Tags
Related Posts
Share This
De Lege (Re)ferenda
Fausto Majistral’s latest zolabyte tackles the legal problems that the organisers of the stopprojectpiano referendum campaign might not have considered yet.
It was inevitable that an issue as political as the Valletta entrance (use of public space is politics par excellence) would not see some intensive campaigning in the online world. The latest is a “campaign” by the name of stopprojectpiano.com which describes itself as a “referendum campaign”. Claiming that “the Maltese Constitution gives the right to any individual to call on the Government to hold a Referendum on any particular issue” it asks “to let the People decide whether the Valletta Piano Project should proceed or not”.
Now, it is a cardinal mistake to rush to embrace one form of online tool and, with your hands thus occupied, let go of another. Like the online text of Maltese laws. For example, the Referenda Act (Cap. 237) which in its section 3(1) says the following:
Persons entitled to vote in a referendum under this Act will be called upon to declare:
(a) whether they approve proposals set out in a resolution passed for that purpose by the House and published in the Gazette; or
(b) whether they agree that a provision of law should be abrogated in accordance with the provisions of Part V of this Act, as the case may be.
The organisers of this petition do not seem to be in the habit of looking up laws (had that been the case they would have discovered that there’s no “right to call on the Government to call a referendum” as they claim there is in the Constitution). So I’ll duly inform that there’s no law saying Piano gets to design Valletta’s entrance. Circumstance (b) therefore does not apply. Which leaves us with (a) which, as an initiating action, requires a resolution of the House (not a public petition).
Can the House can be petitioned to consider and possibly approve such a resolution? Possibly not. First, according to the form set out in the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives (relevant appendix not available online) the petitioners, rightly so, have to sign their names. Which means that electronic petitions, in general, are excluded. And all the more in the case of this petition where the organisers do not see it “relevant” to divulge their names.
Second, you cannot petition the House to consider a motion. Here’s order 143 of the same Standing Orders:
No reference shall be made in a petition to any debate in the House, nor to any intended motion, unless a notice of such motion stands upon the order paper of the House.
That’s a severe handicap to petition organisers wanting a referendum over a development planning matter and they haven’t yet reckoned with standing order 149:
Every petition not containing matter in breach of the privileges of the House, and which, according to the rules of usual practice of the House, can be received, shall be brought to the Table by the direction of the Speaker, who shall not allow any debate, or any Member to speak thereon or in relation to such petition; but it may be read by the Clerk of the House, if required.
From then on it becomes a committee matter (and remember, a camel is a horse designed by committee) but unless the support of the petition moves an MP to move a motion there won’t be much to see. Could that happen? Considering that a private motion can be presented anytime but hasn’t happened yet, don’t count on it.
I won’t be considering an amendment to the Referenda Act on a new piece of legislation regulating a referendum on this specific issue — the Referendum (Stop Piano) Act of 2010 — for the simple reason that if a House resolution is nowhere in sight a parliamentary Act is even further away.
*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***
Hmm. I suppose the fact that this post went online at around 10 p.m. yesterday there was not enough time for the contents to be included in today’s Times edition so it went to “latest news” instead.
Just a hypothesis, of course.
The Times sourcing from J’accuse? Never. The Times acknowledgeing the source if they did? Dream on.
I just think it is a huge coincidence. And I really believe in coincidences.
Just added this comment on The Times: In case Times readers are interested a full analysis of the legal aspect of this referendum proposal is available here: http://www.jacquesrenezammit.com/jaccuse/2010/03/30/de-lege-referenda/ .
Odds of it being published are 4:1. Bets in the form of coffees are accepted.
Darn. I owe the Times 4 coffees. :) Down the drain go the conspiracy theories on establishment (MSM) journalism.
Now I have direct personal experience that the Times publish anything (must have the right amount of CAPS and !!!!!!).
I’m having a conversation with myself. Lovely. A sign of madness if it was ever needed.
Can I have one of the coffees you owe The Times? :-)
Decaf, macchiato, lungo or simply Nescafe Red Cup (the stuff of legend)?
From where I stand, I foresee no problems at all… because Malta has never been more united than on this issue… > 85%!!
1) First we need to get somebody in Parliament to pass a private motion requiring the government to subject itself to a referendum whenever large projects (eg: >10M€) are on the table, and whenever a large petition pertaining to the same matter (online or otherwise) is endorsed by a minimum of 10% of the population. I’m sure that any member of the opposition will quickly oblige!
2) Then, using Referenda Act, we can stage a referendum in support of the motion and hence overturn this senseless project in one fell swoop! We can then commit the Government and Renzo Piano to proceed in a way that meets the demands of the citizens – those taxpayers who will ultimately foot the bill!
Er, is this for real?
Which part is it that you miss?
Where to start? OK, from “get somebody in Parliament”. I’m under the opportunity will not present itself before 2013 and it will be in the old-fashined pen-and-paper method (i.e. not a Times online survey).
can I be like daphne the TEFL teacher and correct you? did you mean to say “I’m under the impression, the opportunity..”
@anna
Thanks. Allow me to return the compliment: no comma is required between “the impression” and “the opportunity”.
How about a “that” between “impression” and “the opportunity”.
U issa daqshekk :)
and a question mark at the end of my question wouldn’t harm either.
Additionally, it would be extremely unwise for the PM to defy 85% of the Nation. Should the PM continue to obstinately refuse to recognize a large petition, then he would be threading some very shaky ground.
I think it could mark an abrupt end of this legislature.
I never was a fan of facebook petitions and campaigns because of the distance between campaigner and petitioner (signatory). Petitions are the social and political equivalent of quick conscience washing. There is no commitment or input except for a piffling signature (whenever there is a name of course). Remove the name and you are left with the emptiest of vessels.
85%? In what parallel universe and using what Mad Hatter Logic do we live today? Democracy under threat? Sur eenough – a tool such as democracy is at its most dangerous when handled by the uninformed and misguided.
Then you will agree that this is precisely what makes our uninformed and misguided Prime Minister emerge as the biggest threat to our fragile democracy.
If you fail to percieve the danger, when the will of 85% of the population still does not matter, then may God help us all!
An ancillary comment/questions/or whatever will materialize below:
The current EU Budget runs till 2013.
Malta must take up its structural-fund allocation, or whatever it is called, by 2013.
Without wanting to step on partisan political rhetoric, one gets an impression that Malta’s take-up of its allocation is on the slow side.
Have we come to a point when, with the Mellieha by-pass whatever road, St John’s Cathedral museum and other projects scuttled, we may be running out of projects?
Can this explain Government’s apparent apprehension/single-mindedness?
Now take the ‘let’s put a roof to the thing’ lobby coming from what I consider to be unlikely quarters. Can this be a way how to use more funds before they become out of reach in 2014?
Will this project, after all, be financed through the structural-fund allocation that will pay some 85% of total cost?
Are some NGO’s being set up as some excuse for eventual potential Government failure to make use of the bulk of available e.u. funding?
Should we be also asking Government the rate at which our e.u. fund-allocation is being utilized?
a maltese language sunday newspaper suggests that experts are in malta to assess a request by government to fund ‘the’ project.
is the ‘maoist’ style of journalism adopted by the ‘west’ being complimented by a cetralised planing culture that mobilises massive ‘funds’ in the interests of…?
Danny. There’s no problem if you say it’s It-Torca or provide link. Saves time on the guesswork you know ;)
http://www.it-torca.com/news.asp?newsitemid=9407
Thanks Jacques, appologies and point taken.