Politics

Playing that Criminal Record

criminal_akkuzaThere’s an item in the news about the Earth Garden concert. The article title is “DJs ‘humiliated’ by police at Earth Garden Festival“. This is one of those instances where you have to wonder what the quote marks around the word humiliated are intended to convey. Is it sarcasm? Irony? Is the journalist taking the piss out of the DJs and saying that they are making a mountain out of a molehill?

I’ll leave you to guess about the employment of quote marks by the Times journalist on this occasion. What is more interesting, and worrying, is the existence of a policy that is being applied by the police in these circumstances with regard to the line up of DJs. So, from what I gather, when you apply for a permit to have a concert such as Earth Garden (in this day and age when people are paid commissions by government to look for garages for performing artists to practice in – coz we iz cool and with it) your line up of DJs gets vetted for any “priors”. If what the organisers said is true then apparently even a minor crime (I’m assuming possession) that dates over 20 years is sufficient for the long arm of the law to strike you off the list. I am also assuming that no such vetting occurs for the other people emplpyed for this concert – the barmen might have just finished their latest stint in Kordin, the cleaners might be on parole and there is (I am still assuming) no quick check up at the door to ensure that all concert goers have a clean bill on their social conscience.

If at face value (yeah Prima Facie) this is not already a ridiculous state of affairs in your mind then just put it all in context. This kind of attitude is a clear demonstration of our society’s lax and arbitrary attitude towards any sense of justice and equity. Policies such as this might (and I stress the might) have a place within a comprehensive program of – let me see – drug dissuasion. But is there one? What is the national policy on Dj’s and their role in concerts? Is there one? Has a spin doctor within the Taghna Lkoll government noticed the potential niche market and come up with some new groundbreaking “social legislation” to add to The One We Allowed the Puffs to Marry, The One We Made Being Gay Legal and The One We Introduced Social Security. (Warning, Irony and sarcasm might damage your brain)?

Not yet it seems. So the branch of the law that most randomly interprets policy and the rule of law decides to suddenly make even the most minor of infractions hidden back in time a huge handicap for DJs. yep. Just DJs. All this while the Prime Minister of the Republic openly embraced a convicted criminal and proudly declared him a soldier of steel. Mixed messages? Who cares? We work in niches and pigeon holes. Even far from the political rhetoric there is something very worrying about the haphazard way that we go about creating, applying and interpreting our laws and policies. The man in the street cannot be blamed for having a skewered view of the law and all that pertains to it.

Cause the police always got somethin stupid to say
They put out my picture with silence
Cause my identity by itself causes violence – N.W.A. (includes O’Shea Jackson a.k.a Ice Cube, Andre Romelle Young a.k.a Dr Dre)

This is the country that hosts the Isle of MTV and will (rightly) close an eye for performers such as Snoop Dogg yet small-time DJs will be struck off the list. A video about FIFA and its corruption is making the rounds – it mentions how in Brasil alcohol consumption was illegal in stadia until FIFA obliged Brasil to make it legal to accomodate main sponsor Budweiser. It is this kind of inconsistency that makes a mockery of any social and legal system. Policies are meant to be created and used with real social purposes. The law should not simply be a toy for bullying selectively and making a mockery out of citizen rights.

The law – the rule of law – is essential to the fabric of society. It can erode slowly and gradually but the ultimate implosion will not benefit anybody. Justice and equity deserve more careful and less partisan application. I will never tire of repeating the old latin adage. We are servants of the law so that we may be free.

“Police on the scene, you know what I mean, they passed me up, confronted all the dope fiends”- Robert Matthew (a.k.a Vanilla Ice, criminal record includes possession of firearms, domestic violence, expired pet tags, driving with expired licence)

They think it’s all over, it is now

match of the dayWhat better way than an historic footballing phrase to end this round of MEP elections that was characterised by a peppering of footballing jargon. I was told that I was still very pedantic in my posts (thanks markbiwwa) so I shall give you the bullet point view. Better still let’s do it pagelle style sticking to the footballing metaphor for a little while longer.

Final Result It dragged on for over 72 hours. We finally got a result. The fact of the matter is that the result was already there in the sealed ballot boxes before the counting began. Malta had voted with a significant downturn (80,000 non-voters) and the result was only waiting to be unveiled. It would be a laborious process made even more laborious by the fact that the two main parties were short of counters: the effect? Less agents to allow the skeleton crew to monitor every step. The PLPN system continues to debilitate our way of doing politics – down to making the smallest electorate’s decision the longest one to be read. Don’t get me started on ballot boxes abroad. Verdict: SLOW

Non-European I’ve tackled it elsewhere. There is nothing European about our MEP vote. The voters were dragged into another partisan sling-match and this resulted in a chain reaction of events that gave us most of the types of votes (see below). Interestingly you can compare the victorious Renzi’s approach to the result and that of Muscat. The former painted a red map of Italy – his first reaction was similar to that of our premier (we will not let this go to our heads), the second was to rush to Brussels with a clear message: this is a vote for change in Europe. The Maltese vote was absolutely not concerned about spreading representation in the European parliament for Malta’s best interests. It was all about “winning” over the eternal opponents. Verdict: ISLANDERS

Winners & Losers: There can be only one. That is the mantra that is sold time and time again when time comes for choosing representatives. This is the real winner takes all mentality that should not be translatable at a European level since we are choosing who represents us within the formations that make up the European Parliament. Instead we had the PM pouncing on polls and setting the target on an electoral “win” translatable in votes obtained while the opposition fell for the trap and accepted the challenge to a large extent. In the end, the “gain” for the Maltese is measured in how well represented they are in the European Parliament – at 3-3 it’s a draw between the Popular Parties and the Socialists. No Green representative yet again. At most if you really want a result it’s a resounding draw. Verdict: NO EXTRA TIME

Naming the votes: The ballot sheet had to be reprinted because of the Engerer debacle. More expense to the voters and a chance for more charades at partisan level leading to the infamous “suldati tal-azzar”. The alphabetical order gave us the “donkey vote” – unlike the one in Shrek this one is not funny and rather mechanical. Combined with the siege mentality born of partisan votes it meant that most times vote inheritance could be – to a certain extent – predicted. Bar the “protest vote” of course. Discounting the firmly convinced AD and Imperium voters you end up with a number of undecipherable cross-votes switching from right and left of the spectrum with an undignified nonchalance. Even the comical Zaren tal-Ajkla garnered a thousand plus votes that probably did not have the main parties laughing as much as the bored counters in the counting hall. Verdict: STICKS AND STONES

Racist Alarm: It’s a huge wart on these election results. Lowell bowed out rather late in the day having summed over 7,000 votes. You cannot see anything other than a warning sign in this. The intolerant vote is not one to be toyed with and the main parties are duty bound to tackle this head on without much ado while setting aside their partisan approach. Muscat’s final pre-electoral speech did woo the anti-immigrant lobby with much talk about standing firm – his record in this field is still not convincing when it comes to really understanding the humane approach – thankfully the warning signs were lit across the continent so there might be a renewed sense of cooperation among European leaders across the board. Verdict: SHAMEFUL

Simon Busuttil: The gun was jumped early in the vote count. The first result – the numerical one – was devastating for the PN. Many elements within the PN were as quick to speak of “defeat” as the elements in the PL were prepared to speak of “victory”. The after effects of the Busuttil vs Muscat bout were reaped at this moment – strike while it is hot. So on Monday and most of Tuesday the question put to Simon Busuttil was “Will you resign?” I do have the benefit of hindsight but it would have been much better for the the PN leader to wait until the sixth seat was finally decided before pronouncing himself on the matter. It’s all so different now that Comodini Cachia will be filling the last spot. Had the message been drummed earlier on about what constitutes a real victory in European terms there would not be so much of a conundrum within the PN. Sure, there is work to be done and it has to be done yesterday but given the starting point, the proximity of last years general election and the resources of the current PN the three-three draw is anything but a defeat. Verdict: SURVIVOR

The ladies: A pleasant aspect of the end result is the majority of women that will be flying up to Brussels and Strasbourg. Four out of Malta’s six MEPs are women. They deserve to be there in the same way as any other candidate deserves to be there. I am glad that this is a pleasant aspect of the outcome. It would be amiss though to not analyse this vote just like any other labelled vote. For a long time early in the counting process we heard about the Gozitan vote having an effect for example. There seems to have been some form of slight cross-voting between parties from women candidate to women candidate which cannot be ignored. Even if we grant that the last two (Mizzi and Comodini Cachia) benefited from the donkey vote in their own way there is still an acknowledgement to be made that women candidates found some special favour among the electorate (even within the labyrinth of partisan and protest voting). We cannot ignore the fact that women candidates could have been chosen over their male counterparts in an effort to provoke a different kind of change in the way politics is done. When I said it is a protest vote I meant a protest against the politics we have had until now dominated by male figures. If you like (prefer) call it a vote for change. Applaud it I will but in the end, as someone else has already commented, if they end up parroting their parties and allowing partisan politics to trump real representation then this change will not count for much. Verdict: A BREATH OF FRESH AIR

There’s much more to be said but I’ll leave these handful of points for your perusal. A plus.

 

Drawing the vote

drawing_akkuzaThe results of the European Elections are drawing a clear picture for the current leaders of the Union. A mixed Eurosceptic vote has registered a substantial growth. I call it mixed eurosceptic because I too, like many others, find it hard to lump the messages being sent out by the Tspiras’ leftist eurosceptics in Greece, the Spanish left eurosceptics, Nigel Farage’s UKIP and  Marine Le Pen’s Front National.

Most of these parties do have a common thread of anti-EU establishment of sorts. In their minds, the European project is not working and needs to change fast. Marine Le Pen managed to remove the racist image (at least image) that had held FN down for so long a time and this led her party to garner one fourth of the EU vote in France.

To these parties one has also to add the alarming rise of far-right movements – eurosceptic but in their own intolerant way. The neo-Nazis have won a seat in Germany, Jobbik is going strong in Hungary and across the continent such extreme rightist ideas have registered a surge that cannot be ignored. In Malta too, Normal Lowell’s Imperium almost pipped Alternattiva Demokratika to the third place in party vote counts.

From UKIP to Jobbik the votes are easily translatable to a message on a European dimension. They are not only a political but also a social and cultural message to the European project – they too are a response from the young European demos to the “elites” (or if you like “perceived elites”) in Europe. Also one has to bear in mind that the European average turnout has been weak, very weak, with Slovakia reaching a miserable 19% in turnout.

Did Malta fit into the general message sending on a European dimension? Can one ask Simon Busuttil to resign in the same manner as Nigel Clegg will be asked to do following the result? I strongly doubt it. To start off with my example, Nigel Clegg put his neck on the line for Europe. He insisted on discussing European matters and on facing off Mr Farage in public debates – risking all for the European message. The UK result spelled a huge defeat for the Liberal Democrat and there is a clear nexus to a European dimension of that defeat. Apart from insisting on the inclusion of a referendum on Europe, Farage rightly asked for Clegg’s head on a plate following his party’s remarkable result.

The problem with the Maltese vote is that there are little or no considerations of the European dimension and of what parties stand for in Europe. In this perspective Lowell’s Imperium and the eclectic Alleanza ghal Bidla stand out as the glaring exception – being the two parties that really went out on a European ticket with a sort of European agenda. The rest of the parties – even an unwilling Alternattiva Demokratika – were content to make this election a rerun extension of a general election.

Muscat’s Labour drummed up the core of the critical mass he had built to add on to the momentum of the landslide electoral victory a little more than a year ago. Seeing such a lovely opportunity fall on his lap Muscat could not resist using this election to browbeat his opponent to submission – what better than an opposition in disarray for a longer period? Was there any European message to be read in the Labour vote? Not really. Much rhetoric about being the best in Europe would turn out to seem even more frivolous when the results poured out with a resounding support for the king of eurosceptics in the Labour camp: Alfred Sant.

Blogging in inewsmalta this morning Sant concluded his post with a strong eurosceptic message about the possible failure of the European project (blaming the elites in the process). Neither did the line-up of Labour candidates augur well for any medicine to the euroscepticism. Labour remained at best cool about the whole idea of Europe. It was an inconvenient step that had to be taken in its stride of national political growth. The European project has not so much been accepted by Labour (no U-turn there) but rather pragmatically assimilated in its program of growth for the “movement”. It is a tool to be used at will to be able to play with the popularity figures back at home. And it’s working for now.

The PN could have had a strong base and message on a European level. It should have been relatively easy to boost past credentials within the European project. There were valiant efforts towards the end of the campaign to weave European values and meaning into the reasons for voting for their candidates. On the whole though the PN is still playing to the tune of the massive Labour machine where the campaign is concerned. It played into the hands of the “negativity” spin by trying to force their hand too early – and failed to consider that a huge chunk of the electorate is still voting emotionally (sadly a kind of vote that the PN itself had groomed all too often with campaigns based on “taste” and “guilt by association”).

So in the end the Maltese European vote strongly resembled a photo competition on Facebook. You know the kind right? It’s when you receive a message from a friend telling you that their daughter is currently enrolled in a competition for “The Girl Best Dressed as a Pumpkin” or when an acquaintance who plays in some rock band that you never heard of asks you to vote for his band so they can get some money being offered by some company to record an album.

Admit it. Most times you ignore the request but if you actually bother to go to the Facebook page and vote then your vote has nothing to do with assessing the qualities of the different baby pumpkin girls or bands taking part in the competition. Not really no. You are just voting out of some twisted sense of duty to your friend – at worst a sense of guilt and obligation.

You’ve seen it before time and time again. Given how the MEP campaign unfolded in Malta we had a very similar scenario. The two main parties ended up sending their “vote for me” request, practically asking their core to confirm their allegiance or obligation towards their basic party of choice. Muscat’s movement worked wonders for this purpose. Busuttil has not had enough time nor a good enough performance until now to convince those who deserted the PN ship a year ago.

In the end the Maltese MEP vote was largely based on allegiances to ideas that were shaped in the 2013 national elections. There is little that is European in the Maltese vote – no message for the elites in Europe much to the chagrin of Alfred Sant and his 50,000+ voters. 10 years into European membership and we are still very much an island adrift from the general currents and issues that are at play in Europe

 

The Panini Sticker Election

album_akkuzaAs you wait for the votes to be counted (or don’t) the Sunday online and offline papers will only give you an analysis of the campaign and not the results. One of the points being brought up in most of these analysis is that the campaign was far from being European and that the nationalist party was very negative.

Criticism of the absence of a European aspect is not entirely correct – in many ways much of our lives today are governed by a multi-layered approach to legislation. The purpose of European legislation remains, to a large extent, the creation of a harmonised ever closer union while the remit granted to the Union is widening (albeit admittedly at a slower pace). Hot national issues will almost inevitably bear the mark of a European influence if, for European you mean the corpus of legislation that we have come to know as the acquis communautaire. No power station, environmental policy, or even social right issue will be entirely free of a European dimension.

The underwater cable linking Malta to Sicily for example was in the news recently thanks to fishermen in Sicily who complained that it is not really being laid low enough and their nets risk dragging it. Even issues such as the sale of passport were wrongly interpreted as being solely of a national dimension – in the end it depends on your outlook towards policy and its creation. The latter has to be combined with the attitude towards your place in Europe – this blog has often gone on record criticising the fact that notwithstanding Labour’s claim to try to be best in Europe its operation remains one of detachment firmly entrenched in an “us and them” mentality.

Are the nationalists really “negative”? The blue and red style of politics would lead to an analysis that answers such a question with a resounding yes. In truth though the nationalists are attempting to perform their duty as an opposition to the best of their abilities and resources. I listened to both leaders’ concluding speeches of the campaign. Busuttil did run through a list of deficiencies of the current government (linking them well, in my opinion, to European values).

What else could be expected though? This was not, and could not have been, a campaign based on roadmaps and manifestos that would be implemented by elected candidates. Whether it is 3-3, 4-2 or 3-2-1, the elected MEPs will be sitting in a wider formation in the European Parliament and joining in the wider program of their respective formations. They are not in a position to promise cheaper electricity bills and the proverbial Maltese “dancing water”. The campaign could not therefore veer too far from the local realities and credentials of the respective parties backing their horses.

As for the sticker album. The whole plan backfired. Why? Well the real reason is not that it was not a good idea to create a list that belies the much vaunted concept of meritocracy – far from it. The problem was elsewhere – mainly in how this list was sold and compiled. It was a lazy bit of research that resulted in a list that still had leftovers of the “guilt by association” campaigns of the past by the PN that was part of their downfall. Yes, there were many wrongly named persons on that list who were drawn into the blood feud of the two houses. No doubt about that. Even just one person who found himself wrongly named in the sticker album would have been one too many – as it turned out it was more than one.

The criticism of the overall reaction to the sticker album served Labour well. It reinforced their spin of “negative PN” and whatever good points could be had regarding the general approach of a Labour government bulldozering its way over the concept of meritocracy seem to have been lost. It is strange however how not many in the press have picked up on the fact that even Labour pundits such as MaltaTody’s Carmen Sammut went on record stating that “Xi nies ma misshomx kienu hemm” (some people should not have been on that list). Emphasis on the “xi” (Some).

That’s quite an admission by far. Marlene Farrugia is not the only one realising the cracks that appeared in the credibility of this government. The EP elections may have been run on a skewered sense of vision – one that once again exalted the bipartisan approach over and above everything else. That is really where the European element went missing. The value of representation in the European parliament is not entirely appreciated – even if you look at it from the possibility of having a Maltese representative within a third formation of the parliament itself. The elections became another sparring opportunity – for Muscat to somehow confirm his rooster approach and supposedly legitimate his inroads into democratic accountability and for Busuttil to test the ground before beginning the real campaign that ends four years from now.

You will hear much about winners and losers. In many ways everyone will manage to paint himself as some kind of winner today – even that Ajkla guy. The only real winners in an election can be the voters – and that is when their vote translates into effective democratic representation within an important pillar of European democracy.

In search of the discerning voter

10390007_10154146760665368_1785490145830756640_n The Luxembourg contingent landed this morning. I drove straight to Evans Building to pick up my voting document which, as it turns out, had already been collected by a conscientious neighbour (thanks John!). Still, it gave me time to go walkabout in a resplendent and vibrant Valletta. It was a welcome assault on the senses. The streets thronged with people – at work or for leisure – with a wonderful background from the numerous musicians at every corner.

The (I almost said cruel) sunshine beamed off the golden buildings and were it not for the incredible amount of dog droppings that peppered the Saint Elmo end of Valletta it would have been a party for all the senses.

I bumped into the (almost complete) set of nationalist MEP candidates close to the law courts. They were on a walkabout of their own drumming up last minute support. Speaking to Simon Busuttil, Jonathan Shaw, Therese Comodini Cachia and (international secretary) Trevor DeGiorgio I got the feeling of a genuine effort of reaching out. I am no fool and this is an election campaign but there is no doubting that the effort remains and the PN does have a negative perception reputation that it needs to overcome.

Further up Republic Street I came across AD’s Cassola getting a quick lunch in a main street cafe. I asked Arnold what his feeling is and his reply was one of guarded confidence. The polls are not clear he said but AD have a sense that this is 2004 all over again. By AD standards this is supposed to be good – particularly since they seem to be convinced that a chunk of Labour voters might be tempted to go green. I did not meet any Labour candidates – nor did I meet any from the unfortunate Panini Sticker Album (though I did get a wave from former course colleague Franco Debono when turning into South Street).

I am quite sure that Labour are confident in their own way – especially given that they can still count on their well oiled propaganda machine that has become their trademark. It’s a machine that has the pulse of the luoghi comuni, running mainly on half-truths and brushing aside the weak nationalist stunts that seem to backfire so unpleasantly for the time being.

***

I have deliberately taken a sabbatical from this campaign. It has been tough for the past few months trying not to keep up pace with the goings on – especially since this was supposed to be a European Campaign with a European dimension. We did get Juncker and Schultz visiting this micro nation (thanks Malta Design Week – go there, it’s definitely worth a visit) but on the whole there has been little or nothing European about these elections.

Muscat seems to believe that his best bet is forcing a personality battle between himself and Simon Busuttil. The targeted campaign highlighting the supposed benefits of one year of Taghna Lkoll glossed over the glaring failures of such concepts as meritocracy and highlighted such incredible achievements as the pittance of an increase in stipends. Thank God for hurriedly assembled “social right” laws that threw a heavy dose of mascara on Labour’s mask – making them seem that they really cared (when it was immediately evident that such moves were strongly rooted in populist measures). Labour seems to have managed to hide its very un-European approach to everything under the sun – including the European Union itself. Quite frankly the Labour party is the last party that could genuinely claim to understand what representing citizens in Europe is about – mainly, and most importantly because the Labour party either does not understand or does not care about what Europe really means. Forget the rhetoric of “best in Europe” – it is clear that for most of the time (all of the time) Labour still reasons clearly in us and them terms.

The PN is struggling resource wise and the temptation to play along to Labour’s game is still strong – which explains such monumental, off-putting gaffes such as the Panini Sticker Album. Ironically Europe is where the PN should be stronger in battling it out – at least on an MEP level – it being the party with a stronger pedigree on the matter. I have already had occasion to point this out before – the PN needs to work strongly on the principled building blocks and begin to believe more in such principles and their power of attracting the voters who are more careful when selecting leaders and not bluffers.

As for AD. This could be their golden chance. The unconvinced Labour voters who are rattled by certain Labour positions such as the unconditional backing of Cyrus Engerer might add to their base. They also have consistency on their side – they have a clear European dimension that could be attractive to the discerning voter.

The discerning voter. These elections will be a severe test for the voting population. Are they still biting at the marketing hooks that are thrown at them? Does a bus parked outside a secondary school do the trick? Will the little cheques (car registration, slight dip in petrol prices, maternity cheques) being thrown at them as bait win the day? Also, hopefully a marginal point, how many will go for the rabid loonies that form the tail end of the electoral list? Will we get our own dose of intolerant Eurosceptic vote?

***

To sum up these MEP elections will unfortunately be far from a definite sample of representation at a European level. In all probability there will be a set of mixed results that every party will interpret as a victory in their own right. It would be good for the electorate if it had an interpretation of its own. One that measure the success or failure of the vote on the basis of true representation within a European Union that is currently in dire need of getting in touch with its demos.

Or to misquote an apocryphal Plato: those who can’t be bothered to choose wisely who will represent them are punished by being represented by those who couldn’t really give a damn.

Getting Simon

gettingsimon_akkuzaIt looked like a shot in the foot. The Times headline was unequivocal – “Busuttil: Politicians should keep away from spring hunting controversy”. I was lost for words. Here was the leader of Malta’s opposition, still struggling in the trust ratings at the polls, coming up with a declaration that stank incredibly of fence-sitting. Could it be possible that after the disastrous management of the Civil Union issue the PN was once again falling far short in the battle of public perception?

I was mistakenly (as it turned out) provoked to putting together another Banana Republic poster that decried the fence-sitting qualities of the declaration. A facebook reader pointed out that there was much more to be read than the headline. Mea culpa, it seems, but only to a point. In fact after reading the Times article in full I began to understand where Busuttil was coming from. It all hinged on the fact that Busuttil was placing importance on the referendum – “the decision rested on the will of the people in a referendum”. What Busuttil seems to be saying (as confirmed further on in the report) is that for this particular decision “political parties have to bow their head to the will of the people”.

Could that be it? Is the PN leader telling anybody who listens that the PN will not stand in the way of a popular decision? This was reinforced by Busuttil’s reference to the party’s position – that of having a limited and controlled season. So we do know that officially the PN is not against spring hunting as such – if anything it has a position that is in favour of limited and controlled hunting in spring. What we are also being told by Busuttil is that notwithstanding this position, his party (and the politicians) should keep away from the controversy and let the referendum run its course. Presumably so the PN will not be campaigning for or against a particular position but has committed to respect the final decision in the referendum.

Is that really fence-sitting? Not really no. It falls much, much shorter than the ‘liberal’ anti-hunting sentiment that has been whipped up over the last year. The PN has definitely decided not to take up the baton of the anti-spring hunting movement and form some sort of coalition for the purposes of the referendum. Insofar as that is concerned it is a form of fence-sitting. On the other hand,  it is also not actively gathering hunters’ votes in Cyrus Engerer fashion or sending out equivocal statements that worryingly threaten the very possibility of the referendum. A positive passiveness if you will.

What has happened though is that the gist of the Times headline spread far quicker than the convoluted institutional message that Simon wanted to send out. It is far easier to jump to the conclusion that the PN is fence-sitting (I for one am guilty of doing so) than to see that there is a clear commitment from one of the two parties in parliament to respect the outcome of the referendum and give full power to a useful tool of political representation.

AD’s criticism of the PN position is not entirely correct in this respect but it is an inevitable result of a grave mishandling of communication from Busuttil’s PR team. The PN is not neutral – it has a position on spring hunting but it is choosing not to lead with it – promising to honour the outcome of the referendum instead. True, if like me you are dead set against spring hunting you would have preferred if at least one of the two political behemoths puts its full force behind getting a referendum result in favour of the abolition of spring hunting.

Whether it is for a calculated purpose or out of a purist interpretation of the institution of public referenda Busuttil has other ideas. The way his speech was reported results in a mini-disaster at PR and spin level. The leftovers at Dar Centrali in Pietà are proving rather inept at understanding the basics of communicating to the extent that even a bungling Labour party in government that rides roughshod over basic constitutional concepts manages to survive ahead at the trust polls.

As the MEP elections approach the PN remains an incoherent machine that is unable to clearly define itself and as a consequence unable to sell a clear defined message to the electorate. They should have learnt by now that voting PN by default is for many not an option – no matter how evident the ugly warts of the party in government have become.

As thing stand, even if you do “get Simon” the safest and clearest message on spring hunting comes from the candidates in green. It has always been and now it is louder and clearer than ever. It is not only about spring hunting but also about taking clear unequivocal positions on issues that are not only (as some mistakenly seem to suggest) restricted to national policy but that are also based on an open European vision.

 

 

.