1. Who stood to gain from such a proposal and who would it benefit? The country would have benefitted and therefore, indirectly, I would have too. I couldn’t see any personal gain to anybody in the success of this proposed project, unless one includes the creation of jobs for the construction industry as personal gain.

2. What factual and professional information and opinion on the feasibility of such a project is available? What conclusions could be reached from such facts and information? The strident opposition to the project started to influence me in forming my opinion against the museum extension – until I started to unravel, with the limited means at my disposal, fact from fiction, fabrications from considered opinion, truth from outright lies.

3. Who would provide the funding? As I understood it, mostly EU funding.

4. Who is against this proposal, and why? Who is in favour, and why? What is the track record of the people/organisations on both sides of the fence? Credibility? We now know who was against it and who stood to gain, politically and otherwise, from stopping the process dead. We also know who was in favour, and their credibility.

5. Would there be a transparent, thorough, professional and objective evaluation by competent and informed people and organisations before the project got anywhere to actually being implemented?
We’ll never know now, although I do admit that MEPA does not inspire me with complete confidence in its decisions. But that could be fixed with such a high visibility project.

6. Finally, there’s no gain without pain.