EU

No Peace for Nice

peacenice

With the end of EURO 2016, Nice and its inhabitants must have thought that they had closed their account with violence. The football tournament had been the scene of some violent moments when “supporters” hailing from different nations wreaked havoc on many of the host towns in France. Nice was one of them. When the violence among fans erupts we tend to hear two arguments. Firstly there are those who claim that these are not “real fans”, that they are only on site in search of violence and ways to display their pent up anger. Secondly the reaction this time round was to threaten deportation. Some of the fans arrested after violent nights were in fact returned to their country of origin.

Last night, during the 14th July celebrations on the Nice Promenade, an individual who has now been identified as a French-Tunisian ploughed into the huge crowd watching the event with a van and ended his mad drive by firing shots into the crowd before being put down by policemen. President Hollande stated that this attack had a “terrorist character” that cannot be denied and that we need to do “everything we can to fight against terrorism’. Once again a Western nation squares up against an invisible enemy…. a chimera. The reaction to such events is still a siege mentality of us vs them – as though there is an invisible army among us ready to strike again and against whom measures have to be taken.

It is now almost 15 years since the brutal attacks on the Twin Towers in the US and it seems that we have not moved much further forward. The war on the ground in Syria, Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East gives us the illusion that a battle is being won or lost. Daesh gives an ephemeral shape and face to “the enemy” whenever one is needed but soon fades in a cloud of confusing and contradictory information peppered with amateur youtube videos of beheadings and crucifixions far from the “civilised West” that is under attack.

Reactions closer to home are very much like those we witness in the football violence month. An attempt to define “them” (the real fans vs the fake fans) ends up in the simplification of the all encompassing term “terrorist”. Those who sow terror. The knee-jerk reaction fuelled by ignorance is to assemble an identikit based on the cliches – islam, immigrants, arabic…. – and ask that all of these get thrown out. Donald Trump? A hero. Give us more walls. Suddenly the Brexit vote does not look so dumb. Just as in the football months , just as every time a mad idea to “purify” society seems to be taking over the idea of “deportation” begins to gain in popularity. But will it work?

If, as the reports are claiming, this was a French-Tunisian, then blaming the EU and its policy on immigration has little or nothing to do with the events.  Tunisia was a French colony until the mid-fifties. Persons of Tunisian, Algerian, and Moroccan origin coloured the French landscape adding a touch of diversity  long before the sudden awareness on “immigrants” was given a new tinge of alarm by a disgruntled part of the population. Thousands of persons of Maltese and Italian descent pepper the coast of France as they do the north coast of Africa – relics from a time when the concept of free movement across the Mediterranean was much more fluid and economic based than it is today.

The truth seems to lie more in the fact that the perpetrators of recent events labelled as “terrorist” are more likely to be angry misfits in society. We used to call them criminals. They perpetrate violence on large number of people while hanging on to the excuse of “martyrdom” or “vindication” but we should not be side-tracked by the mask that they choose to show when committing the crime. Normal society, acting calmly and rationally, has laws for criminals and sends them to prison. Criminals are not deported, they are punished for their crimes.

The 2000s have been a fertile ground in the Western World for the creation of angry generations of individuals. I have already spoken about this not so long ago (Killing in the name of – June 16th):

The truth is that it is all of society that is threatened – as it always has been – by the existence of misfits and grudge-bearers who would do more than write a letter to the editor complaining about how society’s mores have gone to the dumps. Intent and motive is beside the point if not only to understand how much pent up anger exists or needs to exist in an individual before he resorts to violence. The Orlando and Paris killers may have pinned their banner to ISIS and some contorted view of a religion but the fact remains that their twisted acts are the result of violent social misfits.

It is not even their creed or origin that should be under focus but the reasons why they failed to fit so badly in the societies in which they were brought up. Badly enough to pick up a gun or dagger and kill fellow human beings. Badly enough to not care.

I came across a chat this morning where one of the people (an Australian based individual) was advocating deportation and exit from the EU for France because of the EU’s “immigration policy”. The implication is always the same. The problem is immigration and immigrants. Is it really? Not too far back in time Sarkozy’s government faced huge riots in French suburbia. We read about battles between the police and suburban angry youth burning cars and rioting in the streets outside and around Paris. Was this Islam or immigrant inspired? No it was not.

Western democracies are having to face a bigger problem than terrorism. The bigger problem is the huge number of individuals who no longer feel safe or happy in our society. Economically downtrodden, socially marginalised and with no hope these are the fertile grounds for explosions of anger and acts of desperation. From Orlando to Nice the resorting to angry deeds becomes almost a natural consequence.

Society needs to notice that creating a convenient label such as terrorist or immigrant does not take the monster away. It also needs to be told fast that Trump-like solutions or Farage-like fear mongering are not on the table. Isolation gets nobody nowhere. Rather than concentrating on demonstrations of strength the problem should be tackled at the roots – ironically projects such as the EU intended for economic and social betterment of the peoples of Europe are being hijacked by fearmongerers and the jackals of war.

Listening to Farage, Trump and the like will not solve anything. It will only exacerbate the very problems that we need to be solving.

 

Morning-after: Muscat does a Farage

muscat_farage

Malta cannot stop a company from importing a morning-after contraceptive pill that has EU approval, Joseph Muscat said this evening. Speaking at one of the meetings in the Gvern li Jisma series, the Prime Minister said he was not in a position to make moral statements, but to speak to the experts. In this case, the expert was the Medicines’ Authority, whose reply had actually surprised him, Dr Muscat said.

Then people actually wonder why Joseph Muscat gets compared to Nigel Farage. Here’s why. On the contraception pill our Prime Minister practically implied that Malta would be obliged by the EU to sell the “morning-after” pill over the counter (I don’t think anybody would be obliged to import a pill if the intention were not to sell it).

Using the EU as a monster that forces states to do what they do not want to do in their sovereign competencies is exactly what Farage did.

The truth is that following a recommendation by the European Medicines Agency (based in the UK incidentally) in 2014, the European Commission issued a decision in 2015 switching the status of two morning after pills from prescription to non-prescription. This decision DOES NOT LEGALLY BIND member states and in fact Malta still neither registers nor sells such pills. Countries such as Italy have for some time attached a further condition before allowing over the counter sale (pregnancy test). (source)

Switching the debate to whether the EU obliges Malta to decide on the matter is tantamount to washing ones hands of the decision. This is not the kind of decision making that one would expect from a progressive and pro-Europeanist Prime Minister.

“In November 2014, the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) recommended a change in classification status from prescription to non-prescription for UPA ECPs, meaning that the drug could be obtained without a prescription in the EU. Following the EMA´s assessment, in January 2015, the European Commission issued an implementing decision that UPA ECPs should be available without a prescription, amending the marketing authorisation granted in 2009 for UPA ECPs.

While the European Commission’s decision is not legally binding and does not create new obligations to the EU Member States with regards to EC accessibility, in most EU countries, the decision is being followed, and UPA ECPs are available directly in the pharmacies or are in the process of becoming available. At the end of November 2015, the situation regarding ECPs in the EU was the following:

UPA ECPs are available without prescription in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Age restrictions have been set in at least 3 countries: Croatia and Italy (for women younger than 18) and Poland (for women younger than 15).

In the Baltic subregion, the new marketing authorisation is being processed in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and UPA ECPs are expected to be available by 2016.

In Hungary, in January 2015, the government decided that because of patient safety considerations, it will continue to require prescriptions for all types of EC.

In Malta, LNG ECPs and UPA ECPs are not registered or available.

LNG ECPs remain a prescription drug in Hungary and Poland. In Croatia and Italy since October 2015, at least one brand of LNG ECPs is registered as prescription- free products.”

The decision of whether the morning after pill is available over the counter remains a national prerogative. It is a decision that must be taken at a national level. Sure, it must be informed by the EU Commission decision recommending over-the counter sales that is the result of a recommendation by a specialised agency but this does not undermine the fact that it is ultimately a national decision of which our government cannot wash its hands.

Washing his hands and blaming the EU monster is dishonest and untruthful to begin with. It also unmasks the real level of commitment that Muscat has both to progressive and Europeanist ideas.

We need more fact-based politics and less untruths. Otherwise we might as well have a comedian like Farage running our country irresponsibly.

 

ADDENDUM (from Facebook):

James Debono asks:

I am no expert on importation of medicines and laws regulating them. On a political level it would be wiser not shift buck to EUon such matters and assume responsibility. That is the non technical argument. I say this cause am completely in favour of morning after and wary of shifting arguments to EU on sensitive issues. So I can see your political point. That said the pill is available in all EU countries with differences being on need of prescription etc. I am under impression that local medicines authority has to authorize it at some point. My technical question is whether local authorities can stop any medicine from being imported without submitting a legal ground to do so (and thus expose themselves to a legal challenge) Does such a step (to ban this particular brand of morning after pill) require the approval of new legislation to justify any decision to ban it locally (and thus not open state to legal challenge)? So technically muscat seems to be saying we are not going out of the way to stop this pill on irrational grounds (while politically passing buck on single market)?

Thank you James Debono. Let me begin by stating that my post was not a position on whether the pill should or should not be available. I was simply stating that the buck should not be passed onto the EU when it is evidently not the case.

I will try to answer your question as best as I can. First of all the issue of marketing and sale of Medicines is a special field of EU law that in some cases requires special implementation of the general principles of free movement of goods. IN essence the idea is to create a single market insofar as medicinal products are concerned but the basic directive also recognises differences in MSs (member states) on certain issues.

The general principle is that a registered product should be marketable in all the EU. That is when an EU-wide license is issued. In other cases MS specific authorities (NCA’s) have the power to issue or refuse national licenses. This occurs for different reasons all of which boil down to public policy.

It is important to realise that the European Medicine’s Agency is responsible for scientific research and study of all products. All EU states benefit from the investment made by a centralised agency to vet medicincal products and this obviously avoids replication over 28 MSs.

Now for the national agency. They are entitled to refuse to license certain products including morning after pills.

You should be looking at Directive 2001/83 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Particularly its article 4(4) which states: “This Directive shall not affect the application of national legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale, supply or use of medicinal products as contraceptives or abortifacients. The Member States shall communicate the national legislation concerned to the Commission.”

So in answer to your question: “whether local authorities can stop any medicine from being imported without submitting a legal ground to do so?” The answer is yes since the actual point is that local autorithies cannot be obliged to license certain categories of drugs/medicines.

Link to the Directive.

Link to the Commission decision advising Member States to allow over the counter prescription.

Additional reading.

Sales Report

salesreport

Chief Salesman Muscat was reporting from his business visit in Algeria. He told journalists that the Algerian authorities had laughed off any suggestion that something was amiss with the abnormal number of visas being issued by the consulate run by Muscat’s father’s cousin. Obviously the matter of visas being issued lightly and allegedly on the basis of a network of bribes is of no security consequence to Algeria. Why should it be? It is probably a laughing matter indeed. The arabs have a curious habit of referring to someone as “oncle” or “cousin” out of respect – much in the same way as some Maltese use the phrase “my friend” even if you do not know them from Adam. Muscat was reported to have replied sarcastically about his familiarity with the man running the Algeria consulate. “He’s my father’s cousin, that’s a very strong relationship,” Dr Muscat said sarcastically. Again, he seems to find these things funny. Brushing it all off as being a bit too much brouhaha.

Meanwhile. Malta’s Chief Salesman seemed positively surprised that the Algerian counterparts are eager to use Malta as a window to Europe’s pharmaceutical market. What stands out as strange is that given the linguistic and historical partnership with France, the Algerians would still need to use Malta to hitch a ride into Europe. The question really is all about standards. Is Malta becoming one of the weaker links of the European Union? Is this government once again peddling the rights and obligations that were hard earned in order to make a quick sale? We can only wait. Do not expect truthful answers from salesmen though, Their business is not governance but profit.

The Statesman of the Dead

deadman_akkuza

 

They’re not gone. The boats full of hopefuls attempting the dangerous crossing are still there. We might have shifted our media attention to the new parliament but wave upon wave is still being intercepted – only yesterday a couple of hundred persons were to be distributed between Sicily and Puglia.

The problem remains notwithstanding the incredible show of caring and compassion that was put up by Europe’s leadership in the wake of  the 800 dead. I use my words carefully. It is Europe’s leadership and not the EU that is guilty of the dragging of feet and of an overall reluctance to deal head-on with the issue. Juncker tried hard to push the leaders into doing more but in the end the EU remains the sum of many parts and without the real determination of those parts to look the issue of immigration in the face we will not move on.

They’re not gone. We have managed simply to focus on one part of the problem that had hitherto not got the attention it deserved. European leaders chose to focus on the people smugglers. They are base beings who profit on other people’s misery. It is the 21st century form of slavery in many ways. The only difference is that the price paid is by the very people who are being trafficked and not by a European buyer. The Europeans stand aloof disgusted at the large numbers and threats to their integrity – rushing to the latest wagon prepared to brandish populist ideals.

Smuggling is part of the problem.  One German scientist observed that a flight to Europe from central and Saharan Africa costs less than the trips of death. Why don’t more immigrants use that route then? Simple really. Through legislation the European states have made sure that airlines are burdened with the “processing” of individuals before they even set foot on the departure gate. No visa, no flight – so forget processing for refugee status unless you are prepared to submit to the ordeal of trial by Mediterranean Crossing. In other words we (the Europeans States) force the immigrants into that route.

Processing centres in Africa? Just look at Spain’s underhand collaboration with Morocco in the case of Ceuta and Melilla.  Seriously? Meanwhile much of Europe mourns Italy’s abandoning of it’s earlier programs. They had begun to serve as a buffer zone. Renzi managed to make some noise thanks to the 800 dead and Joseph Muscat was quick to join the dance.

You had to be stupid not to realise that there is some sort of arrangement going on between the two. Muscat has arranged to “deal” with the dead while Renzi would transform Italy’s south into a showcase of the impossible nature of dealing with such a huge wave of arrivals. Muscat put up a show with the ignoble grandstanding surrounding the burying of the souls of the unidentified. Ah yes, unidentified. It really turned out that the bodies were only useful for the show for the media. When relatives turned up in the hope of identifying the dead they were refused access to the body. Human? Who are you kidding Joseph Muscat?

Some corners of the press were quick to hail Muscat’s roundabout turn in policy – from pushback to statesman they said. I don’t see how this latest cynical move qualifies as statesmanship. A hundred years from the Gallipoli campaign when Malta proudly stood up as the Nurse of the Mediterranean all Muscat has managed to do is transform our island into a supersized Charon, the ferryman of Hades.

One can only wonder what coin was placed in the mouths of the dead in order to appease our modern day Charon.

Panacea Mediterranea

panacea_akkuza

The power seems to be in the numbers. If it’s birds then we’re asking how many must be illegally shot before it becomes blatantly obvious that the season must close. If it’s votes then we’re interpreting results as best suits our party of choice – and it seems that everybody can be happy in their own way. If it’s migration then we must sadly count the dead. Yes, the power lies in and among the number of dead because the political situation is such that unless many die (and preferably in as tragic manner as possible) nobody will give a damn.

So a tragedy involving close to 900 souls just about made it to push the issue of migratory flows onto the EU agenda. The Council of Ministers (Foreign Affairs) is having an extraordinary meeting in Luxembourg as I type. We have reached the point (again, may I add) when (as a Union) realise that there is a huge problem at our doorstep. It is impossible for the nordic nations to continue to turn their noses away from the stench of floating dead (I would apologise for the graphic nature of the description but then again there is a bit of anger built up and words are my only weapon).

We must understand though that there is no Panacea Mediterranea. What we see is actually a symptom of problems that originate elsewhere. The sub-Saharan belt will continue be the source of migrants in search of a land that treats them better, that will provide them a sense of decent belonging and dignity. The story of Moses and the errant Israelites of biblical fame continues to repeat itself century after century with huge masses of humans being displaced from areas of uncertainty either because of natural disasters or human cruelty.

The migration flow will, like water, seek the easiest passage to flow through, and right now the easiest exit point is the chaos that is Libya. So long as the Maghreb nations are in chaos they will prove to be the choice transit point for these peoples who have been so reduced to desperation that even risking their lives to Triton the god of the sea becomes a no-brainer.

Politically and diplomatically an entity such as the EU has two different spheres that it needs to influence and assist. First should be the source of the migratory flows – the war and famine torn dark belly of Africa – and secondly the transit nations that are currently submerged in chaos. Heaven (and more practically Earth) forbid that Daesh take further control of these exit points because they will exacerbate the religious tension thrown into the equation (and fools are those who will fall for the trap deeming Muslim migrants as some form of Satanic reincarnation).

It’s a tall order and one that has to be placed into the geopolitical context too. The UK is facing elections soon. Greece is still menacing to play a Samson and pull apart the pillars of the EURO by forcing an exit. Economic recovery on the Old Continent is still way away from forgetting the word “austerity” (though it has been banned from the books). Getting the electorate to understand the importance of economic (and maybe military) intervention in the weak points of the migratory flows is no easy task.

There is no panacea really. What we can strive for is more respect and more humanity. Whether it is when we are discussing the issue and whether it is in our engagement (in our smallness) whenever we can. Demonisation of migrants who made it through does not help anyone and only further increases the tensions. Playing into the facile hands of the populists who would erect a big wall in the sea and forget the problem until it explodes in their face manifold in the future is neither here no there.

It’s a human problem. One that involves all humanity. Whether we like it or not.

Our missionary position

missionary_akkuzaThis is a guest post sent in by a J’accuse reader. 

While everyone this side of the Great Wall is falling over themselves to figure out how much of our taxes are being used to remunerate “our” emissary in the Far East, one simple fact from the horse’s mouth seems to have been missed.

I, for one, could not care less if the salary Hon. Mizzi’s wife is supposedly on is €3,000, €13,000 or €130,000 per month if it means the overall economic boost to our nation’s coffers results in a net gain from this promotional mission. However, what is most striking, is that for all the hard work she is meant to have done in the past year, all she has to show for it is interest from a ‘top digital company’ to come to Malta and set up a ‘free trade zone centre’.

Sai Mizzi’s quote to Times of Malta reporter Ariadne Massa:

“This company is looking to set up a showcase for all Chinese products in Malta so that European countries will not need to travel to China to see their goods but they can just go to Malta, which is on their doorstep”

That sounds like top work to me, but only if your remit was to bring China and Chinese products to the EU. Does Ms Mizzi not know which side of her bread is being buttered? Apart from saving a little airfare for our EU brethren I fail to identify any benefit that this may bring to our economy. Even the trade zone centre is “free”!

A Nonny Moose