I wish to first of all assure Simon Busuttil that I never in any way accused him of betraying the hunters (Spring Hunting Case, February 5) or anyone else for that matter; I hold the gentleman in high esteem for his hard and honest work. I simply asked a question which represents the majority of the hunters' reactions to the European Commission's decision to open a court case against Malta, notwithstanding the formal public assurances made by the Malta-EU Information Centre (MIC) prior to accession.

I sincerely thank Dr Busuttil for his quick and detailed reply to the obvious question. He unequivocally assures us that the MIC was not lying; I believe this without a moment's hesitation.

This leaves us with the obvious conclusion that the EU is now failing to honour what was agreed. As Dr Busuttil puts it: "Now, in the wake of a judgment of the European Court of Justice delivered against Finland in December 2005, that is, three full years after our accession negotiations were concluded, the Commission appears to have had second thoughts..." As if three years are sufficient to justify ignoring what was agreed.

Having said that, I now have a much bigger concern. It is not merely a hunting issue anymore; it is now also a question of credibility. So, notwithstanding what was negotiated and agreed, the Commission could have "second thoughts". What, I ask, could the EU have "second thoughts" on other issues besides hunting?

I also fully agree with Dr Busuttil's opinion that we should not reopen the EU membership negotiated package (see his article on February 6). However, on the other hand, we must not allow the EU to have second thoughts; any changes to what was agreed should only take effect if consented to by both parties. I expect the Maltese government to take a determined stand on this principle.