I know I’ve been absent for a while but I’ve got a couple of excuses and they come in this order (a) work (lots of that), (b) I’m getting married in November, (c) I’m moving house in May, (d) J’accuse is currently undergoing some background tweaks in the little spare time that is left after a,b and c.
Anyhoo. We’ve got a few posts coming up about representation (the divorce referendum) and freedom of expression the Farrugia vs Caruana Galizia vs role of the press and blogs. Meanwhile look around the blog and try printing some posts. We’re hoping that some of the tweaks will be working to your advantage.
Finally a big, big secret has started to take shape. A new prime address on the internet. I am not allowed to say more for now but you will not be disappointed.
We should resign ourselves to the fact that this boxing bout regarding divorce is a lost battle. A lost battle in the sense that for those of us who think that divorce is a matter to be legislated in parliament away from the “will of the majority” discourse in the name of a sane society this current round has nothing left to offer. We can wait, as many have begun to augur, for the next election – hoping that one or more parties puts divorce on its manifesto and bears the responsibility of doing what is expected of a party in politics.
Meanwhile a big red warning light has just lit up to the west of Malta. The calmer seas coupled with Tunisia’s governmental turmoil have now meant that getting onto one of the immigrant boats direction Europe has become as easy as catching a bus – if you have the right amount of dinars. The problem is that given the laxity of controls and the sudden higher availability of the service suppliers (no need to go underground, no need to hide, just own a boat and point it to Sicily) the price of a trip will perforce go down – and that means more desperate immigrants. Worse still if pre-revolution conditions were catastrophic what about now? What about those who have no time to wait to see if the change will really work?
It’s time for Malta to wake up and smell the coffee. Italy is already drowning under the impact of the new waves. Only last night 977 immigrants disembarked in Lampedusa. The numbers are expected to explode. Prevention and foresight is better than cure. Tonio Borg and the rest of the team must get onto the Italian business pronto and double the efforts of coordinating an EU plan and reaction to the problem. Above all someone should sit the young opportunistic upstart at Dar it-Trasparenza and brief him on the seriousness of the problem before he decides to either find a way to blame the government for this new wave or worse still, to offer to create some new Dejma or Dirghaajn il-Maltin using the immigrant travellers as unsuspecting slave labour. With the kind of advisors he has now I wouldn’t be surprised.
I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets that I used to own
I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:
“Now the old king is dead!
Long live the king!”
One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand
I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can’t explain
Once you go there was never, never an honest word
That was when I ruled the world
(Ohhh)
It was the wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn’t believe what I’d become
Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?
I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can’t explain
I know Saint Peter will call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world
(Ohhhhh Ohhh Ohhh)
I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can’t explain
I know Saint Peter will call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world
Oooooh Oooooh Oooooh
What came first? The chicken or the egg? We might never know the answer to that one but what we do know is that the PN conclave has taken a position about taking a position on divorce. It’s not really a full position on divorce unless you engage in philosophical somersaults tantamount to the Catholic Credo of the Holy Trinity or, if you want a less blasphemic comparison to the separation of powers in the EU set up.
The Nationalist Party’s Executive Committee will be voting on a motion (reproduced below) that is a logical, step-by-step build up to creating and justifying an agenda for the institutions of representation and government insofar as the divorce “issue” is concerned. The path that has been chosen is threefold:
1) discuss divorce in parliament
2) vote on a bill in parliament
3) get the people to approve/disapprove the bill via referendum
That is the agenda. How will the PN perform within this set-up? Well the PN is basically (and rightly in my opinion) reminding the world that its valued opinion on divorce is that it is a no-no. The executive committee reminds anyone who cares to listen that divorce conflicts with the idea of a permanent marriage and since the party strongly believes in the idea of permanent marriage then it cannot give its nihil obstat to divorce.
Fine. The party then goes on to acknowledge two realities: firstly, that there are differences within the party as to the idea of divorce – no secrets there. Secondly, the party hangs harps on about electoral mandate. The lien is clear: this electoral mandate business is the Pontius Pilate bowl of the political class. It does not irk the nationalist party one bit that cohabitation is also not on the electoral mandate table but it develops sudden qualms of conscience about this particular issue called divorce.
Worse still, by abdicating from a clear and direct position that includes a “not on my body unless you elect me to specifically do that” statement, the PN is playing chicken with its values. This is after all a government of a numerical minority when it comes to the voting population. Are we to assume that it should have submitted every issue it has governed upon to the same referendal form of scrutiny? After all if the PN is such a firm believer in the power of public consultation you’d hate to be living in its shoes… legislating at every step with a parliamentary majority that is the result of constitutional machinations and which does not reflect a real majority.
The final straw is the sequence set for the agenda. A very difficult YES vote for divorce won in parliament would have to submit to a second scrutiny in a referendum. “Bleak” doesn’t even begin to describe the chances of a double whammy victory for the YES to divorce legislation camp.
The flaw in this last bit is simple for all to see: If the political parties are unable to take a position and both seem to be oriented towards a free vote for their MPs then there is absolutely no logical justification under the sun for the referendum to be held AFTER the bill is voted upon in parliament and not before.
Any failure to alter the sequence of events planned by the nationalist executive will only serve to unmask the truth behind the fickle words of the motion. And in case you need it in words here it is:
“The nationalist party executive does not give a flying f**k about what the people think in a referendum. The whole kowtowing to the idea of “public consultation” because of the absence of an “electoral mandate” is a load of circum tauri. If they did value your opinion they’d be voting for the referendum to be held BEFORE the bill is discussed.
P.S. Circum tauri is bullshit in Latin.
That’s Classic bullshit…. does it remind you of anyone? (with apologies to Bulgaria’s disgraced opposition leader)”
THE MOTION
THE NATIONALIST PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
“1. Notes that there is unanimous agreement that the family unit is the cornerstone of society and therefore it deserves total, firm and consistent support so that it can continue to be strengthened.
2. The committee reaffirms the consistent political position of the Nationalist Party that the family in Malta should be built on permanent marriage between a woman and a man, which marriage is the best structure for a stable family environment for the children. The PN therefore reiterates its commitment to take whatever measures are necessary to strengthen marriage preparation and to facilitate family life.
3. The committee recognises that there are circumstances which lead to the break-up of marriages, with detrimental consequences to the family, the children and society.
4. In such circumstances, the committee declared that the solutions which the State should seek should give top priority to the interests of the children. All measures should therefore be constant with this purpose.
5. The committee notes that according to the most recent census published by the National Statistics Office, in 2005 the vast majority of the Maltese had a stable marriage. The census showed that 60% of residents of Malta were married, 6% were widowed and 4% were separated or divorced.
6. For these reasons, the committee declares that the political position of the Nationalist Party should remain in favour of the unity of the family and against the introduction of divorce because it feels that the introduction of divorce is not the best way to promote the value of the family since divorce changes the definition of marriage as being a permanent bond.
7. The committee recognises that within the Nationalist Party there are contrasting views on the introduction of divorce but it believes that the debate now needs to be concluded while respecting the different opinions.
8. The committee also notes that no political party in Malta has the electoral mandate to propose legislation for the introduction of divorce and, therefore, the parliamentary approval of a Bill for the introduction of divorce should not be enough for the law to come into force and this should be confirmed through a referendum.
The committee therefore recommends to the government that:
a) Parliament should, as soon as possible, discuss the Bill for the introduction of divorce.
b) Should the Bill be approved by a majority of the House, the coming into force of the law would be conditional to approval by referendum, held within two months of approval of the law by Parliament.
c) The committee also recommends that the Prime Minister and leader of the party should allow a free vote to the Nationalist MPs so that they may vote according to their conscience in all stages of the passage of the bill.”
Nous as in the platonian idea of intellect. Watching the first part of Toni Abela’s performance on TV I still cannot believe that this is what new PL is about. How can he equate a meeting of heads of state (PM Gonzi with Ben Ali) with the invitation of a disgraced Bulgarian socialist to a PL Conference? How stupid do they think we are? So long as he can quote “Candide” (which I doubt he read) then he can sit on a TV programme and claim that Labour’s invitee who was obviously intervening to prop Joseph’s policies (and not on a courtesy state visit) .
Well the more you hear the latest antics of Joseph’s Labour the more convincing is the argument that Alternattiva should be pitching their tent on Joseph’s former electoral base. Then I came across this Labour party production. Rewriting history is not a strong enough statement to describe this promo… it’s almost strong enough to make you reach for a PN membership application form.
And his Master’s Voice is fast at work, eager to dispel the idea that this is just an exercise in mental entertainment. The Times carried an article yesterday entitled “Gozitans welcome tunnel idea”. Well J’accuse welcomes the idea too but does not believe in the timing. We are convinced that a time will come when a tunnel/bridge/teleport site will happen between Malta and Gozo (and that Gozo will suffer the consequences) but we are also convinced that no one in his right mind thinks that the time is now.
For starters, and only for starters there’s the financing. Even if we considered farming out the contract to a private enterprise (and risked being at their mercy for tolls for a decade or two) would you really trust this government not to make a hash of the tender in the same way as it has done with the unmentionable BWSC?
In any case, you really have to ask what made the Times dish out the superlatives such as:
“Massive support for the proposal was shown this morning but it was pointed out that Gozitans should have a very big say in the decision. They proposed a referendum in Gozo to see where Gozitans stood on the issue.”
Really? So what exactly is the “massive support” if a referendum is needed? then the GRTU came out strongly in favour of the tunnel. If you consider Vince Farrugia a strong unbiased voice that is. On the other hand, if you remember that Vince was part of the umbrella coalition for MEP votes then you might think again. The Times’ eagerness to shower plaudits was unbridled:
Some of the organisations in Gozo had already appointed sub-committees to work on the proposal, while a survey held by the GTA found had 90 per cent support of members of the Gozo Tourism Authority.
I bet the Xewkija Tigers social committee got an early head start on that one. And you’ve got to love the survey by the GTA (Gozo Tourism Authority) that obtained 90% support of the … wait for it… Gozo Tourism Authority.
As for copying Nordic countries, the last time we experimented with their ideas in the Fliegu we ended up with flat bottomed boats that were ideal for fjords but that rocked like crazy whenever the Libeccio was here to stay.
Could do better.
Post postum
And Inhobbkom couldn’t resist throwing in his two cents’ worth. He came up with not one but two gems:
Labour, he said, had considered a tunnel project for Gozo in the 1970s and it would be in favour after all the studies were carried out for the best type of permanent link to be developed. But decisions could not be imposed and they had to be taken by Gozitans.
1. Labour in the 70’s already considered a tunnel project. Another one from Labour’s revival of the 70s better known as “That 70s No-No”. The omniscient Mintoff had actually caused a fuss about a bridge but if I recall well some engineers from Japan or Russia had shot down the idea as unfeasible. That’s that.
2. Decision is for the Gozitans to take. Arse-licking the Gozitans is a PLPN favourite that escalates just before election time. Here Inhobbkom engages in the all time favourite of mini-nationalism: “Decisions could not be imposed and they had to be taken by the Gozitans”. We could dismiss it as a load of codswalloping bullshit but then again upon reflection we do note his consistency: essentially Labour will not take any decision itself. It is always up to somebody else to take the decision (and the blame).
This website stores cookies on your computer. These cookies are used to provide a more personalized experience and to track your whereabouts around our website in compliance with the European General Data Protection Regulation. If you decide to to opt-out of any future tracking, a cookie will be setup in your browser to remember this choice for one year.
