Categories
Divorce Mediawatch

The PN Conclave

Marthese Portelli, Lawyer, Politician, Malta
Image via Wikipedia

“Ideas, Vision, Discussion” is the heading of the new Pre-Budget Document presented by the PN government. There must have been plenty of exchange of ideas, possibly a little vision and quite a vivid discussion happening at the meeting of the PN Executive Committee presided over by (PN President) Marthese Portelli (read the link and do tell me how many ideas and how much vision you can discern from the over 1,000 word interview – apart from the “jobs for Gozitans rant” and the claim to fame of multiplication of votes in favour). The executive met in the open manner of dialogue and transparency that the PN has gotten its potential voters used to. Where other parties elsewhere might hold open conferences to discuss such points of principles before the media and anybody interested, the PN must needs first get its hydra-like head together and hammer out a “common position”. We will not know exactly what the ideas, vision and discussion are all about – instead we will be presented with a single strategy.

Undoubtedly this single strategy will be built with one basic premiss in mind: VOTES. The discussion that could be prompted by such a strategy -once it is forged – is simply one based on limiting the number of votes that could be potentially alienated with a wrong step. For suggestions in this direction read Ranier Fsadni’s “Legitimising a divorce law” that already includes some calculations based on “voter alienation”. There will of course have been a number of principled positions such as those of Tonio Borg and Carm Mifsud Bonnnici who will have thundered on about the anathema of divorce to a confessional party. We will not be able to confront them with questions about the constitutional relevance of their statement and with questions about how they plan to reconcile their concept of catholic imposition with the lay state. We cannot ask members of the PN conclave whether they believe the PN should be a champion of universal rights or a champion of the catholic model of society.

The PN conclave met behind closed doors and the strategy that their archaic system of voting will forge supposedly will represent the automatic 40% of the population who already know where there vote will go come next election. The internal debate will be a “long process” in the words of an undoubtedly charming Portelli (mother, lawyer AND politican) but it will remain that for a long enough time to refine the positions. We can only count on the renegades trumping the conclave members once again. And on more anonymous voices feeding their master’s voice for the occasional doctored update. (Unless of course MaltaToday or the Indy get a longer version of these “leaks”).

At the moment all we can doat this stage of extended “discussion” is watch the smoke that comes out of the chimney… and don’t we all know that when it comes to smoke generation the PN spin gurus can turn into a mean machine.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

8 replies on “The PN Conclave”

Second post in which the 2011 pre-budget document gets summarily dismissed. I can only (a) hypothesise that it’s because said document does not make mention of divorce and (b) wonder what connection you see between divorce and the fortunes of the consolidated fund.

Istra. All those reactions to the idea that PN discusses F-all and works by presenting a fait accompli. Slowly Faust. And of course finance has nothing to do with social policy – wallet on the right and heart on the left (or should that be in the Vatican?) right? Divorce and the consolidated fund? Not much. Divorce and uneducated, unemployed society – maybe. Where you invited to the conclave Faust? Wouldn’t you have loved to be the camerlengo?

Funny you should ask me that last question. I’ve always been fascinated by the interest you take in the internal workings of a Party you don’t vote for, much less are a member of (I assume here, of course).

And methinks that you Jacques would like to have been the (pseudo) Holy Spirit in the conclave.

You would have inspired them on the constitutional relevance (of Article 2?), about the lay state (meaning lying in state?), about universal rights (according to the ECHR Schalk and Kopf vs Austria judgement?).

Then we would have seen the white smoke and heard the habemus (divortium or non divortium?).

Unfortunalety since you were not in the conclave, we have to sing and pray the Veni Creator Spiritus for the next conclave session.

Are we to infer that unless we vote for Party X then we are not entitled to question how that party goes about its business? That would be ludicrous prima facie

Yes, it would be ridiculous. Which is why I never said anything of the sort.

bir-ragunament ta Fausto, la ma jivutax ghal Labour ma jistax jikkumenta fuqhom…. u b’hekk zaqqu tikber iktar min ta Borg Olivier

Comments are closed.