Anyone with half your IQ would do a much better job at representing the people in parliament than an entire political party.

And the pawn advanced through the ranks has now become the queen.

Charles Buttigieg – What hindsight?

Sant’s strategy had oozed on a day-to-day basis, clearly going nowhere. First he decided to boycott the referendum – which meant that Labour could not really direct its voters to vote Yes, No or maybe. Then he decided otherwise and instructed the flock to go three-way: to vote No, abstain, or invalidate the vote, thereby ensuring that the No side could NEVER win.

We followed this idiocy with trepidation, aware that his only way out would be to eventually cite the 1956 referendum and claim ‘Partnership Rebah’ (when he himself made it impossible for ‘partnership’ to win). In chess terms, that would be something like sacrificing the Queen early to ensure the game is lost, only to later declare victory on the basis that the King is invincible.

To boot, he smugly showed us his vote to prove he himself had abstained, expecting us all to applaud this sly, Santian move. What a tosser, really!

Yawn. Your point being, Mr Buttigieg? That two wrongs make a right?

Yes. Hindsight is indeed 20-20 vision. If the integration vote had gone through we’d have joined the EU in 1973, without all the crap we had to put up with. And Dom bloody Mintoff would have been just another MP in Westminster. So there.

Sant adopted the same boycott strategy plus allowing the ‘no’ voters to cast their vote. If one accepts GBO’s conclusions one has to accept Sant’s. Six of one half a dozen of the other.

Unlike the Colonial Office, the EU allowed our Government to go for it by way of a general election.

Sant’s mistake was the boycott’s strategy, hindsight it appears that had Labour allowed a regular Yes or No Referendum and accepted the result they would have won the General Election that followed. But hindsight is a 20 – 20 vision.

Maybe he was crying for that cosy chair he had in Brussels.

I think Joseph himself is confused about it. What is it? Is it BWSC, Lehmayer, the Enemalta Chairman, the commercial agent and his commission, the allegation of corruption, people’s health, the environment, the third world countries that will receive the fly ash, Mario Galea’s Yes vote, or is it Justyne’s No vote?

He is confusing the issue so much that people are now asking: what, exactly? It is now so complex that he himself is stumbling.

The truth is that a contract of hundreds of millions like that of the power station does not come very often – possibly once in a term of government or even two – and it stands to reason that whoever takes that contract must make some money.

Therefore, the opposition seized the opportunity to throw a lot of mud and to make a major national issue out of it. And of course, they would like to use it as ammunition to attack the government about corruption come the next election.

Then, we know, if Labour is elected to government, like they did in 1996 they will find no evidence of corruption and indeed, they will tell us that all was well, as they did with the Freeport, the Mater Dei, the bus ticketing machines…