Simon Says – Voting rights for immigrants

I know, I know: he is a prolific writer and J’accuse tends to prioritise English speaking press but there is another reason we tend to comment on Simon Busuttil’s articles so often – they tend to be so damn misleading in a coy, po-faced (we liked that one) way. In order not to make this a boring exercise, the J’accuse CommentRoom (it’s a newsroom for pedants) has decided to set up a special column called “Simon Says”.

So what is our SuperMEP up to today? Evidently he still has a gripe about Labour daring to present candidates for the EP elections and would like to highlight how much more useful it would be for all and sundry to vote for PN (read Simon plus some other candidates). Thing is that while we are being told that the most reliable vehicles for our trust are the candidates that walk proudly out of Dar Centrali we seem to have a little problem on how this universal truth is presented.

SimonSays chooses “Voting rights for immigrants” as the topic of his tirade. Now before you run off with the idea that four years and a bit of legislating were all dedicated to Voting Rights for Immigrants,  stop and think. Parliament has dealt with a myriad of matters and it would do no reader any harm to scoot over to their site and see what the eminent representatives have been dealing with. SimonSays prefers to stick to this subject for presumably two reasons. Firstly he was spokesperson for the PPE on this one so he has the topic by the horns. Secondly it seems that Labour DID bungle their voting patterns insofar as consistency therein was concerned.

Labour have their own able advocates who could presumably demonstrate that this inconsistency was a fluke. (I presume because first hand information on voting patterns is hard to obtain or censored – see www.parlorama.eu). The following statements by SimonSays on the other hand are more interesting. First comes SimonSays’ disappointment on the outcome of a vote regarding alternative versions one of which included giving immigrants the right to vote in local elections:

Nevertheless, a majority composed of Socialists, Greens, Communists and Liberals prevailed on another amendment, albeit a milder wording, which still called for immigrants to be given “the opportunity to vote in local elections”.

SimonSays does concede that the two Labour MEPs present voted with the PN representatives where it mattered. What he does prefer to emphasize however is that the Labour MEPs did not manage, like himself, to prevail on their own parliamentary grouping thus losing out on the support of the Socialist group:

Now let us not forget that MEPs are not simply elected to cast their own single vote one way or another. That would be all too easy. They are also elected to persuade their own political group on crucial issues. Their ability or inability to do so makes the difference between MEPs who are effective and others who are not.

Quite right SimonSays. What SimonSays does not notice is that this is an argument in favour of electing a much larger diversity of persuasive and influential candidates. This argument reaffirms the fact that by just opting blindly for PN candidates of dubious quality to complement SuperSimon we would be making a very inefficient use of our few seats in Parliament. If more groups need convincing (as was the case here what with the Socialists and Greens being on the opposite side to the PPE) then surely we should be choosing from the best among the Greens, the Reds and the Blues after all.

Actually it does make sense. A lot of sense. We should be choosing our Marlene Mizzis, Arnold Cassolas AND SimonSays to really get a strong persuasive power up in Strasbourg and Brussels. Cassola has long proven his weight within the European Green community. We still need to decipher who in the Labour crowd can be their version of SimonSays.

We have Simon to thank for this insight. Incidentally, speaking of Simon. I wonder if he could be so kind to declare that if elected he would stick out his full five year term in the EP rather than scoot back to Malta should the PN battleship require some reshuffling or play musical chairs with RCC after having successfully garnered the right amount of votes for PN?

That surely would be a betrayal of trust, apart from Malta losing such a valuable contributor in the European Parliament of course.

It is important for voters to know about these contradictions when, on June 6, they decide who is best suited to represent their interests in the European Parliament. – Simon Busuttil