Consistency and coherence were central values of my campaign over the past months.

When I say something, I want you to trust that it holds weight politically. Our words matter, and we should be judged on how consistently we align our actions with our statements.

To improve the dismal trust ratings Maltese politicians receive in Eurobarometer surveys, currently at a mere 36%, we must align our words with our actions.

Additionally, the concept of disagreeing agreeably is a hallmark of political discourse in Nordic countries, a practice we struggle with in Malta. Disagreeing with someone is not an “attack”; it is simply a divergence of opinion.

Last week I spent three hours fielding questions from various Maltese media outlets.

The first question on everyone’s lips was: why didn’t you vote in favour of Roberta Metsola?

I anticipated this question but hoped it wouldn’t come up.

Let me explain.

During the campaign, I was a harsh critic of Roberta Metsola. My criticism centred on her decision to visit Israel and offer unequivocal support to the Government’s aggressive actions without any reservations or red lines.

Anyone familiar with the region’s history and the implications of such rhetoric knew exactly what Netanyahu and his Government were planning.

The Labour Party has consistently championed the Palestinian cause and highlighted the injustices faced by the Palestinian people over the years. Rising through the party’s ranks, I can attest that this issue has always been a flagship cause, resonating deeply with both the younger members and the seasoned veterans alike.

I feel strongly about this issue, and when Metsola visited, it was clear to me that this move was driven by Brussels politicking rather than serving the best interests of the European Parliament.
Indeed, no other politician mirrored Metsola’s and Ursula von der Leyen’s quickfire visit and the totality of their support. Parameters, very often, were outlined early.

I believe she felt she was leading by example, similar to the stance on Ukraine, but it became glaringly apparent that this was disastrous optics, contributing to a dangerous narrative.

The subsequent genocide in the following months was not solely because of Metsola’s endorsement or photo-op. Still, it did lend the Israeli Government the appearance of having Europe’s backing to act without any clear impositions.

This is not an endorsement of Hamas’s terrorism. A military response was necessary, but what unfolded was genocide, pure and simple.

The numbers are horrifying: 38,000 dead, including around 15,000 children and 10,000 women. Exact figures are elusive as bodies continue to be discovered in mass graves.

1.7 million people are internally displaced, and 1.1 million face catastrophic levels of food insecurity.

UN reports indicate that many women and girls have also been forcibly disappeared by the Israeli military since the beginning of Israel’s onslaught.

The overwhelming evidence has led the International Criminal Court to open proceedings against Israel for war crimes. Yes, the same people that Metsola shook hands with formed part of the Government

Shortly after the visit, she and von der Leyen were harshly rebuked by many European diplomats, as well as being at odds with the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell who Politico described as “taking a more critical stance on the activities of the Israeli government than either European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen or European Parliament President Roberta Metsola.”

As President of the European Parliament, she faced harsh protests across European capitals, with demonstrators throwing red paint at her car and protesting during university talks, to the extent that the European Parliament had to curtail her visits due to bad press.

Notably, the bad press was in Europe. In Malta, there was little to no coverage of it in the independent media.

During the campaign, I repeatedly asserted that Metsola should retract her endorsement, clarify that Israel’s right to respond to terrorism does not justify the unrestrained killing of women and children, and address the issue as one of genocide and war crimes – just as Ursula von der Leyen did a few months ago.

Instead, Metsola chose not to discuss this support, avoided meaningful debate, and has yet to justify her visit or whether her rationale remains steadfast post-genocide.

During the campaign, I stated that until she rectified this by admitting it was a mistake to visit Israel and effectively endorse the Israelis without giving them clear warnings, I could not support her.

I criticised her harshly for this and continued to do so. She let us down on an issue with profound implications for the modern world and significant human costs.

It is particularly disappointing because, while she holds the Maltese Government to high moral standards—as is her political right—she seemingly exhibits a more passive stance on war crimes and genocide when she’s in the middle of it.

This brings me back to the idea of ‘disagreeing agreeably.’

I can hold a strong political stance, but does that mean I don’t respect the office or the person, or that I didn’t vote for her out of jealousy?

We need to move beyond the politics of infantilism towards a more mature, policy-oriented dialogue.

I certainly wish her no ill and hope she does a good job, as her success would enhance Malta’s reputation and open doors for others in the future, not just politically but in key roles across European institutions.

Holding her to account politically is not contrary to this, and if she corrects this wrong, I will be the first to support her decision and work together for progress on this issue.

So my answer to the Maltese journalists who asked why I didn’t vote for Roberta Metsola is this: I had a profound and fundamental disagreement on a matter of principle, which I could not compromise. I remained coherent and consistent with the principles I outlined during the campaign.

I had hoped the media wouldn’t ask this question because it implies that they, of all people, have come to accept as normal and natural the expectation that politicians will say one thing before an election and do another when it suits them afterwards.

Strangely, it becomes a headline when there’s consistency from the podium to the vote.

This is not on.

If there’s one lesson to be learned from the last election, it’s that people have had enough of this nonsense.