of 1st May 2004. `I am now more convinced than ever that the 12th April 2003 election date was imposed on them from Brussels. Dr George Vella, mentioned it yesterday and quoted Agence Europe report confirming what I always suspected.`

The Nationalist government had none of these. So one could understand that the election is being held by the latest possible date and the referendum date was chosen as a consequence of this fact and had nothing to do with the national interest.` The referendum was simply used as a partisan tool, financed by public funds, aided by offensive foreign interference of unprecedented proportions, to be a spring board for winning the elections set for 12th April.

That`s the only thing that can explain why Government went so early for the referendum, not even giving us time for the Treaty to be translated and finalised, and without taking up the opening offered by the Leader of the Opposition to discuss terms for consensus about a post-election referendum.

So all the PN`s election campaign was based on the `sure` fact that they will get an overall majority; that with such an incontestable mandate the election would have been a mere confirmation.` Labour would not have been able turn majority public opinion in such a short time and would not be able to change its policies and remain credible enough to win the elections.

But it has back-fired on the PN. The majority they took for-granted was not there right when needed.` I had warned clearly about this in very specific terms in my book on the subject I published in 1999. Some things are just predictable.

As predictable as Labour`s victory in the next election as the PN are forced to fill with hate the hole left in their strategy by the referendum result.`

On 8th March we won by default of the IVA.` On 12th April we will win on our own merits.