Date of interview: 18/8/2025
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
So, first of all, thank you for giving us an hour of your time.
You already have a general idea of what my line of questioning will be based on. But, for the benefit of our viewers, I’ll explain what the premise is.
The biggest interest I have in this conversation stems from the fact that the numbers are painting a very clear picture.
There is about a third of Malta’s electorate which has clearly and consistently shown that it is no longer interested in the major parties.
They don’t want to hear about the Labour Party nor the Nationalist Party.
On 14 June, you published a very interesting statement. You described Momentum as “Malta’s real opposition.”
You clearly saw the Nationalist Party and the current state it is in and you stepped up to the plate with this press statement.
Now, these voters we mentioned want a political alternative. They will be looking at you, at ADPD, and any other parties which may rise in the future.
You are presenting yourselves as a new party…in fact, you’ve been on the scene for how long now? Less than a year?
“Since January, so eight months by now.”
So, it’s my impression that your ‘new’ party was built around the momentum that was generated by Arnold Cassola’s independent run for an MEP seat. Cassola was kind of a lightning rod for the support that built your party.
So, my first question to you is this: what is Momentum going to offer to voters that is different enough to succeed where your most successful candidate didn’t?
“Okay, so, first of all – hello. I’m not so popular in Malta’s political scene yet. My role is secretary-general of Partit Momentum.
I was one of the first who put in a lot of effort to form this party. Arnold is the leader of the party. He is the most experienced one among us. We look up to him for his knowledge, for his ability to communicate and debate. He has around 40 years of experience in local politics.
He also has a set of accomplishments to speak of: among them, as the most popular independent candidate in Maltese history, and also the most popular third party candidate to date.
Obviously, he brings a lot of knowledge that we build upon, but the party isn’t Arnold. The MEP campaign started with a small team of four people. Obviously, we were very involved with organising that campaign and providing other forms of support.
The result we obtained wasn’t what we wanted – obviously, we wanted him to be elected, but we got very close to that..including second-count votes, we got to a total of around 23,000 if I’m not mistaken.”
He had at least 13,000 first-count votes for sure.
“Exactly. So, what’s different this time around? Well, we weren’t there before, to begin with. While it’s true that Arnold is the only veteran among us, he is not Momentum. Momentum is a lot more.
I wanted to create a strong, credible platform that can be used to vote for this party’s candidates. That didn’t exist before. There were other parties beforehand – Arnold was in Alternattiva Demokratika. He was never a part of the ADPD version of the green party.”
Right, the post-merger party.
“Exactly. I am often asked about disagreements which happened between Sandra (Gauci) and Arnold, but these two never actually worked together. They were never members of the same party, to be clear.
So, these disagreements happened between different people who said things in the past. Having met both Arnold and Sandra, I believe that both of them are valid and credible. So, we’re a new group, we began in January, and our track record is obviously limited to our involvement in that MEP campaign.
Since then, more people have joined. And, as you said, the momentum we have from that campaign is also why we have our name.
What I’m trying to do, which I believe is essential, is build structure…when I look at the kind of disagreements which happened in the past, I don’t think there was the right structure to handle it.
When you have these kinds of disagreements, when you need to talk about how to be efficient and make decisions…you need structure. I am trying to bring in my own professional expertise that I’ve implemented in my business to ensure I have a healthy organisation.
I want the members of this party to work together productively and to come up with good ideas. We didn’t publish that statement you mentioned earlier because of the state that the Nationalist Party is in at the moment.
There are a lot of issues which they don’t talk about. You don’t hear them talking about construction or anything like that. We know they can’t do that because they are compromised.
These parties are being funded by the same people we are criticising. Obviously, I don’t think that can work. There are certain things which you just shouldn’t do. Even just looking at the Nationalist Party’s ongoing leadership campaign – if you look at their videos, they are using the same venues which everyone’s criticising because of the illegalities they have on their properties.”
Understood. I’ll be asking you about party financing and the historical split between Alternattiva Demokratika and how that split eventually led to the creation of a new party.
But, before doing that, I wanted to ask you a few more basic questions.
When you talk about your candidates, how many candidates will be representing your party? Let’s start from that.
“Currently, we have four candidates who are willing to run on our ticket. Everyone knows that finding candidates is the biggest challenge any third party will ever have.
A group photo of Partit Momentum’s team. Photo: Partit Momentum
We have lots of volunteers – everyone wants to help, everyone wants to do something, but most people want to help behind the scenes. There is a certain fear of being seen.
Now, obviously, in terms of strategy, a lot of this depends on when the general elections will be held. As far as we know, the elections haven’t been announced yet, and it will all depend on what we’ve managed to achieve until then.
Our strategy will change according to what is needed in that particular situation. I want to encourage a lot of people to participate. Obviously, the more, the merrier…there are a lot of very valid people who talk to us a lot, but there is a lot of hesitation about things like being in front of a camera and so on.
Where do you think this hesitation is coming from?
“Based on what people tell me, work comes up often. People are afraid of losing their job or suffering some sort of retaliation. I think that’s one of the biggest ones. Generally, being in the public eye does have some downsides. It is a sacrifice.
Everyone has a lot of things to do. We all know that if you have commitments like a (house) loan, you need to work very hard to keep up. This is all voluntary work. So, a lot of the people we talk to usually want to help – sometimes, they’ll participate in a discussion or send us a donation – which is good, because we need everyone’s ideas.
But, obviously, the more we get people who are willing to become candidates, the better. They do need to be valid people. There is a process, including for our volunteers. When someone approaches us to help, there’s an interview process.
This helps us ensure we are not sacrificing our values. I would not have done any of the work I did for this party if the values I believe in weren’t on our website. I joined because I want to see something different from what I’ve seen so far.
If that wasn’t the case, I’d continue doing what I do for work – I’ve got enough to do. I don’t feel represented…I remember when I would try to think about who to vote for, I’d write my values in a column on a spreadsheet and write down the names of candidates next to them, and give them ratings according to how they fit in. But, I felt like the list was lacking. I couldn’t find what I was looking for.”
Right, you couldn’t find anyone who could represent you in this spreadsheet.
“There were some, but there weren’t enough. You can still come up with a score at the end. I always felt there was a need for this party to exist. I always had an interest in following the news and figuring out what’s going on, too.
I think that principles can never be sacrificed. There are certain lines which shouldn’t be crossed. Even talking with people in the Opposition about this…they’ll tell you that you need to do certain things because otherwise, you won’t be able to function without enough funding.
No, sorry, but that’s a line I just won’t ever cross. I won’t sacrifice my values, and I feel that we need to give that option to the electorate.”
I’m an eternal optimist – even here, at work, that’s how everyone refers to me. I believe that, if you do things right, you can succeed. There’s no need to be evil to achieve something. And I want to prove it.
Right, it’s interesting that you’d mention this point. In fact, I was going to ask you about your level of financing and how it compares with what you have.
In your press statement, you’d said something very similar to what you just said.
I’d like to quote you on this – because I think you’re the one who wrote it:
‘We will not be bought by unscrupulous developers. We will never abandon our principles. And we shall always be there to speak and act for the people.’
Now, naturally, I myself as a voter who is heavily disillusioned by the major parties’ hegemony, that is a statement that I can sympathise with a lot. I am drawn to it.
But, having said that, we are talking about general elections here, where, as I’m sure you know, major parties have big war chests at their disposal.
In material terms, it is very difficult for you to compete with that kind of spending power.
How are you going to present yourselves, in that context? As in, how are you going to compete with parties who’ve achieved that kind of scale?
“I feel like in the MEP elections, on some level, we did manage to compete. Obviously, it’s different from general elections, because you don’t have districts and so on. However, in the last 40 days or so of that campaign, a lot of people showed up to help us.
We also saw a spike in donations over those last few days. I don’t remember the exact figures of what we collected, but we published everything on our website.
We need donations. We receive them online, and it’s a transparent system: every transaction is recorded, and we publish everything. We don’t have a TV marathon where nobody knows where the money is coming from.
What is essential is the efficient use of whatever money and resources you have. This is something that Arnold mentioned had happened in the past; a lot of people wanted to help, but if you fail to channel that energy into meaningful things, it’s lost.
I’ve literally had people tell me that they don’t know where to start or what to do. I have a background in recruitment, and I see parallels between that and politics. I set up a career site that shows which roles are needed, and a lot of people applied. They were all assigned a role.
Everything is organised in a WhatsApp community with different groups for different tasks. Having a good organisational structure will allow us to achieve more. We can be more efficient with what little resources we have.
Even with simple things like publishing a video – the attitude is ‘roll up your sleeves and do it yourself.’ What needs to be done, must be done. A marketing company might take a €6,000 cut from your project to do it for you.
So, we are as efficient as possible, we put in as much effort as possible…if we channel all that energy, we can get where we want to get. Besides money, members are what makes up a party. It’s not enough to have a lot of money at your disposal if you’re going to just waste it.
This also happens in business – if you’re funding-based and you spend all your money recklessly, your business will perish quickly, like so many do.
I think that, if we work prudently, we can have a huge impact. We mentioned the number of candidates earlier; even if we don’t get a large number of candidates, we can still make an impact with what we’d have. Our strategy would be built around them so we can maximise what we can achieve.”
What’s your target for these general elections? I also want to ask about how many supporting members you would like to get, but let’s start with the number of candidates first.
“Ideally, we’d cover every district, so everyone who wants to support us would be able to do so. Each candidate can cover up to two districts, so there’s a number of candidates you need for that.
However, I spoke with people from other parties – third parties, obviously, not the big ones – and I don’t exclude being smart about how we spread ourselves out along district lines.
It could be a good strategy to say, for example, if there’s a district where ADPD is really strong, or we are strong, then we can avoid affecting each other. We don’t exclude that option. I spoke to them. It’s still early since no general elections have been announced yet, but we will need to find the best solution.”
Okay, I’ll be asking you about that a bit later as well.
In fact, I wanted to ask you about whether you are willing to engage in a coalition, or at least find some sort of way to spread yourselves out, as you said…
“…and I think I’m answering your question.”
…sure, but I’ll still be asking you more about it.
Going back to the number of registered members for a second: can you give me at least a vague idea of how many people we’re talking about?
“There are around 70 registered members. I’m noticing that people don’t really want to register as members. I feel like the idea of “registering” with a party feels a bit old-fashioned. I’ve never been a registered member of any party, and if anyone asked me to do that before, I would have said no.
I choose who to vote for and that’s it, so I thought that maybe having a membership card is too old-fashioned. There are a lot who donate but do not subscribe, because it’s the subscription that makes you a member.
If you compare it to the fee that major parties ask for, it’s quite expensive, because we ask for €30 a year, whereas big parties ask for €5 a year, I think…though probably, if you talk to the people who are responsible for collecting that fee, they might tell you that they spent that sum on just collecting it.
Our model is different. I think there’s been a change in the way people think about party membership. Obviously, the more people we get, the better. A subscription helps more than a donation does because you have some form of guarantee that what you collected last year will also be collected this year.
Other than that, small donations come in quite often, and I am not so fussed on increasing the number of registered members.”
Okay…your model is different to the registry model, it will have different categories of supporters who will follow in different ways.
“Exactly, it’s for people who might not be so inclined towards the traditional model.”
Okay, sure.
Let me go back to the point I wanted to make about the coalition I mentioned earlier.
You did give me a partial answer to that question, in the sense that you just mentioned that there were informal discussions between you and ADPD.
“Yes. We also spoke to independent candidates, too.”
Okay, that’s a good sign. But I want more detail about how your party was born from this split…
“Arnold split from Alternattiva Demokratika a long time ago now.”
Okay, that’s true, but Arnold became an independent candidate from that point onward. I understand that some time passed between one and the other, but the fact is that had Arnold not decided to leave, we’d just have ADPD, not two parties.
ADPD obtained a pretty positive result during the last local council elections.
The party’s chairperson, Sandra Gauci, was elected in St Paul’s Bay, while Ralph Cassar was elected on Attard’s local council.
From your end, the fledgling campaign you’d built around Arnold’s candidacy was quite impressive, too, especially with 13,000 votes on the first count.
I think Arnold’s MEP run was one of the only elections in recent memory in which real hope was invested in an independent candidate.
From my point of view, the upcoming general elections are probably the best chance any third party has ever had to elect a candidate to Malta’s Parliament.
I think, to some extent, these elections are almost existential for you, and for everyone really, including major parties.
In my opinion, I think you would stand a good chance if your parties had to unite in a formal coalition.
Were there any conversations about this subject?
“Yes, there were conversations. We have not closed any doors, either way, so it is on the table and it’s possible that it might happen.
But, the general elections have not been announced yet. Though it’s true that it may be around the corner, there’s so much we need to do before we think about a coalition. There’s a lot of people who don’t even want to vote, for example. We need to convince them first.
There are those who are disillusioned by both major parties, many of whom tell us that they are not yet ready to vote for ADPD or for us. Those are people we need to convince. I can either (quote/unquote) “waste” my time trying to influence other parties, but the gap is so huge. No third party has ever managed to swing past 3%.
At this stage, I don’t want to waste my energy on planning a coalition when there are so many people I need to talk to before then. There will come a time when we need to talk about where we agree and disagree, and some of these conversations are already happening.
You mentioned the ‘split’ from AD. We were not created because of the split from AD. We were created because of what we managed to achieve with Arnold as an independent candidate, not as a member of AD.
There were certain values which Arnold felt very strongly about, which he was not going to compromise over. When he saw that everyone around him had a perspective which would challenge those values, he felt like he was no longer fit to be a part of that group.
In the new structure that we have with Momentum, we’ve resolved that problem. We have a system where members can freely take a vote of conscience. We have different people with different ideas. We have people like myself who are left-leaning, but we also have others who are more conservative.
On certain issues – like the issue I referred to earlier – we allow members to take a vote of conscience.”
Just to clarify – we’re talking about abortion here.
“Yes, at the time, that was the issue. There might be other issues at some point. There are so many big issues which are more important than that – governance, the environment, a fair economy – that, in my opinion, it’s not worth wasting our energy on an issue like abortion, especially when the government uses it to divide and distract the opposition.
In Momentum, we resolved that problem. We have people in our party who are more conservative, others who are more liberal. On most things, we agree, and we believe we’re at the point where the values we enshrined on our website are the most important of all.
I think that addresses the issues that led to that split…none of us were in AD before this, except for Arnold, of course. Moving forward, I don’t exclude some form of collaboration.”
I’m asking you about this because the biggest problem any third party has ever had is going past that 3% threshold.
Before this interview, I analysed your press statements and compared them with press statements published by ADPD over the past couple of months.
You issued practically identical statements about the following: planning, the environment, construction, Manoel Island, DB Group’s project in Pembroke, the sanctioning of massive illegalities like Montekristo, Bills 143 and 144, mass tourism, Gaza, corruption, the rule of law…
On a very wide range of subjects, you basically have the same platform.
I am happy to hear that you’re not excluding the possibility of collaboration, because the third party vote was effectively split during last year’s elections.
Do you think you could stand on your own, without such a coalition of some kind?
“I think we still have a good chance of success, even without that coalition. I might be wrong, but if I remember well, if you add up all the votes we got and the votes that ADPD got in the MEP elections, I don’t think it would have made much of a material difference. The gap is so big that we need to do bigger things than just that.
Earlier, I was talking about how an organisation and how it should be managed. In my opinion, those things – packaging, image, how you present yourself, what you say and how you react to things and so on – are very important.
I think this is what I bring to this team. Arnold may be a bit more traditional with how he does things, though he does have things like his page, Arnold’s Citizen Watch. It’s not my style in terms of presentation…I believe that for us to be successful in the general elections, we need to really think about how we organise ourselves and what initiatives we take to reach people.
I wouldn’t underestimate those things. I think that, in the past, even when we look at elections in which AD did really well, there was quite a bit of momentum that went nowhere after that. I believe that we need to do things much better than how they were done at the time.
We need to give a very credible voice to whoever doesn’t know who they are voting for. I believe that we will work on that – let us do our thing as best as we can, and then we’ll talk about working in a coalition, which we are open to.
If there are people with goodwill, I want to work with them. The only people I don’t want to work with are those who lack goodwill, those who are far more interested in lining their own pockets before the country’s interests.”
Speaking of which…as I said in the beginning, I am speaking to you as a disaffected voter.
I consider myself to be among that third of Malta’s voting population that doesn’t want to hear about what’s always been on offer.
However, we must also talk about the other two-thirds, who, for better or for worse, continue to support either the Labour Party or the Nationalist Party.
So there you have two sets of voters who have very different priorities, many of whom are contented. They profited materially, in tangible terms, from the status quo.
Stop addressing me and start addressing them here – how would you sell your pitch to them? Why should they pick you over the devil they know?
“I spoke to a lot of people who consistently voted for one major party or the other. There are many who are disillusioned. They will tell you that they will never vote for the other major party.
I think a lot of those people are not voting, either – or, they’re thinking of not voting, or maybe voting in a very disheartened manner. I’d like to give these people an option. I obviously can’t blame those who were suffering and are now living with better standards for thinking that this short-term prosperity is valid.
I don’t think they are ready to sacrifice everything decent in the country for short-term prosperity, though. Maybe they thought about that for a while, but even those kinds of people are now saying that we should start paying more attention to things like the environment, for example.
Now we can argue that they had their priorities wrong, that they should have thought of that sooner, and that all of this should have been sustainable, but I don’t think anyone’s “lost”, in my opinion. There are certain electoral districts where people have told me not to bother because people always vote in a certain way, but I believe we should still try anyway.
I believe that if you reason enough with someone, they’ll eventually start to see it too. As I said, I’m an optimist, I enjoy talking to people and understanding them. It’s one of the reasons why we set up a centrist party. I think we should understand conservatives, understand liberals, and ideally, come up with a solution that satisfies everyone.
That’s not always possible, but we must find a solution-based compromise – it’s not about compromising values. I believe we can talk to anyone, even someone who is ‘hardcore’ by definition. We can understand what makes everyone tick.
I believe that, deep down – I’m sure I’m going to get criticised for this – everyone is good at heart…”
You did tell us you’re an eternal optimist.
“At least, I think everyone sees themselves as good, nobody sees themselves as evil. It’s possible that a miscalculation can lead to a lot of damage, but I don’t believe anyone is lost. I think we can appeal to these people who traditionally voted for one side or the other.
As the situation stands, it is easier to criticise whoever is in government, because they have more power. Often, we are criticised because of this, but we must target whoever is in government, because they have decision-making power.
What we promise for sure is that if a Momentum candidate is elected, we will hold them accountable. It’s a key ingredient which is missing in our system, where we have these two parties who are compromised by their financing and are not willing to seriously promise making the environment a priority, by way of example.
We saw these promises on billboards; they (the Labour Party) were elected on that ticket. We saw promises of meritocracy; they used these promises, they tried to show off how green they are, but when push comes to shove, they forget about their voters and why they voted for them.
It’s obvious that, if the Labour Party was elected with so many votes, then there had to be a lot of people who didn’t follow the traditional lines they usually follow. They were convinced, they saw certain promises which they agreed with and wanted to support.
I don’t believe anyone is lost. I think if we use our limited resources very well – and I appeal to anyone who can help – we can reach more people and show, once and for all, that you can be in politics without being compromised. You can be involved in politics because you genuinely want to do good.”
I’d like to be a bit cynical here, as my job as a journalist does involve some of that.
Why should we believe you?
As in, other parties got elected by campaigning on a platform that is similar to yours, the same platform a viable alternative would present.
But why should we take your word for it? You said you’d hold your MPs accountable, for example. In concrete terms, what does this look like?
“I’ll start by talking in not-so-concrete terms. You mentioned how the party grew around Arnold – there’s a reason for that. It’s because his values were always consistent. To begin with, there aren’t many people who can debate Arnold, he’s quite good at it.
That’s why they avoid debating him. When it comes to governance and transparency, he was always consistent. So what we do is inspired by his methodology; even just from looking at our press releases, you can see that we are consistently holding onto that point.
In the policies we are putting forward, there are proposals which would force politicians to be transparent and accountable. If the prime minister doesn’t want to table ministers’ declarations of assets, it’s a clear sign that you don’t want to be transparent.
We are telling you upfront that we will be doing that once a year, and that those declarations will be audited. Why not? We have nothing to hide. There are other things we’d like to do during our campaign, too, like publishing our personal finances. Why not? I have nothing to hide.
There are other things, too. Putting transparency and good governance at the core of your message is important. There are some who might tell us that we’re making the same mistake that the Nationalist Party had made, but it has to remain central.
We cannot sacrifice that, ever. Our actions also matter. We are new, we have no baggage. You can look us up and find out what we do. That’s how I lived my life. I never broke rules. Even at school, I didn’t break rules – I always played by the book and that’s how I like it.
Rules are there for a reason. Thanks to those rules, I could set up a business, I could get an education; so, I respect the system that allowed me to get to where I am. I want to prove people who believe that you need to be crooked to be in politics wrong.
I saw some people on television saying that if Arnold had to knock on their door, they would donate money to him. We don’t want that money. There are certain lines which cannot be crossed, whether it’s our finances, our policies, or our values.
Once, I was talking to someone from the Opposition who assumed I’d be supporting them. I told him that I was at the counting hall with Arnold. And anyway, by nature, I’m not a conservative…”
Yes, earlier you mentioned that you’re a socialist.
“…exactly. There are certain policies within the Nationalist Party which are conservative, and which I don’t agree with. That doesn’t mean I won’t listen and that I won’t find some sort of compromise, but I won’t align with them.
Anyway, the guy at the counting hall responded by saying that values aren’t important in politics nowadays. No, sorry – if you want to inspire people, if you want to go to bed knowing you’re sticking to your principles, you just don’t do it.”
I wanted to ask you about this.
Earlier, you mentioned that you are a centrist party. So you have people among your ranks who are left-leaning, others are more conservative.
I remember when Bernard Grech was elected as Opposition leader. At the time, I remember interviewing him with the rest of Times of Malta’s newsroom.
We sat around a table and he was telling us exactly what you are saying: that he wants to listen to everyone from the centre, that there will be compromises that can be reached and so on.
I am going to ask you the same question I asked him, which I don’t think he ever answered, all the way up until the point where he eventually resigned: a party needs ideological glue holding it together.
Those values form the foundation of the party, and they are fixed. You mentioned good governance as one such value.
How are you going to avoid the trap that is set by moderate, centrist politics?
Another example is the European Union. There are different factions, which means that “the compromise” ends up being a watered down version that nobody’s happy with.
So, what are you going to do to avoid a shortage of that ideological glue? And to avoid watered down policies that fail to satisfy voters?
Because when you talk to me about the centre, to me that means nothing. It’s all up in the air.
Explain yourself a bit more about this, because I am not convinced.
“I understand what you’re saying. The document that represents our collective values is called ‘principles.’ Originally, it was called ‘non-negotiables.’ There are certain things at the core of who we are which we will never negotiate.
They are stated clearly on our website, with good governance and transparency being key. We also want to beautify our island. Though there is still beauty left in our country, we are losing a lot of it and we need to protect what’s left of it.
The environment and a just economy are also priorities. A just economy isn’t an economy in which a few get to live in luxury while the majority suffers, nor is it the other way around. A just economy means that we see everyone and we help everyone.”
Spreading wealth, basically.
“Though the idea may have scary connotations, there are so many things that can be done. Companies being tax compliant is the bare minimum, for example. This doesn’t happen. There are plenty of companies that don’t pay their taxes or file their accounts.
Our principles are part of the core of what we do because that’s what we are rallying around. We will take bold positions whenever necessary. We are so far from these principles that we need to get there first. No compromises, we’ll work towards getting there first.
If others can’t tell you straight and plain that they will fight corruption, or that they will make the economy fairer, then that’s a problem. We won’t compromise. On other issues which may be controversial, I don’t think everyone needs to take the same stand. We need ideas from both sides to come up with policies that help as many people as possible.
I hope I answered your questions.”
You did.
I have one last question. It’s more of a closing prompt, actually.
I wanted to give you the opportunity to broach a topic we haven’t discussed yet. You can also address the audience directly, if you wish to take the floor.
“Sure. I think a lot about all the intelligent, talented people out there whose heart is in the right place. They reach out to us and they want to help. What’s difficult is convincing them to participate in the democratic process.
It’s easy to complain from the sidelines and just say that things need to be done better. Here, we have an opportunity to change things, to participate, to help. Everyone has their limitations, but I do want to appeal to that moral ambition.
Let’s fix things. Let’s all do our part. It’s not enough to complain, we need to participate. I want people to work on bringing their ideas to fruition. I like to say that ideas are cheap, but execution is expensive. It’s easy to come up with ideas. Actually seeing them through requires work.
Yes, sure, you’ll need to give up your free time to do these things, though I do believe that if you’re well organised, you can do a lot. I want to build this platform to give people who are looking from the sidelines and who wish that things were better in this country.
Some choose to leave the country, others stay here and are just unhappy. I want to appeal to these people to participate, because we can change things. Major parties are ultimately made up of people. If we have enough people working in our party, we can achieve great things and make the difference we want to make.
If you want to change things, you need to change them. They won’t change on their own. The universe doesn’t have some system in which things fall into place. We need to put in the effort to change that. And if we don’t manage, at least we know that we gave it everything we’ve got.
I think we can do it, and there are plenty of intelligent, thoughtful young people with lots of good ideas. We are trying to build a platform for you so you can be seen and make a difference. I think that, together, we can amplify what we could achieve individually.
This is why we decided to build a strong structure after Arnold’s independent run. This goes beyond Arnold. It’s a long-term project. There are things we can do in the short-term as well, but what we need is to give Malta the third voice it needs in Parliament, the voice that will speak for people who believe in protecting the environment, good governance, and a just economy for all.”
I wish you well on this difficult road you have ahead of you.