Tonio’s Non-Metamorphoses

Was it a case of “Veni Vidi Vici”? Did the Commissioner designate “sail-through” the grilling that never was last Tuesday? Has the dinosaur really convinced the trough-addicted pigs of his inveterate submission to the constitutional bible of this “sui generis” system of state collaboration? There was a telling moment during the marathon session when Tonio Borg addressed his interlocutors and reminded them that in politics “perception is important”. Indeed. Perception nowadays is a huge part of the pie and politicians are as much made or broken by the creation of a hash tag (that’s twitter talk for a subject such as #BorgEU) than by anything else.

The speed with which media will deal with a story – compounded by technological Chinese whispers – not only means that a media avatar of a politician can be created with uncanny expeditiousness but also that such avatar might morph in accordance to the predominant push of whoever is throwing the most information into the system. Tonio Borg was contemporaneously both a victim and a victor of this kind of phenomenon. The time it took Borg to study the files and dossiers relating to his new “portofolio” (sic) the liberals-in-hiding got working with their European counterparts in order to  fill them in on the “true nature” of Tonio.

What “true nature”? Well they referred to Borg’s handling of immigration affairs, to his position on IVF and on divorce, to his consorting with the Gift of Life movement and to his previous stances on homosexual rights. The spiel essentially that Borg was an uncompromising imposer of conservative values and that his political activity clearly reflected this stance. The link to the Health and Consumer portfolio was not exactly tenuous and to put it mildly there WAS a point to be made. The point though was meant to be and should have been limited to the capacity of Tonio Borg to perform his duty as a Commissioner independently of his views – unlike his performance in Maltese politics where he had no problem mixing the two.

It’s the EU Law, Stupid

And this is where Tonio Borg built his defence. It was obvious from the start who had been involved in prepping the Commissioner designate. For all his protests that he was not “thinking as a lawyer” I’m prepared to safely bet that many a night was spent in the company of Simon Busuttil and a former EU Ambassador. Nothing wrong there either. The most telling moment was Tonio’s slight hesitation in reformulating the classic description of the European Law system – many a law student would have recognised that brief moment of panic when the explanation that was just at the tip of your tongue has rushed away only to return in the form of a rehash of the original definition “in your own words”. Hence Tonio and his version of “a sui generis system of international law and an agreement between sovereign states”. (He could also have quipped a happy 50th birthday to the Van Gend & Loos case while he was at it – much more important than the International Day of Courtesy in this part of the world).

The prepping was necessary because Tonio had to use every trick in the book (better known as “the treaties”) in order to justify his speedy metamorphoses from Maltese politician to European Commissioner. In doing so he highlighted the most difficult barrier that Europe faces with regards to social harmony. For while economic barriers have come crumbling down at a faster rate than the Visigoth invasion of Rome, social mores have found the borders of old to be less permeable. Subsidiarity that great concept first brought to the world in a Papal Encyclical came to the rescue and suddenly Tonio was raising the Commissioner’s equivalent of “taking the sixth”.

You’ve seen it all so no need to dwell on it. Dr Borg could get away with packaging his national performance in a tight corner by stating that he can not and will not be able to act similarly at an EU level because the rules that apply there are different. So for the sake of argument Tonio Borg’s catholic values will have to be put in abeyance whenever he is dealing with the Commission programs to promote the use of contraceptives. He claims not to have a problem with that and I guess that his conscience will deal with the “superior orders” dilemma in its own time.

Those Shoddy Liberals

Tonio Borg did not metamorphose. He remains the same man committed to the same principles (save maybe the gaffe regarding the gender quota ) a sudden rush of arse-licking could be a most simple explanation. Or even euphoria experienced with the sudden rush of endorphins at the realisation that the Liberal Inquisition was really conducted by a bunch of pussy-footed, ill-informed bungling radicals. That last point actually really got to me. For here we were – as my friend David Friggieri puts it – with a representative of the conservative parties (yes plural) in Malta in the dock and with no real prosecutor asking the real questions.

I’d have asked a simple question to Dr Borg. What does he think of the fact that a person who is a doctor in an EU country where abortion is legal and who performs a legal abortion on a Maltese woman (who has willingly travelled to his country and consented to such an operation) is criminally liable in Malta? Simple really. In case you are wondering it’s Article 5(1)(d) of the Criminal Code in combination with article 241(1). Incidentally once said doctor is condemned to a term of imprisonment for a term of eighteen months to three years, the willing patient also becomes liable to the same punishment. But I guess that’s OK because she’s Maltese anyway.

We did not get these questions. We got questions that were obviously fed to MEPs by the type of shoddy activists who base their accusations on hearsay and conspiracy theories rather than facts. How else do you explain that Dutch liberal’s question about contraceptives in Malta that was an invitation to Tonio Borg to eat her alive (which he did with the usual classy rhetoric of a PN politician who knows he has the upper hand).

A Metamorphoses?

In the end we have what the French call a “match nul” – which means a draw but the word “nul” also means “useless”. At an EU level Borg might not really “sail through” when the voting time comes. The ALDE (liberals) and European Greens have unsurprisingly called themselves out of any support vote – they’ll be voting against. The Popular Party will back him (and also heap lauds and praise that will be hyped in the relevant media). The socialists might dilly-dally for a while and make Tonio Borg (and Tonio Fenech and Simon Busuttil) sweat a little bit more but in the end they might just give in and vote him in after having asked for more “written commitments” from his part.

Tonio Borg did not really metamorphose in the end. His was no apostasy before the baying house of atheists and agnostics. This was more of a modern Give Unto Ceasar kind of business that left many of us Maltese questioning the use of a two-tier Europe when it comes to social rights. Yes the liberals – particularly the Maltese liberals – were bitten and if you are really fond of the term then they were “defeated”. Their defeat lies in the lack of organisation and lack of clarity. It lies in the lack of identifiable leaders who could take the battle to the next level. It lies in the fact that Maltese politics rarely translates into conservative vs liberal when push comes to shove.

That is why Joseph Muscat feels comfortable standing up in parliament without any hint of irony on his face and saying “I’m a liberal” while at the same time sanctioning the PN position on embryo freezing. Joseph will continue to woo the liberal fold that have elsewhere been described as the “ex-stricklandjani” so long as his credentials are not questioned and so long as he can be contrasted to the dinosaurs that have long camped in the mainstream parties.

Unfortunately for the silent liberal movement in Malta change will never come from within any of the two parties. So long as we continue putting our eggs in their basket they’ll be happy doing what they do best – fuck all. Because as we know so well : “if we want everything to change, then everything must remain the same”. And long life to our next EU Commissioner !

Pictor has scarcely set foot in paradise when he found himself standing before a tree that had two crowns. In the leaves of one was the face of a man.; in the leaves of the other, the face of a woman. Pictor stood in awe of the tree and timidly asked, “Are you the Tree of Life?”

Read also today’s article in the Times by Ranier Fsadni.

Facebook Comments Box

J’accuse goes MOMA

A comment about pigs is all it takes for the inevitable viral. I wonder whether once the pc is turned off, the mobile is lost and the tablet is misplaced the main talking point still remains Adrian Vassallo (MD)’s porcine jibe. This is all part of the general conspiratorial plan to bore us to death with pre-pre-electoral exchanges. Virals and billboard campaigns are the new opiates for the people… in the end when push comes to shove they will forget their feigned boredom and vote – ostensibly for what in their minds is the lesser evil.

So in the meantime let us enjoy the ride. In the UK they had the Whigs and the Tories for quite a while. In the US we are used to the imagery of the Elephant and the Donkey for the two main formations. Our parties are as fertile as Abraham at 30 when it comes to values so the “Pig vs Dinosaur” dichotomy does not really fall cleanly along party lines. You should rather imagine the two parties sitting on the fence wondering how best to milk the two. If pig or dinosaur milk were worth milking that is.

Thank you Adrian Vassallo and anonimous Swede Lutheran MEP for the very appropriate imagery that you have provided. Nothing better than a badge under which to rally the forces. So what are you? A dinosaur or a pig? We present you with SHTF’s latest creation: DINOPIG… loves divorce but is absolutely against same-sex marriages.

 

 

 

Facebook Comments Box

Porcine Anatomy

Following the last presidential elections  in the United States a couple of states will be legislating the universal right to marry (including same-sex marriages) and a couple of others will be legalizing the personal use of marijuana. The French government has itself begun to debate a bill this week that if successful will pave the way for same sex marriages in the hexagon. British society is dealing with the ghosts of paedophilia while Italy is in the throes of the umpteenth attempt to “clean up”its political act.

It could be a banal exercise in comparative politics – or rather comparative hyperbole but it would only be as sensational as the Fat Moustachoed Lady at the circus. We no longer afford to, and nor are we interested in, laughing at the latest vestiges of ottocentismo that has struck our island’s politics. On Tuesday afternoon Tonio Borg is in the dock having the values in his head examined in order to see whether or not he is fit to be one of Europe’s 27 commissioners. The EU itself went into a sort of seizure the moment somebody somewhere (Is that you Mr Giscard d’Estaing?) tried to define the value heritage it incorporates. We went something between comatose and autistic as words such as Judaeo-Christian and Humanist were whispered in halls between croissants and beer. In the end we gave up and thrashed the grandiose thoughts of a Constitution for the less optimistic (but equally radical) Lisbon reforms.

So our dinosaur is getting his head bashed in Brussels by an institution that is itself at the heart of a wider system that prefers the sanitary non-controversy of non-commitment than the idealistic aspirations of a society trusting in a deity and his inspiration much like the cousins across the pond with their “In God We Trust”spiel. Still. Still our island does manage to make a hash about our approach to ideals and ideas, to principles and to values. It’s less of a question of not having them and much more of a question of how to use them.

The supposed depositories of condensed popular values have long abdicated from their duty of guiding or elucidating a combination of lesser common factors in order to make the society of ours an open one that is acceptable for those who live therein. Concerned as they are with populistic masochism they have condemned our society’s development to a series of hiccups and bumps.

Which brings me to Adrian Vassallo. Apparently in a bout of pipe-induced fury he has condemned his calumniators to forever carry the moniker of “pigs”. Their crime? Having described him and those of his ilk as “dinosaurs”. It’s all a freak show in the end. A trumped up charade designed to make us believe that these are people who would die for their principles. Vassallo will be paraded as the pariah that he is (ironically with only those such as Tonio Borg who could embrace his ideals) both within and without his party. His shenanigans and porcine vocabulary will definitely serve to fan the flames of facile satire on the web but it will serve more the likes of the leader of his party who by distancing himself from the Vassallo position will end up sounding much more progressive than he really is. Actually he isn’t. Progressive. At all.

The misfits of the current band of parliamentarians will take their last stand in this particular parliamentary session of folly. They are irrelevant. irrelevant because their voices are in representation of no one but themselves. What remains to be seen is whether the population will accept the bland non-committal positions of our two parties in such areas as are normally labelled progressive and liberal. Given that none of the PLPN lot will be tempted to corner the sty for their own the real question is how much of the voting population can be tied to the liberal vote and what will they do with it?

The divorce debate had been one great window of opportunity for the liberals of the island to break ranks from the behemoth party of dinosaurs and fence-sitters. That occasion was lost and the spearheads of that liberal campaign were soon absorbed into the fold of false propaganda and hope. This election might not be too late for the liberal vote to form a critical mass that stands up to be counted. Will they find an alternative means of expression or will they insist on biting their nose to spite their face – voting for the parties that con them year in year out only to laugh at them and their temptation to waste their vote when the time comes?

The liberal movement needs to start seriously weighing the use of its vote. It’s either that or make a pig’s meal out of it all.

Facebook Comments Box

Tonio in Europe

Tuesday is Tonio Borg’s big day. He faces what increasingly promises to be a grilling before a European parliament committee that is tasked to metaphorically expose the worst traits of potential Commissioners to be. They don’t always work, these grillings. Had someone in the committee bothered to ask John Dalli his opinion on having intermediaries (canvassers) interceding for his cause with potential lobbyists then I strongly doubt whether Tonio would he having his three hours of sweat tomorrow.

Tonio is outraged. To begin with I believe that he is right to be outraged by the allegations with regards to Nursultan Nazarbaev’s son-in-law and the Maltese visa. An ex-East German PM is really pushing the “southern, tin-pot, corrupt country” agenda a bit too far for anyone’s liking – enough to stir the “we are Maltese and we don’t take no shit” kind of sentiments that make the Times of Malta comment board such a funny (if not sad) read. That Borg was the relevant Minister at the relevant moment is neither here nor there. Nor is the fact that a lawyer hiked his fees because of the “difficulty in obtaining the permit”. In short, the Kazakh business is not so “yakshemash” and rather overstretched.

On the other hand the general principle behind the fact of people like Mr Nazarbaev-in-law getting visas in Malta while line after line of “immigrants” get the not so kosher treatment does fall squarely at the foot of Minister Borg’s agenda. There is a concept of responsibility lying not so vaguely around Mr Borg’s portfolio – and consequently this can be used as a measure of assessment of the man’s political non-achievements.

It is not the field (or waters) of immigration that will mostly be used as a Punch and Judy stick to beat at the former Deputy PM as though he were some huge piñata. The big words being thrown at the Commissioner-in-waiting are IVF and abortion. Particularly jarring for many was Tonio Borg’s activist stance in such campaigns as the GoL’s (Gift of Life) vain attempts to entrench anti-abortion provisions in the constitution. Borg seems to be labouring under the impression that this is some kind of “persecution” for his Catholic beliefs and values. He is after all a vociferous exponent of the confessional wing of the Christian Democrat party – whatever is left of it in this day and age of opportunistic populism.

Unfortunately the pinata has got the wrong end of the stick. Buttiglione could state that he was persecuted for his beliefs because in his case he was “punished” for his opinions and thoughts notwithstanding the fact that he had not actively tried to impose them on someone else. Not so with Dr Borg. His political track record speaks with his vote if not with his active support. From the divorce issues to the GoL campaign Borg stood squarely with the movement that would have transformed “personal opinion” into national law (and in the GoL campaign case, constitutionally entrenched law). At that point it no longer becomes a matter of personal opinion.

There is no denying therefore that political formations within the EU Parliament could have a vested interest in avoiding the “embarrassment” of a mitre-wielding lay bishop positioning himself at the helm of the Commission’s health policies. It is not a question of persecuting catholics but a question of ensuring that a the Commission does not become a medium for Catholic propagation and propaganda. There’s a Vatican for that.

So yes. Expect the Greens and the Liberals to vote as they would. Expect the Popular Party to rally behind the nationalist party candidate if only out of a sense of twisted camaraderie. Inevitably the surprise ticket upon which all the vote  hinges will be the Socialist vote. We had poker-faced Muscat claiming that he will not stand in the way of the nomination  but that he cannot guarantee the Socialists giving Borg a hard time. Which is neither here nor there – and not surprising given that it is Muscat. On the one hand he wants to ring the patriotic bell – hopefully he is aware of the amount of national reputation points at stake behind this new nomination (especially after the battering our pride got with Dalligate). On the other hand he cannot resist the tribal call that would celebrate the nomination’s failure as yet another “falliment” by GonziPN.

As for GonziPN itself. Well they have a Deputy Leadership contest to dazzle the faithful (some real challengers for the leadership have wisely called themselves out of the race – “this is not the right moment”). Come Wednesday morning Tonio Borg will either find himself a comfortable office at the Berlaymont or at sea on a tiny dinghy with not much hope that the rescuers will turn up. Which would be quite ironic. Don’t you think?

Facebook Comments Box

What was he thinking?

Indietro Tutta! was a hugely popular satirical programme that aired on Italian TV (Rai2) just before the evening news for four short months (65 episodes in all) between December 1987 and March 1988. The programme introduced a new vein of humour to Italian TV thanks mainly to the po-faced feigned imbecility of co-hosts Nino Frassica and Renzo Arbore. A part from being a milestone of Italian comic lore, part of the great heritage of Indietro Tutta! was the phantom product “cacao maravigliao”. In a tongue in cheek take on the huge increase in advertising (Xarabank 2012 – Mediaset 1980s) that had just flooded TV in the eighties, the co-hosts began to advertise a new sponsor for the programme – Cacao Meravigliao.

Supposedly it was a new product from Brasil that everybody would like – a cocoa of sorts. The “ad” included a catchy jingle (see video) danced to the samba rhythm with scantily dressed chicas for good measure. It was an instant success. The tune was on everybody’s lips and soon it was reported that there was high demand for the product all over Italy – with many customers only finding out the disappointing truth at the tills of the Supermercati Co-In (this was before Auchan)… Cacao Maravigliao did not exist. It was a spoof. (There were some intrepid entrepreneurs in Naples who quickly packaged some cocoa in a hastily assembled Cacao Meravigliao packaging – but that is another story).

Fast forward to two Gonzi – Muscat debates and the mentioning of a particular Brazilian firm that was supposedly “relocating” to Malta. We all know the story of how Gonzi won spelling bee points during the debates by making Muscat look like an uninformed fool. When the subject came out I had no doubt that our PM would know what he was saying. After all this is 2012 and every assertion made in a debate can be verified. This was not even the eve of an election when it would be too late to contradict his statements (like the time when dear Eddie had come up with so much crap about AD).

No. This was a public debate with lots of time for sleuths to go fishing for this company. Gonzi told us he did not want the Brazilian company to be named to avoid its getting embroiled in “political football”. Since when do Brazilians shy way from football anyway? But that is not the point. The news is now out that “The Brazilian firm is a four man operation that is closing down” (Times headline – and by the way … a four-man operation? What kind? Sex-change maybe?). Oberdrecht – for such is the Brasilian company’s name – does exist (a diet of cold war spy stories has taught me to shy away from South Americans with German names but hey… it’s a global village nowadays is it not?).

When Alison Bezzina had written about her discovery of the company on the Times I did a quick google search. Turns out that the only mention of Oberdrecht and Malta was when the company was evacuating its enterprises from Libya during the uprising. My guess at the time was simply that having discovered Malta “en passant” and having lost its main base in Libya then Odebrecht must have decided to set up an organisational base in this “bridge to the African continent”. How that decision was flagged somewhere in PN spin-land and how it became “a major relocation of a big Brasilian company’s HQ to Malta” is anybody’s guess. You’d expect the PM to have people checking such facts before spouting them out as major scoops.

What we have now is Lawrence Gonzi probably rueing the day he mentioned anything Brazilian. Odebrecht is Gonzi’s “Cacao Mervaiglao” though the comic effect is definitely unintentional. The biggest mess was the delay tactic involved once it probably became clear that there was no huge conglomerate moving to Malta and creating employment. Feeble excuses like not naming the company for the company’s sake were not even close to satiating the curiousity of press and public.

Next time Gonzi should try scantily clad girls ready for the samba drome… all he’d need would be a catchy tune… then the people will believe ANYTHING.

Facebook Comments Box

Swing!

A long weekend away from the hustle and bustle of politics is not going to stop “everything” from happening. Try as you may to minimise access to wifi you still get whispers of the goings-on beyond the breakwater at Sète or the Place de la Comedie in Montpellier. Comedic much of it turned out to be – particularly the extension of the simulated obsession with All Things Franco. I get the nagging feeling that the obsession is “simulated” and forms part of the general distraction that has fortuitously blown in the PN government’s direction since Dalligate exploded. It’s a bit like a circus with a multiplicity of acts (if Silvio Zammit will pardon the reference) uncannily well placed to become a modern day “panem et circenses” for the easily distracted multitude.

Where to begin? The Debono-Calleja spat might have hogged the limelight of the absurdly surreal to such an extent as to rudely eclipse Malta’s feeble attempt at approximating the Obama – Romney debates. Somehow the gossip circle and the politically amateur auras that pervade Maltese savoir-faire manage to keep the likes of Franco Debono, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (and in other circles Emmy Bezzina) floating at the centre of attention in much the same manner as  undesirable pieces of excrement suddenly turn up floating close to a beach and draw the attention away from all other forms of beach-side frolic. Lest you forget J’accuse has long pronounced a verdict of “irrelevant” on the side-shows that are the backbench relics – dedicating columns of opinion space to their antics and “ideas” is just a waste of time.

Back to the “main parties” then. Yes the ones who happily insist on ignoring the blatant need for an electoral law reform and engage in Punch and Judy tactics on such issues as “voters abroad” or “balance of information in public media” while gainfully exploiting every nook and loophole designed for their greater comfort. It turns out that the Gonzi – Muscat debate was anything but a blast. The feeling I get was that the experienced PM got one better than Muscat but that this victory was achieved in much the same way as Mourinho’s stellar team would win matches – entrenched in defence in the hope that one long ball to a speedy long-legged attacker could do the trick. Apparently the long ball came early with some exchange about a Brasilian company that did or did not set up quarter in Malta.

First things first. What emerged clearly from the reporting of the debate is that both parties insist on keeping the level of discussion strictly away from presenting ideas and plans for the future and to confine the chitchat to “You are ugly” and “Your family stinks” sort of behaviour as best manifested by the billboards. James Debono expressed my exact sentiments when he described Joseph Muscat’s attitude to electoral plans as an “I show you mine you show me yours” approach. Drawing parallels to kindergarten banter is fast becoming a cliché in itself but this is what our political intelligentia have to offer us in 2012 ladies and gentlemen.

In a way it should have been obvious. If we want everything to change then everything must remain the same. It’s as old as the hills in the Mediterranean. I read about Alaric, a Goth or Wisigoth, who had decided to take on the Roman regions of Narbonne and had grand plans to obliterate the memory of Rome and replace it with some Goth equivalent (at the time not exclusively linked to black make up). When he noticed it would be a tad difficult he opted for the Med option – he took the place of the Romans and acted as though nothing ever changed. That was in the 7th century AD. It still works today. The battleground for a symbol of change has never been so wide – and so confusing. On the one hand you have Prince Simon the anointed one (in yet another pointless distraction) exclaiming how yes – change is necessary and he is the one to bring it about. On the other you have Joseph who is trying hard to explain that we need to rid ourselves of the nationalist scourge but at the same time he is at pains to point out that the switchover to his party will be painless : almost as though no change has really happened.

Contradictions? You’ll get plenty of them. We still have not spoken about Tonio Borg but we’ll leave that for another time. Today is the day we should be focusing on the US where Republicans are hoping to swing the vote from the agent of change himself. Reporting from across the pond has it that this has been very much of a déja-vu campaign. Both the GOP and the Democrats are recycling old speeches. I strongly suspect that this has much to do with an increasingly unfathomable and volatile electorate. The post-crisis world has shaken liberal democracy at its very foundations – it is not in trouble but some major tweaking might be in order to re-establish the age old Hobbesian covenant upon new terms and criteria.

Representation is not what it used to be and the represented are beginning to take note… (finally I would add). Last night we had a vivid exchange between two MPs. One ended up asking the other (sarcastically, we hope) whether he had inherited parliament from his aunt. Ironically we should be asking the question to both our main parties – or at least reminding them that parliament is not theirs to own but ours to entrust.

In the end… all that matters might be the swing.

 

Facebook Comments Box