So Inhobbkom Joseph believes that by “breaking the institutional silence” and getting the three score and some parliamentarians to talk about the problem of rising influx of immigrants we will solve the problem. Gonzi’s posse did not believe that the problem warranted any discussion by parliament (which comes as no surprise seeing the disdain for the institution that comes from Dar Centrali these days – it’s only in the case of renegade NGO’s that institutional procedure has to be respected). Before anyone goes on to accuse the accuser of hiding under some green umbrella I have honestly no idea what AD have to say on the issue at this moment in time and looking it up will not change what I have to say by one iota.
Just look at our parties in government and parliamentary opposition and you are reminded of the kid scared to stay in his bedroom alone because of the monster under the bed. Inhobbkom’s solution is to talk about the monster until he is gone (probably by boring the monster to death with confusing and irritating PLPN speak) while Flimkien’s reply is that we best not acknowledge the existence of the monster at all. This coming straight on the heels regarding the Guantanamo Prisoner dilemma vote in the EP – where the PL’s position on the issue was criticised as being hypocritical by the PN because they (the PL) seemed to be ignoring the already existing problem known nationally as “What the Flip Shall we do with all these unwanted boatloads of people?”
Meanwhile the cavalier of “I am not really a through and through nationalist” philosophy is busy taking credit for the latest EP voted document that suggests making the act of employing illegal immigrants a crime. Now that will stop them won’t it Simon? Simple Simon says…. we have piloted this act through the EP and this will “remove the incentive for illegal immigration” (sic). Here’s Simon’s simple plan: “Apart from being a pull factor for illegal immigration, illegal employment also distorts labour markets and gives rise to exploitation of migrants. The new law will remove this pull factor by punishing illegal employment with common financial, administrative and even criminal sanctions that will apply throughout Europe”.
Now before you stop laughing just remember that Simon is in full EP campaign mode… he had to denigrate the activity of the Socialists on the matter:
Dr Busuttil said he managed a compromise which avoids any obligation to regularise illegal workers and which leaves it up to individual countries to decide whether they want to grant immigrants a temporary residence permit. Both points were pushed by the Socialist group, he said.
Well while Simon was busy working on this “European Law” here is what a Report backed by Parliament on the 5th of February had to suggest regarding asylum centres:
- States move away from a policy of simply detaining people.
- The EU establishes a permanent system of visiting centres.
- Open centres should be encouraged rather than closed ones.
- Food, housing, medical care should always be available.
But back to the “law” which is not a law but a proposal for a directive – that means it COULD become a Directive but it is not one yet. The proposed directive report was by Claudio Fava – a member of the European Socialists, and was adopted in the EP with 552 votes in favour and 105 against with 34 abstentions. Which goes to show, among other things, that no matter how much the local media try to portray it as some EPP law it would be wrong on both counts. It seems to have gathered a wide consensus in the EP and, let me remind you, it is not a law yet.
As for the criminal sanctions being proposed in the directive, one would have to see how far the EP can get away with legislating on criminal law (see UK opt out on the issue)- a very sensitive area still largely exclusive to member states.
So in summary. What are we doing about the immigration problem? Inhobbkom Joseph is still in opportunistic stride and wants to talk, Flimkien Gonzi is still trying to hide things away from any public forum and discussion, and our man in Brussels is desperately being marketed as having reached significant compromises on a law that is not a law… in full European Election momentum.
Spiffin’ innit!
4 replies on “Talking Shop”
Blinkers may restrict your vision. But in your case, it is completely distorted, even in the tiniest of facts. No, it is not the case that Gonzi thought that the problem did not warrant any discussion; Gonzi disagreed that the busy Parliamentary agenda should be suspended to discuss this issue, hardly because of “disrespect”.
And when do you plan to give the “inhobbkom” thing a rest? You’re starting to sound like Jean-Pierre Sammut and his “Goooonzi” at the Liberals’ AGM.
Repetitive? You mean like the Burma business? I see. Well you see in my case it’s only a familiar moniker… Like GonziPN. As for blinkers… Whatever the reason given, the ubnderlying result was that gonzi gave the impression that talking about immigration was a no no in parliament. Maybeit was because they are too busy avoiding going to discussion and vote on issues that are dividing the people – they’d rather take those decisions in a cabinet chosen by a relative majority.
Another good example of what you describe as “Maltese relativism”: first, when someone points something out react by referring to something else, second that thing need not be even remotely related. No, Jacques, not “like the Burma business” which I brought up when Mizzi was in the news rather than every time mention was made of the Greens or Harry Vassallo. I make some effort not to sound like the broken record you’ve become.
And how about you start thinking outside the MLPN box? Decisions in cabinet not being discussed and voted in Parliament? Which decisions would those be?
Jacques,
Just to tell you well done for your new site. Could not find where to post general comments :) cya