Category: Constitutional Development

Categories
Constitutional Development

Unpopular Representation

“(An MP) his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. … Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion” – Edmund Burke

It’s a quote that’s brought up time and time again. Edmund Burke explaining his model of “trustee representation” as opposed to the idea of “delegated representation“. The question being the nature of an elected members’ duties towards his constituency.

On the one hand the idea of an MP as a trustee means that the electors choose a person who they deem is best suited to work and represent them in their best interests using his judgment in order to determine what those best interests may be. “These ‘trustees’ have sufficient autonomy to deliberate and act in favour of the greater common good and the national interest, even if it means going against the short-term interests of their own constituencies.”

On the other hand a “delegate” MP would be a mouthpiece of his constituency. “In this model, constituents elect their representatives as delegates for their constituency. These delegates act only as a mouthpiece for the wishes of their constituency/ state, and have no autonomy from the constituency only the autonomy to vote for the actual representatives of the state. This model does not provide representatives the luxury of acting in their own conscience.”

What is the role of our elected MPs today in the age of social media and supposed rapid consultation of the constituent’s needs and opinions? Has the development of technology capable of immediate and real-time consultation driven inroads into the notions of representation particularly in parliamentary democracies? Is there still any room for the ‘mature judgment’ and ‘enlightened conscience’ of the Burkean representative?

Not if you went by Italy’s 5 star Movement there isn’t. With the Italian parliament due to take a vote as to whether or not lift the parliamentary immunity accorded to Lega leader Salvini in order to allow magistrates to prosecute him in relation to alleged crimes in the Diciotti case, the M5S – Salvini’s government coalition partner party – decided to consult its grassroots base. Using an online voting platform called Rousseau, members of the movement were asked (admittedly using a convoluted questioning system) whether they believed the vote should go in favour or against Salvini.

Now if we set aside all the vested interests of the populsit party trying to keep its place in government by not prejudicing the coalition we still have a basic issue of delegation vs trustee. In fact the M5S parliamentary members are reduced to automatons who are simply delegated with the duty of voting in parliament in accordance with the outcome of the online vote. As it is, 59% voted to grace Salvini and that 59% will be ‘translated’ into a binding order to all M5S MPs to vote accordingly. Which is in itself strange because strictly speaking the online constituency actually sent a message that around 60% of MP votes should go for saving Salvini while 40% should not. Be that as it may, the parliamentarians occupying M5S seats will not use any discretion or judgment of their own when exercising their vote. Worse still, they cannot for example exercise their discretion and say that a vote lifting immunity would be more in accordance to the mandate and principles upon which they were elected. A tough one that.

In another corner of the EU (at least for now) we have heard the argument of constituencies that have voted for Brexit over and over again. Opposition to the “second vote” has been propped up by the contorted reasoning that “the constituency would view a second vote as a betrayal” especially where the constituency voted for Brexit first time round. The whole Brexit conundrum has in fact thrown the delegate v. trustee debate back to the forefront of discussions on the exercise of parliamentary powers and sovereignty.

On the one hand the delegate option pays lip service to the “Brexit is Brexit” mentality. It serves as an illogical short-cut that somehow believes that an uninformed decision taken once during a “consultation” process somehow bars any future reconsultation once the facts are clearly on the table. It excludes with absolute certainty any notion of trusteeship on the part of the politicians in parliament who are therefore expected to act solely and exclusively on behalf of the 17 million one-time voters and without throwing in any weight of ‘mature judgment’ or ‘unbiased opinion’.

The magnetic/opportunistic attraction of the delegate option is also a lazy way out for the populist politician who rathaer than boldly lead through weighted judgment and analysis for what he could determine to be the common good prefers to rely on the safety of numbers and polls. This has created a tension within the traditional form of representation in parliaments – parties – with the delegate-minded representatives increasingly finding the trustee-oriented colleagues to be irritatingly frustrating.

The recent split within the Labour party is welcome proof that provided there is enough tension the former ties that bound party loyalists together are finally being broken. Macchiavellian manoeuvering aside, there is hope when it is finally understood that party loyalty need not trump loyalty to principles and ideals.When such principles and ideals mean a shift to trustee-oriented politics then it is all the better for the health of a parliamentary democracy that will no longer veer towards badly considered decisions made for and by the masses that lead to nothing but chaos.

Categories
Constitutional Development

The Sale of Public Land

It’s 1626. A Dutch merchant has his eye on a peninsula of land in the region of the New World that the local natives (the Munsee/Lenape) called Manna-hatta (which literally means “the place for gathering wood to make the bows”). Place names tend to have this descriptive element in the local language – Żebbuġ. Għasri, Għajnsielem, Marsalforn. It’s the same the world over. Land is land and what it gives to the people who live on it.

According to a letter by Pieter Janszoon Schagen, Peter Minuit and Dutch colonists acquired the Manhattan peninsula on May 24, 1626, from unnamed Native American people, who are believed to have been Canarsee Indians of the Lenape in exchange for traded goods worth 60 guilders,

“The original inhabitants of the area were unfamiliar with the European notions and definitions of ownership rights. For the Indians, water, air and land could not be traded. Such exchanges would also be difficult in practical terms because many groups migrated between their summer and winter quarters. It can be concluded that both parties probably went home with totally different interpretations of the sales agreement.”

It gets interesting because it turns out that Minuit negotiated with the chief of the Canarsees, when it was the Weckquaesgeeks who actually mostly lived on Manhattan. It was an easy deal to obtain. The vendors would get the rights to a piece of land while the sellers… well the sellers had no concept of right to property and in any case they were nomadic people who actually had no real ties with that piece of land… at least not as much as another tribe who was not involved in the transaction.

Public land – land that belongs to the people. It forms part of the core concept of public goods (res publica). In roman law it was the concept of a good publicly held in common by the people. Res publica also refers to public affairs, affairs relating to the management of the common good. When public land is sold or managed, such sale or management is supposed to be transacted in the interest of the people and their common good.

Modern day republics entrust their governments with the management of public good. That is why transactions involving public land should be conducted with the utmost transparency and no amount of excuses of “commerical sensitivity” can hold water. Transparency is but one safeguard. Accountability to parliament, to watchdogs and to EU institutions is another. The sale of public land – when it is really necessary and justified must take place following the best standards that guarantee the public good is the foremost concern.

When the citizens of the nation fail to understand the importance of the monitoring of such processes then they are open to being conned time and time again by the next Peter Minuit. The tribal leaders of today’s demos who take advantage of this ignorance have little care of the consequences of their transactions. The trinkets and guilders of yesteryear have been transformed in the corrupt practices of today.

Oh foolish nation that allows itself to be led by jackals. The situation is desperate, there are crooks everywhere.

“quotus quisque reliquus qui rem publicam vidisset?
Igitur verso civitatis statu nihil usquam prisci et integri moris: omnes exuta aequalitate iussa principis aspectare…”

(How few were left who had seen the republic!
Thus the State had been revolutionised, and there was not a vestige left of the old sound morality. Stript of equality, all looked up to the commands of a sovereign…) – Tacitus, Annals (I, 3-4)

Categories
Constitutional Development Rule of Law

Watching justice come undone

Magistrate Charmaine Galea has just decreed her own recusal from the compilation of evidence in the Caruana Galizia murder trial.

“Magistrate Charmaine Galea followed where magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech left off last week and said she would not hear the compilation of evidence against the three accused, on the grounds that Ms Caruana Galizia had mentioned her in blog posts concerning Labour Party appointees to the judiciary.” (Times of Malta)

A few off the cuff facts (for which I thank some colleagues who are more familiar with the ins and outs of the courts) are warranted at this stage. Malta’s current line-up on the Magistrate’s bench has a grand total of 22 Magistrates. The standard for recusal that has just been set by the combined abstentions of Magistrates Dontella Frendo Dimech and Charmaine Galea is quite low. Magistrate Frendo Dimech’s abstention stemmed mainly from a weak level of familiarity with the victim’s sister (they shared a schoolbench) while Magistrate Galea referred to direct criticism that she received from the victim upon her appointment:

“Magistrate Galea has just read out a statement saying Daphne Caruana Galizia had written about her nomination to the bench and linked it to her closeness of the government of the day.” (still the Times Court report)

Now,  that link – the one related to Daphne’s criticism of Labour’s appointment of magistrates – has delivered a severe blow to the list of 22 magistrates. Decimation does not begin to describe it. In fact, writing on the 20th of November 2016, Daphne Caruana Galizia detailed the specifics of government appointments to the Magistrates’ bench:

“This government has made 14 appointments to the bench in three years, 10 of whom are connected directly to the Labour Party. The other four are Judge Giovanni Grixti (formerly a magistrate), Judge Edwin Grima (formerly a magistrate), Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech (formerly at the Attorney-General’s Office), and Magistrate Aaron Bugeja (formerly in private practice).” (Running Commentary, November 20th, 2016).

The rest of the blog post in question develops an argument that implies without any doubt the ‘political’ nature of Labour government appointees through the years. In this context, Magistrate Charmaine Galea’s abstention should not come as a surprise and is actually the more ‘justified’ of the two until now seeing how Magistrate Frendo Dimech was specifically singled out by Daphne (together with another three magistrates) as not having been a political appointee. What does stand out is that by the same reckoning as applied by Magistrate Galea, 9* other appointees to the bench (10 out of the list of 22) qualify for the same reasoning, the same abstention.

We may argue at length whether or not the abstentions are sufficiently justified but that is not the point that I want to make here. The point that comes out clearly from the current debacle is that when Daphne Caruana Galizia, like many others, was pointing out the political nature of appointments to the judiciary back in 2016 (and even before that) she was actually highlighting a deficiency in the system: one that makes it weak and vulnerable. This is the tangible effect of the breaking down of the rule of law. Justice is not being seen to be done, it is being undone bit by bit.

The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental building block of a system based on the rule of law. It is a fundamental building block for any liberal democratic society. When the judiciary is treated as yet another domain wherein ‘jobs for the boys (and girls)’ are to be found, it becomes yet another dagger in the back of the proper administration of justice and consequently of the proper running of the state. The merry-go-round of recusals will necessarily go on if the roster by lot will continue to throw up names who feature on that November 20th post. It is inevitable. It is a vicious circle.

The blame is not to fall on the journalist and opinionists who pointed out the deficiencies and bad-will in the nominations. It is to fall on a government that proceeded to turn nominations to the bench into a farce. It is a government that will sit on a case of impeachment of a judge until he retires out of the grasp of justice. It is a government that will wait for the exact amount of years required by the constitution to pass for the appointment of a young, green, lawyer to the post of magistrate because rule by law trumps rule of law any day.

The not so impeached judge happened to be the father of a labour candidate, the young green lawyer happened to be the daughter of the ex-labour deputy leader and current speaker of the house. One other nominee to the bench – Ingrid Zerafa Young – withdrew her nomination after it transpired that her appointment could have breached the Constitution since she was a member of the Employment Commission. It was Dr Zerafa Young, not the government,  who withdrew her nomination.

As you follow the merry-go-round of recusals do not laugh, do not find it funny and most of all do not blame the magistrates in question. Instead remember that this is a direct consequence of the breakdown of the rule of law in this country.

We all know where the blame for that falls squarely.

 

*This post has been edited because the previous version wrongly implied that all the appointees mentioned in the Running Commentary’s posts were magistrates. 4 of those were in fact judges and therefore should not be considered in this particular case.

Categories
Constitutional Development Values

The Empress has no clothes!

 

Eleonora Sartori returns with a guest post concerning the concept of shame and its value in today’s society,

The Empress has no clothes! (Not that she would need much in the Bahamas).

“A sinner comes before you, Cersei of House Lannister. Mother to His Grace, King Tommen, widow of His Grace, King Robert. She has committed the acts of falsehood and fornication. She has confessed her sins, and begged for forgiveness. To demonstrate her repentance, she will cast aside all pride, all artifice, and present herself as the gods made her….”

This is how George R.R. Martin describes the ritual of punishment and penance named “walk of atonement”, used to publicly shame women accused of adultery or prostitution. The confessed sinner has to walk a certain distance stripped of all clothing, exposed to the eyes and jeers of the common people.

Somehow, this brings back the image described in the Gospel of John, the Pharisees, when a woman who has committed adultery is brought unto Jesus since she is meant to be publicly shamed by being stoned. Shame is in fact a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute, the ignominy of being subject to a very degrading condition. However, Jesus unexpectedly answers back: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

“He that is without sin among you”. Another aspect of shame, this time related to the self-awareness of one’s own sins. Shame caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming or impropriety.

Shame is indeed a manifold concept. It is also a very important pillar of humankind, as very well stressed by Professor Gardini in an article published some weeks ago on Sette – Corriere della Sera (Di cosa ti vergogni?).

But first, why am I talking about shame right now?

I felt the urge of sharing these thoughts when yesterday I read about the fact that the wife of your Prime Minister has been nominated Volunteer of the Year. As correctly put in an article published on The Shift, “The issue at stake was not the validity of Michelle Muscat’s contribution to charity which includes a 10-hour swim to raise funds for the charity she chairs, but the lack of institutional sobriety that comes across when organs of the State bestow honours on the immediate family members of high ranking officials” (It’s all about perception my dear).

The lack of institutional sobriety combines with the constant lack of transparence of appointment procedures on a worldwide scale. I’m just too tired of this ambiguous scenario we’re currently living in, where on the one hand, we have Ivanka Trump championing the cause of women empowerment by carrying out a Fashion Diplomacy strategy and on the other hand, we see Time Magazine nominating the members of the successful and long-awaited #MeToo campaign as Person of the Year.

Does no one feel ashamed for this current situation?

Then I remembered the article of Professor Gardini and I understood the core message conveyed by it. We’re no longer used to feel any shame nor to feel ashamed. Yet, I truly believe that restoring this precious feeling could only improve the democratic society in which we ought to be living in the 21st century.

Referring to Cicero in his analysis, Professor Gardini underlines that he who is capable of feeling shame presumes the existence of a superior entity, a so-called “superior thought”, that is able to assess and judge the insufficiency of one’s actions and in front of which one needs therefore to repent and rehabilitate. This superior thought is nothing but a set of values to which abides the community to whom we belong. A set of values respected by the other members of his community, who can judge and criticize you if you go off track.

Therefore, the sense of guilt is not merely private, but has a public dimension too. It’s the core expression of the principle of accountability.

But what about this principle in the digital era?

Professor Gardini correctly points out that nowadays we no longer belong to a community, but we choose virtual groups to which we want to belong. These groups do not form small societies based on confrontation and discussion, but instead exist as virtual projections of one’s imagine of one’s self. I create my group and in that group I am that particular version of myself.

Thus, in my virtual group I can always claim to be constantly right, since I have the right to reject every kind of confrontation and the arrogance not to take into account any potential different opinion. So much for the principle of accountability.

And yet, there is a very simple way to restore the role of shame in our modern society.

It’s every citizen’s duty to reintegrate into their daily routine the perception of shame and shameful actions. As well pointed out by the Background Paper published by SIDA on Accountability, Transparency and the Rule of Law within the Post-2015 Agenda, “the mere process and framework of accountability, transparency and the rule of law is not enough. What comes out of these structures and processes will, in the end, be determined by the social cohesion among people, as well as by the values and the political environment in society. Individuals have responsibilities and powers of their own to change and affect social norms and trends. Formal structures alone can never guarantee decent societies. »

It is you, the people, who have to publicly shame who you think does not abide by your set of values.

“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.” reads Genesis 3:7.

 

Categories
Constitutional Development Politics

Diskors ta’ Immanuel Mifsud waqt dimostrazzjoni tan-Netwerk ta’ Soċjetá Ċivili

Diskors qed jiġi riprodott bil-permess tal-awtur.

Tliet snin ilu, fl-okkażjoni ta’ Jum ir-Repubblika, il-President Coleiro Preca għamlet diskors li fih appellat lis-soċjetà ċivili biex din ixxammar il-kmiem u taħdem hija wkoll għall-ġid tar-Repubblika. F’dak id-diskors, il-President saħqet li d-demokrazija tal-pajjiż teħtieġ li s-soċjetà ċivili tkun soċjetà kritika “li tirrifjuta li tkun oġġett tal-istorja, li tinsisti li taqsam mal-politiċi r-responsabbiltà li tittrasforma l-bejta umana.”

Dak li qalet il-President ifisser, fi kliem ieħor, li s-soċjetà ċivili – aħna – għandna responsabbiltà li fil-fehma tiegħi għadna m’aħniex nieħdu u li wasal iż-żmien li verament nieħdu r-riedni li d-demokrazija tagħtina f’idejna.
Minkejja l-progress li dan il-pajjiż għamel matul is-snin, is-soċjetà ċivili għadha ma saritx soċjetà kritika. Ir-raġuni primarja għal dan hija li għadna nħallu f’idejn il-politiċi biex imexxu huma; għadna bil-ħsieb li l-pajjiż huwa tagħhom; anzi, agħar minn hekk, għadna naċċettaw li aħna tal-politiċi minflok il-politiċi huma tagħna.

Biex dak li qalet il-President tar-Repubblika tliet snin ilu mqar jibda jseħħ, jeħtieġ nitgħallmu ngħidu lill-politiċi li d-demokrazija ma tiddependix minnhom iżda mis-soċjetà kritika li ma tiddejjaqx tgħid le fejn jeħtieġ li jingħad le. Soċjetà kritika hija soċjetà li ma tiddejjaqx tikkritika lill-partiti; li temmen li l-kritika lill-pajjiż mhijiex tradiment iżda impenn; li l-partit qiegħed hemm għaliha u mhux hi għall-partit.

Snin ilu xi ħadd kien għamel diskors li fih kien elenka numru ta’ ħolmiet li kellu, ħolmiet li setgħu dehru impossibbli. Ma tgħaddilix minn moħħi li nipprova nimita dak id-diskors imma aċċettajt li niġi hawn illum – u naf li ħafna kienu dawk li ssorprendew irwieħhom li tlajt fuq dan il-palk – appuntu għaliex anki jien għandi ħolma. Jien verament nixtieq li nimxu lejn mument u sitwazzjoni li fihom is-soċjetà ċivili tkun hi li tmexxi l-pajjiż bil-ħiliet kritiċi tagħha; li dal-pajjiż ma jibqax blata b’mentalità tribali li minnha jgawdu biss dawk il-ftit li għandhom il-poter; appuntu li l-poter ma jibqax jiġi effettwat minn fuq għal isfel; li l-istudenti tagħna, fl-istituzzjonijiet postsekondarji u terzjarji ma jibqgħux ikunu politiċi billi jikkompetu bejniethom bit-tessera fil-but; li l-vot ikun verament ħieles; li l-mezzi tax-xandir, minbarra li jirrispettaw l-intelliġenza tagħna ma jibqgħux imarrduna b’din l-iskiżofrenija li fuq kollox hija giddieba; li l-libertà tal-espressjoni – il-buzzword il-ġdida – nifhmu xi tfisser eżattament u nibdew neżerċitawha b’responsabbiltà u b’kuraġġ; li għax tkun soċjetà kritika tkun, awtomatikament, soċjetà pluralista u li dan jiġi rifless mhux biss fil-ħajja ta’ kuljum imma anki fis-sala prinċipali ta’ dan il-bini t’hawnhekk.

Matul iż-żmien qalulna ħafna affarijiet: qalulna bdiet rebbiegħa ġdida; qalulna żmien il-bużullotti spiċċa; qalulna wasal terremot mill-isbaħ; qalulna li pajjiżna tagħna lkoll; li konna taħt tmexxija soda; qalulna li dan hu l-aqwa żmien. U aħna emminniehom; kull darba emminniehom. Iżda soċjetà kritika m’għandhiex taċċetta kollox kif ġie ġie: għall-kuntrarju għandha tistaqsi, għandha żżomm għajnejha miftuħa.

Iltqajna hawnhekk ukoll wara dak li ġara ftit tal-ġimgħat ilu, meta xi ħadd iddeċieda li għandu jsikket lil xi ħadd ieħor, ipoġġi bomba fil-karozza u jżid vittma oħra. L-istorja ta’ dan il-pajjiż tfakkarna, fix-xahar ta’ Diċembru, fi tfajla li fetħet pakkett li ma kellha qatt tiftħu, u f’ġuvni li qagħad sa tard filgħaxija f’kamra fejn ma kellux jibqa’, għax xi ħadd iddeċieda li jimposta l-bombi u jispara fejn ġie ġie. Persważ li nittamaw li dan l-aħħar każ ma jispiċċax bħal dawn it-tnejn: mitlufa fit-trab tal-istorja, bil-feriti miftuħa beraħ.

Bdejt billi kkwotajt lill-President tar-Repubblika u nagħlaq b’sentenza oħra minn tagħha li nħoss li għandha tiggwida u tispira t-triq ’il quddiem: “Repubblika li tibża’ mill-intellettwali, li toħnoq, tirredikola jew tinjora l-ħsieb kritiku, hija Repubblika dgħajfa u waħda li ma laħqitx il-milja tagħha.”

Grazzi ħafna.
Immanuel Mifsud
Il-Belt, 3 ta’ Diċembru 2017

Categories
Constitutional Development Mediawatch

The Beautiful Garden

The atmosphere at the European Parliament this Tuesday was surreal to say the least. Not being too familiar with the building I arrived just as the debate on the Rule of Law in Malta had kicked off and took a seat hurriedly in the visitor’s balcony. Just as I started to take in the different speeches I noticed that I was seated a couple of seats away from Daphne’s family and the whole business took a wholly different perspective.

It was inevitable that different agendas would be pushed during such a debate. It was, as predicted, a repeat of the Pana Committee meetings with many deputies intent on taking advantage of this moment of weakness of the Maltese state in order to peddle their usual attacks on the island nation’s fiscal policy. Politics is politics and it would be too much to ask of all the deputies in the house to stick to the agenda at hand. Probably.

I felt very ill at ease though, for every other thirty seconds Daphne’s name was brought up. Whether it was to bolster an argument regarding the state of the rule of law in Malta or whether it was to harp on that spurious link between a legitimate fiscal policy and an atrocious cold-blooded murder, those three words would be repeated and would rebound along the walls of the Hemicycle. Each time I heard the name I did not dare look at Daphne’s family but I could not help wonder how awkward all this might seem, how distant from the warmth of a mother and a wife. True, we were there also because of what had happened and yet the way most politicians took over the name and memory of the recently departed did not seem right.

The weak respects jarred mostly in the mouths of those who could barely hide their contempt towards the very fact that we were there in that room, discussing the failure of a society and not only the failure of law and government. They went through the motions expressing regret for Daphne’s sudden departure though it sounded as convincing as a note of apology by the Transport Authority whenever the buses run late.

It was painful. Painful for me as a mere outsider who quite readily admits to having had strong differences of opinion with Daphne throughout the last years and who refuses to succumb to the temptation of creating false hagiographies. In fact I am quite happy to be clear that I did not find Daphne and her work to be perfect. Far from it. It is like stating the obvious. Somehow though I feel that it makes my case for demanding respect for her work all the stronger. Above all it puts the moment in perspective – there is an institutional crisis that led to a journalist being killed while doing her work and without any doubt because of the work she was doing. Daphne was killed with impunity because, in the words of her husband, she mattered.

The institutional crisis, the social deficit, predates Daphne’s assassination. The battle against the rot definitely predates Daphne’s assassination. The warning signs predate Daphne’s assassination. The side of Daphne that we want to remember and be inspired by is the one that was so ably described by her husband. It is the one who aspired to beauty in a world that she saw (as did many others) turn uglier by the minute. Before the situation became desperate it had already turned ugly. So ugly that it rendered others cynical. So ugly that many lost hope.

This is not about a sanctification of a person. This is about continuing the work that Daphne excelled in and that others too worked hard for with different results. The inspiration we should and must take is the Beautiful Garden. We should each build our own little garden and start to expand that slowly until the gardens take over.

The gardens are our hope, our courage, our future.

 

“But Daphne never grew cynical; she grew outraged and appalled by the increasingly sordid and frightening facts that emerged from her work. The more frustrated she grew at the state of our country, the more beautiful our garden became, the more trees she planted, the more books, art, ornaments and curiosities from all over the world arrived at our home. Daphne created, in the words of one of my sons, a parallel world of beauty in a country that slipped further and further away from European values and norms of behaviour which she held so closely. Meanwhile, Daphne’s work never slowed. With every story she broke, particularly about the money laundering network with links deep and wide connecting many of Malta’s political and business elite, her readership grew larger and more loyal.” – Peter Caruana Galizia