Muscat has said that they have learned from their past mistakes, which means that nowadays they cannot afford to be violent.

Now, while the aim remains the same, the roadmap of getting there is different. Things must be done in a very very subtle way.

The wolf has dressed as a lamb.

Which referendum?

Which negative vote by the opposition?

What referendum could ever displace the entrenched constitutional proviso that a two thirds vote in the House is an essential prerequisite before legally amending the constitution?

I know! I know! We have a party in government that “titnejjek mill Kostitiuzzjoni” and practices “ftit tbazwir llil hawn u ftit iehoe lill hinn”.

Since those evil days, and when it was in its death throes, the MLP had accepted the jurisdiction of the EU courts of justice.

No wonder he ranted that the people will have a say. Vive la difference! Even the promise of MPs’ salaries being relative to their attendance; I’d say to give opposition MPs disincentives, and think twice before thinking of boycotting Parliament. Here we go, back to 1981. Change in direction indeed.

It’s all fine if the government has ignored ME.

The PL has executed another masterstroke by rewarding him or others of his ilk. A disgruntled voter harbouring a fairly legitimate complaint would feel totally justified to follow suit. If a former PN MP (and a loony one) can get way with it and reap rewards?

Franco has been a great poster-boy for the PL, as he has championed the cry (or should I say, moan) for abstaining, cross-voting and prostituting oneself unashamedly to other side.

However, one hopes that the reasoning behind a negative vote by the Opposition in favour of changes as expressed in a referendum shall be well explained to the public, i.e. it’s not a simple majority that changes the constitution but two-thirds.

One final note: by the time we arrive at a referendum, one hopes that the gullable Maltese voters who chose this PM would have seen the real Joseph Muscat for what he is, a double-faced charlatan.