Much is being said about Margaret Thatcher and her views on Europe but do you know what her views on Europe were? Here is the speech that the Iron Lady had delivered at my second alma mater – the College of Europe in Bruges. It gives more than idea on what Thatcher thought about Europe.
Library
Maggie of Iron
It would be amiss to call Margaret Thatcher one of the world’s first stateswomen. She wasn’t. Elizabeth the First comes to mind – a monarch true but a stateswoman all the same. The shopkeeper’s daughter from Finchley was one hell of a stateswoman though and would not have been too bothered about the issue of primacy in time. The iconic figure has all the prerequisites to be become a giant in the history of politics – a sans pareil in many respects. Watching “The Road to Finchley” recently made me realise what tough material the iron lady was made of.
With Baroness Thatcher we do not only lose a huge piece of the jigsaw of political giants of the last century – we also witness the passing away of a dying breed. You may have disagreed with her politics, her aggressive militancy against communism, her tough approach with slack unionism (treating Britain with socialism is like treating leukaemia with leeches) and her ever so distant approach to the Common Market. You may not have appreciated her balls, her bull and her gall – tha lady who was not for turning might not have been your type yet she had one defining quality that appeared in a much more pronounced way than in most politicians of her time. With Margaret Thatcher you knew where you stood.
This was a politician who would call a spade a spade and who has been described as undiplomatic and whose rather direct ways were perhaps only pardoned because notwithstanding all outward appearance she was a lady playing the game in the men’s playground. Margaret and her politics had spine and backbone. This was not the kind of politician who could conjure up an ephemeral coalition or movement and hide behind a “politics for all” approach based on effortless compromise and pleasant policies. Rather, Margaret’s medicine did not go down well with most of the country to the point that her three-term election as Prime Minister was as surprising as it was effective.
This was not politician who would promise the moon to feed electors who swallow false promises recklessly. This was a responsible conservative with a clear idea of the Britain that she wanted and its role in the world with her beloved partners in the US. She would even shun the Commonwealth if she had to. For Margaret Thatcher’s world was one that was built on clear policies and positions – not compromises. Disagree if you will but you knew where you stood. There was no deceit. Ask the miners. Ask the workers of Britain who woke up to a brutally necessary dawn in the eighties while their cousins in the US were experiencing the Reagonomy revival.
To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.
A beautiful heritage from Baroness Thatcher. We should not forget it. It should be burnt into the manuals of political movements and onto the foreheads of the pseudo-politicians of today who are busy playing a game that is beyond their wit, their ken, hell their very conception.
Politics, she would have told them, is not about being popular but about being effective and clear. Politics is about leading not about prancing in public and bluffing about leaving the reins in the hands of the people.
… so popular to the point of being despised. As Frankie Boyle put it, she could very well become the first politician to have the 21 gun salute pointed at her coffin. You know, just to make sure that she’s dead.
Fare thee well Iron Lady.
spread the word:
The United Kingdom’s Fourth Estate
The UK Parliament is under huge pressure (including a looming deadline) to enact new measures that would regulate the behaviour of newspapers. The highly controversial measures have seen an increase in cross-party negotiations as the Lib-Dems (Tory partner in government) seem to prefer an alignment with Miliband’s Labour on this one. Labour, on its own part is not too keen to be seen working comfortably with Clegg’s party for the simple reason that it would prefer to send out the image of a party that could govern alone.
It is not just our “fledgling” 50 year old parliamentary democracy that has trouble working out the difference between legislative representation and governance. Coalitions and possible difficulties they carry have nothing to do with the real problem here. Only the short-sighted would pin the trouble on the existence of the coalition. Cameron, in fact, is having to also deal with 20 rebel MPs (at least) and that surely proves that the controversial subject is one of those that causes rifts and alliances beyond the lines of government vs opposition in any case.
What is more interesting in fact is the nature of the ongoing debate – whether or not the press should be controlled by statute or by charter. The repercussions of statutory control are enormous since the chances that MPs become the ultimate guardians of the free press would be higher in such a case. The problem of such a scenario is that this would put serious limits on the freedom of the press itself – the risks of the abuse of the power by MPs would end up creating an unnecessary muzzle of imaginary censorship.
A Royal Charter setting up an independent body could be the most amenable solution in the circumstances. It would ensure that one of the entities that must be scrutinised by the press does not suddenly have control over their freedom of expression. By way of example, the British Broadcasting Corporation was set up by Royal Charter.
The danger of having parliamentary control over the press can never be sufficiently highlighted. Dealing with this in a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy is all the more important – and the danger of having a relativist idea of fairness dominate true principles of justice and rights is a clear and present danger. Not just on the embankment in London.
There can be absolutely no doubt that this rise to commercial greatness was partly made possible by those freedoms won in the 18th century – an independent judiciary; habeas corpus; freedom of assembly; the right of voters to choose their representatives; and above all the freedom of the press to speak truth to power: to ridicule, to satirise – even to vilify – and to expose wrongdoing. – Boris Johnson on the rise to greatness of London.
spread the word:
Talking about us
Alex Vella Gera was the guest Maltese author for this year’s Festival des Immigrations. Vella Gera returned to Luxembourg (he has worked here in the past) wearing his new vestiges of notorious author and under the spotlight for his latest work “is-Sriep regġħu saru velenużi”. The Festival des Immigrations is now in its 30th year and is a celebration of all things “foreign” that exist in Luxembourg – an interesting experience for us Maltese to be counted as one of the “others”.
When the chat with Vella Gera ended a group of us gravitated towards the food stalls (sadly bereft of Maltese timpani, pastizi and kinnie) and opted for a Cameroonian mix of meats and fishes for a very tasty (and in some cases hot) bite. On our way out we passed the Amnesty International stand that was highlighting the plight of immigrant communities in the Med – what do you know Malta features as two-way protagonist!
Back to the chat. The interview was expertly conducted in a relaxed atmosphere by Mark Vella. Malta’s participation in the Festival was once again guaranteed thanks to the dedicated campaign of international passport poet Antoine Cassar. Attendance was purely from the Maltese community in Luxembourg (that officially numbers 225 according to the panels in the main Hall – but that does not count the numerous Maltese who opted to live across the border in Germany or Belgium) and this meant that the language of the discussion switched to the vernacular.
Language was an important protagonist in the surgical analysis that turned out to be a voyage of discovery for Vella Gera himself. By the author’s own admission criticism and public reaction to published works is hard to come by and so Vella Gera seemed to thrive and enjoy this moment of exploration and questioning into the reality behind his work. Hollywood gave us the concept of “behind the scenes”, this was “Sriep’s” behind the scenes moment as both Mark Vella and later those present (inevitably including yours truly) questioned motives, choices and narratives behind Vella Gera’s novel.
The whole sessions should have been recorded for YouTube prosperity but apparently the wrong button was pressed on the video cam so only an audio will eventually be available. This point of the YouTube video was a topic that cropped up in the discussion itself. Such moments of analysis could be of more benefit if advantage is taken of modern technology that allows for a wider vision and an expansion of the platform. This could be one way of filling the absence of the critical reaction.
What did happen in that room was a gradual build up of political, social and linguistic analysis of a book that – in my view – is an excellent documentary in the raw of a particular growing up phase of Maltese society. As was remarked by those present it is a pity that such a discussion does not reach a wider audience. Vella Gera’s Sriep does cut into much of the questions afflicting modern society. The use of Minglish or the special patois of code-switching pepe/malti for example is not simply a cultural curiosity but one that exposes the need of a socio-political understanding of whole swathes of Maltese society. Politically speaking the weight carried by social “castes” or classes can be queried – much as the Labour party did in the past campaign with the “Courage to Vote” video.
In other words it was a discussion about a book, it was a discussion about an author’s experience and dealings with his society and whether he was more of a chronicler of the real than an author of the imaginary. It was all that and more. What the meeting with Vella Gera produced though was a surprising realisation that this kind of analysis might be very much lacking in contemporary Maltese society. While we may often complain that the “intellectuals” and “artistic milieu” fail to engage politically we fail to notice that there are few bridges and platforms where their work is given the necessary attention or allowed to provoke the necessary discussions.
Sriep has sold around 1,500 copies. That apparently makes it a best-seller in Malta. Sadly the potential that such a tome has for provoking discussion on so many levels is about to die a quiet death. The main reason is that Vella Gera would not be invited to the the main media programmes and would not be a convenient selling point for papers if he were not embroiled in a Li Tkisser Sewwi style scandal. Ironically while the last campaign was characterised with empty vessel promises about “burying the differences” we have yet to see a conscious effort being made in understanding where they come from in the first place.
Meanwhile our new Minister for Culture is determined to invest in popular culture – investing in Carnival and investing in local festi because that is how we understand where our differences lie, isn’t it?
P.S. And after the talk I also bought two cd’s by those paradoxes of Maltese social commentary.
spread the word:
Bitch please
I’ve got to stifle a yawn. Or two. But here goes.
1. I aten’t dead. Just calmer. Cooler. Zen.
2. Fear. Ignorance. They’re still out there. They’re still peddling their stories. they still think fear can get you to twist your thoughts. Sensational taste. They say jump you’ll say how high.
3. Sadly for Labour I’ve never been on their side. I’ve assessed them I’ve criticised them I’ve pointed out their deficiencies. The whole thesis on which this blog’s political arguments based itself was specifically the role of Labour as one of the parties unable to let go of their undeserved control of the system.
4. Sadly for the PN, I pointed out that they had taken the same path as Labour – only it was taking longer for them to find out. Part of that path involved relying on the merchants of spite and taste. Part of that path involved doing just what a young and (much) fresher Caruana Galizia had warned in 1991 before the grey hair, long chin and lumberjack shirts set in. Part of that path relied on nurturing fear and ignorance.
5. Happily for AD they were in the right place and the right time. I openly backed them throughout the campaign because I saw them as an even better vehicle to break the mold this time round. I do not regret it. Sadly for AD my political blogging days were already with their seconds counted. The “guilt by association” was taking its toll – before the election was over. Out of respect for others I would have to put a pause on my political content. A pause mind you.
6. After 8 years of hearing labourites and nationalists tell me that “hobzi mahbuz” I will probably now have to hear more of the same. They always seem to have a have a reason. Lanzit. You know the kind. Ask Daphne. It’s generally that they do not like to listen to what I had to say and need to use that famous “fear and violence” to shut you up. (That is when the rent-a-camera crew are not at work).
What I said before I will say again. I will stop blogging about politics in this blog out of respect of others and also because of the guilt by association perpetrated by those who should know better than participate in this festival of fear and ignorance.
I don’t have any regrets about what I blogged until now and bear full responsibility for it. No lies. No distortions. No hidden agendas. No ghost writing for Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando or any other old-guard politician. Nothing.
Sadly the very fact that I have been proven right about the degeneration of our political system means that for the moment I have to step back from posting about politics in this blog.
Don’t worry though. We’ll be back. Definitely.
spread the word:
World day against Cyber Censorship
The 12th of March is the World day against cyber censorship. The tools of the digital age have thrown back the frontiers of darkness and ignorance that have previously been used to keep whole populations in check. Reporters Without Borders and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are two organisations that are active in the ongoing battle for freedom of information particularly in the battle against the use and abuse of laws to silence or block the digital (cyber) modes of expression. The Arab Spring and the continuous struggle in China both prove that digital activism can be effective especially in countries where the freedom of expression is a luxury. You may be familiar, for example, with the work of Yoani Sanchez – the Cuban dissident blogger who has become a symbol of freedom of expression in a country that was obsessed with control of information.
It is not just the standard totalitarian regimes who have trouble with information. Even the healthiest of democracies might suffer bouts of allergic intolerance to the independent minded expression of ideas. Again, a combination of ignorance that is nurtured by the establishment and abuse of freedoms based on a misunderstanding of their value would contribute to the fouling of an atmosphere of open expression and intellectual engagement.
On a more local level the recent events on the day of silence might be misconstrued as a formal attempt to gag the new participants in the social discourse. That would be mistaken. The rule of silence (or reflection) might be an archaic rule but is a law of the land just the same. It is not a blanket censorship that exists eternally but a particular moment of silence imposed with what might be a misguided motivation but is a rational motivation just the same. Whether or not the day of silence can still serve its purpose in the digital age of facebook and twitter (or whether it should be extended to such means) is not really a matter of censorship with political ends but really a obvious example of a law that needs updating to take into consideration the modern circumstances. This is all the more necessary in the absence of objective interpretations that could per se have sufficed to fill such a lacuna.
A dangerous situation is created when rules such as the rule of reflection are abused of by parts of the political establishment in order to make whatever political capital they might deem fit. Such a danger is aggravated if members of the executive forces (whose duty it is to protect and serve) and members of the fourth estate (journalists whose duty would be to objectively investigate) become witting or unwitting co-conspirators in such an abuse of the legal provisions.
On this World Day Against Cyber Censorship J’accuse would like to reiterate a fundamental disagreement with the current laws affecting expression during election campaigns in Malta. This includes the rules appertaining to silence on the day before and on the day of elections, the rules covering the “balancing of opinions” on public broadcasting, the rules regulating the funding of political party campaigns and the lack of rules (or lack of application thereof) covering the blatant abuse and violation of digital rights with regards to the collection and reuse of personal digital data.
Happy World Day Against Cyber Censorship.
Blog… and be damned!
(illustration is an adaptation of the Reporters Without Frontiers cover to their report on Cyber Censorship)
