Category: Euroland

Categories
Euroland Politics

Tabloid-itis

tabloiditis_akkuza

Inevitably, the shift of the “Citizenship for Sale” controversy to the European Parliament has brought along with it a severe case of tabloid-itis to the Maltese discussion fora and social media. The British tabloid press is hugely responsible for a variety of EU myths and thrives on stoking anti-EU sentimentalism among the lesser informed throngs of the population. Malta, with its passionate partisan electorate, was never going to manage to avoid the pull of the fantastical baseless controversy.

As the European Parliament debate could have (might have) proven, the question of the value of European citizenship cannot remain confined to mentioning one or two countries that have initiated a rush on the gold standard worthy of Klondike in the 1890’s. The European Union still has to take the proverbial bull by the horns and (probably, hopefully) redefine the notion of citizenship- a crucial point in the definition of a demos that has hitherto only been loosely attempted at the various steps of Maastricht and Amsterdam. Nationalism being what it is, council meetings (or failed constitutional conventions) tend to treat the matter of nationality with gloves – and this also thanks to the huge backlashes in the tabloids that would occur should the Holy Grail of nationalistic sentiment be touched in some way.

On Citizenship, Traitors and Europeanism

Back to the tabloids though. We were treated in some papers to the idea of “traitors” – those dastardly nationalists doing the unthinkable in Europe. This should have nothing to do with “betraying one’s country” and much more to do with a concern for the future of the European Union and the benefits that it brings to every single member of its rather exclusive club. Concern that the values of the European Union are being diluted are not anti-nationalistic concerns if you are a Europeanist. A Europeanist wants a stronger Europe because he wants a stronger nation. A Europeanist sees a stronger Europe as a solution for his nation.

The other perspective on citizenship involves seeing the whole sale of passports business as some form of competition between individual states. In one fell swoop this perspective ignores the very package of rights and gains for citizens that have been obtained since the 50’s. Admittedly in fits and starts, admittedly not without huge margins for improvement but being an EU citizen in 2014 has much more value and rights and benefits than being, say, a BENELUX citizen in 1957. Seeing the issue solely as a market where every team plays ‘away’ and solely for its own interests is missing the point. Worse is the perspective that looks at Europe as an “us vs them” game.

On Myths

Malta was not the only nation that was “hanging its linen in public” so to speak. We did witness a vociferous exchange among two Portuguese MEP’s. These national rivalries are the collateral effect and should not be the focus at a European level. The focus should be on strengthening the EU citizenship – not, as some mistakenly supposed, via some Commission masterminded plan to overrun national sovereignty, but by the Member States themselves agreeing to redefine the concept of EU citizenship for their own benefit. Why? In order not to lose what they have achieved until now.

I received an email yesterday. Funny how some “myths” go viral just at the right time. This one was supposedly about the European Parliament and the laggards that work there. The title was simple “MUST SEE!”. Then it opened with a very typical Maltese English-ism: “Following are some of the reasons why you will vote next May  !”. Next we had these phrases: “European Parliament in session …..according to the time sheets all members are present….The reality is they all clocked-in in the morning and then went about their personal affairs !” followed by a series of pics that I will put into two sets for the sake of presentation.

First there was this pic of an empty EU Parliament.

European Parliament in session. These photos must be circulated… time and again and again.. ... PRODUCTIVITY AT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT… THEIR SALARIES ARE 12,000 EUROS A MONTH !
European Parliament in session. These photos must be circulated… time and again and again.. …
PRODUCTIVITY AT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT… THEIR SALARIES ARE 12,000 EUROS A MONTH !

Then there was series of pics under each of which was written simply €12,000. I put these pics together as a collage to make them easier to post. You’ll get the gist.

€12,000
€12,000

The email ended this way:

AND YOU, YOU HAVE TO WORK UNTIL YOU DROP
..
OF STRESS… UP TO THE AGE OF 60-65 OR OLDER !
THIS EMAIL MUST BE CIRCULATED once,
a hundred times,
a thousand times,
a million times !
These people above give directives,
to fill their pockets!
.
AND WE ARE FORCED TO VOTE FOR THEM
They’re not the dummies !
WE ARE!
DON’T HESITATE TO CIRCULATE THIS

Shocking isn’t it? There is only one problem. Apart from the first photo that could very well be a photo of the parliament building before a session starts or right after it ends, all the other photos are not of the European Parliament. My guess is that it is the German parliament but I could be wrong. In the eagerness to badmouth the European Parliament (especially because it is currently debating a motion that puts Malta in a bad light) some geniuses somewhere (and I have a good idea where) came up with this hopeless email.

Now I am not going to imagine that all Europarliamentarians are saints and that they attend each and every session. The EP is as afflicted as national parliaments with lesser dedicated parliamentarians – in a parliament that is just as full of the kind of Eurosceptic politician who would encourage the above email incidentally. What is pathetic is how easily such an email gets picked up and forwarded while we are on the cusp of a wave of anti-EU enthusiasm.

The EU institutional machinery works along defined lines. They are not being invented now because Malta has come up with this Golden Passport plan. They have always been there. Besides, the EU has EU-wide matters that need tackling (the question of redefining EU citizenship being one of them). Looking at the goings on through the eyes of the tabloids and their copycats will only make fools of ourselves.

There is a cure. Get informed (and don’t be so damn gullible).

Categories
Euroland Immigration Politics Values

Follement

The storm in a tea-drinking establishment captured most of the attention on the Sunday papers and media. You would be forgiven therefore (and for reasons I will explain later you would also be fortunate) had you missed the piece penned in the Sunday Times of Malta by Malta’s former ambassador to the Council of Europe Joseph Licari. The title makes no effort to hide Licari’s ultimate aim – “The case for refoulement“. He could have called it “Apologia for Joseph Muscat’s Madcap Idea of Pushing Back Migrants” but I guess it would have been too long and in your face. You would hope that the presence of the word “case” in the title to an article would mean that there would be a build up of cogent logic leading to a strong argument in favour of something: in this case that something being the not too kosher idea of “refoulement“.

Interestingly the actual principle in international law is that of “non-refoulement” – the principle itself being an enshrining of the accepted idea among international actors that refoulement is a no-no. Here’s good old Wikipedia explaining the origins of the idea:

The principle of non-refoulement arises out of an international collective memory of the failure of nations during World War II to provide a safe haven to refugees fleeing certain genocide at the hands of the Nazi regime. Today, the principle of non-refoulement ostensibly protects recognized refugees and asylum seekers from being expelled from countries that are signatories to the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol. This has however not prevented certain signatory countries from skirting the international law principle and repatriating or expelling bona fide refugees into the hands of potential persecutors.

In other words: “Non-refoulement is a principle of the international law, i.e. of customary and trucial Law of Nations which forbids the rendering of a true victim of persecution to their persecutor; persecutor generally referring to a state-actor (country/government).” Which is pretty much where Licari starts to deviate from the point in an attempt to find some justification for a form of refoulement that he can only imagine.

In primis, Licari goes to great pains throughout his piece to underline some form of trump-card that he variously defines as national interest or better still the international obligation to share heavy burdens. You see, a country may – according to Licari – allow itself to be bound by international obligations but these may be set aside should the country feel that its national interest be threatened or as he weakly deduces from a preamble of the 1951 Convention: “A country’s obligation to accept refugees is balanced by other countries’ obligation to help it carry an unduly heavy burden.” Sound familiar? Of course it does. Patriotism being the last refuge of …

In secundis, Licari segues off into some kind of justification by analogy about the issue of self-defence. A nation, states the wise former ambassador, is the best placed to assess when the tipping point has been reached and when to resort to declaring “self-defence”.Next step? Here goes:

In other words, a country must abide by the law but it has the right of self-defence. Killing is a crime but not if committed in self-defence, as no one has an obligation to suffer physical harm and everyone has the right to prevent it.

Drum roll please. Joseph Licari served 14 years as Malta’s ambassador to the Council of Europe. in this day and age when many a nationalist is pooh-poohing certain Taghna Lkoll appointments in the diplomatic corps (rightly so) they deserve to be reminded that this paragon of logical befuddlement was our man in Strasbourg during the nationalist watch. The race to mediocrity anyone?

It gets better. In tertiis, Licari’s article goes somewhat conspiracy theorist. In a mix between Dan Brown and Anders Breivikh he takes on the hidden powers that are supposedly influencing the mad decisions at the UNHCR and ECHR. NGO’s (unelected) get pride of baton followed by those dastardly religious leaders. The cherry on the cake comes towards the end. In an article obviously penned to justify the pushback of boatloads of sub-saharan people to their country the author suddenly turns his guns on the people to the north: you know them, the Nordics.

Together with religious leaders and NGOs, the Nordic countries form a triptych of preachers we have to suffer in today’s Europe.

Suffer eh. I just could not believe what I am reading. What began as a supposed researched case in favour of pushbacks of some form really turned out to be one hell of a joyride. Smoking. The question really is what.

And finally, just in case you were wondering about the existence of any legal import to anything Licari wrote, there is much more to the “exception” that can be found in article 33 of the 1951 Convention. First of all the exception itself requires very strict interpretation and application. Here is Cornelis Wouters in “International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement“:

The danger to the national security or community of the country of refuge must be a present or future danger. Thus, the past conduct of the refugee may be relevant.As with any exception to human rights guarantees,the exceptions contained in Article 33(2) must be interpreted restrictively and applied with great caution. The exceptions apply to refugees, who in principle have a right to be protected from refoulement. The finding of dangerousness does not require strict proof, but must be based on reasonable grounds and therefore supported by credible and reliable evidence and not made arbitrarily. The burden of proof of establishing reasonable grounds is on the State and requires an individual assessment. A State cannot assume that a refugee poses a threat to its national security or community based on the fact that he belongs to a certain group and create a rebuttable presumption of danger.Article 33(2) must be applied in a manner proportionate to its objective.483 This means that (1) there must be a causal link between the refugee and the danger, (2) it must be shown that the danger posed by the refugee is sufficiently serious and likely to be realised, (3) refoulement is a proportionate response to the perceived danger, (4) refoulement alleviates or even eliminates the danger, and (5) refoulement is used as a last possible resort where no other possibilities of alleviating the danger exist.

Even more importantly than these strict conditions (that obviously cannot be applied by rounding up the healthy suspects and putting them on the next plane to Tripoli) is the concurrent application of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. A trifle detail to have missed for an ambassador of 14 years in Strasbourg. You see Article 3 of the ECFHR has been applied in such a way as to constitute an absolute prohibition on any action that could result in torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. More specifically, Article 3 of the Convention has been used to prohibit any possible refoulement: According to the Court Article 3 ECHR leaves no room whatsoever for a balancing act between the national security of a State and the need of the individual for protection. (That’s what ex-ambassador Licari does not seem to like about the Court and its supposed infiltrators).

Still from Wouters :

In all three cases mentioned above the applicant’s conduct in the country of asylum was no reason to allow exceptions under Article 3. The Court explicitly acknowledged in these cases that the protection afforded under Article 3 from refoulement is thus wider than that provided under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention which does allow exceptions.

States do have a right to be legitimately concerned about potential “wolves” – criminals hiding among a flock of refugees seeking asylum. To perform the illogical leap of justifying refoulement generally with this argument though requires not only a leap of faith but also a heavy dose of those taghna lkoll pills that risked transforming Malta into a pariah state last month.

With (ex-)ambassadors like these who needs meritocratic appointments?

Categories
Euroland

The Bruges Speech

Much is being said about Margaret Thatcher and her views on Europe but do you know what her views on Europe were? Here is the speech that the Iron Lady had delivered at my second alma mater – the College of Europe in Bruges. It gives more than idea on what Thatcher thought about Europe.

Categories
Euroland Politics

Maggie of Iron

It would be amiss to call Margaret Thatcher one of the world’s first stateswomen. She wasn’t. Elizabeth the First comes to mind – a monarch true but a stateswoman all the same. The shopkeeper’s daughter from Finchley was one hell of a stateswoman though and would not have been too bothered about the issue of primacy in time. The iconic figure has all the prerequisites to be become a giant in the history of politics – a sans pareil in many respects. Watching “The Road to Finchley” recently made me realise what tough material the iron lady was made of.

With Baroness Thatcher we do not only lose a huge piece of the jigsaw of political giants of the last century – we also witness the passing away of a dying breed. You may have disagreed with her politics, her aggressive militancy against communism, her tough approach with slack unionism (treating Britain with socialism is like treating leukaemia with leeches) and her ever so distant approach to the Common Market. You may not have appreciated her balls, her bull and her gall – tha lady who was not for turning might not have been your type yet she had one defining quality that appeared in a much more pronounced way than in most politicians of her time. With Margaret Thatcher you knew where you stood.

This was a politician who would call a spade a spade and who has been described as undiplomatic and whose rather direct ways were perhaps only pardoned because notwithstanding all outward appearance she was a lady playing the game in the men’s playground. Margaret and her politics had spine and backbone. This was not the kind of politician who could conjure up an ephemeral coalition or movement and hide behind a “politics for all” approach based on effortless compromise and pleasant policies. Rather, Margaret’s medicine did not go down well with most of the country to the point that her three-term election as Prime Minister was as surprising as it was effective.

This was not politician who would promise the moon to feed electors who swallow false promises recklessly. This was a responsible conservative with a clear idea of the Britain that she wanted and its role in the world with her beloved partners in the US. She would even shun the Commonwealth if she had to. For Margaret Thatcher’s world was one that was built on clear policies and positions – not compromises. Disagree if you will but you knew where you stood. There was no deceit. Ask the miners. Ask the workers of Britain who woke up to a brutally necessary dawn in the eighties while their cousins in the US were experiencing the Reagonomy revival.

To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.

A beautiful heritage from Baroness Thatcher. We should not forget it. It should be burnt into the manuals of political movements and onto the foreheads of the pseudo-politicians of today who are busy playing a game that is beyond their wit, their ken, hell their very conception.

Politics, she would have told them, is not about being popular but about being effective and clear. Politics is about leading not about prancing in public and bluffing about leaving the reins in the hands of the people.

… so popular to the point of being despised. As Frankie Boyle put it, she could very well become the first politician to have the 21 gun salute pointed at her coffin. You know, just to make sure that she’s dead.

Fare thee well Iron Lady.

Categories
Euroland Values

L-Ewropa ta’ Toni u Fred (I)

Xtaqt nibda billi inkellimkom dwar Tariq Ramadan. Huwa doċenti universitarju ġewwa l-universita ta’ Oxford fejn huwa professur ta’ l-istudji iżlamiċi kontemporanji (Kulleġġ ta’ St Antony ġewwa l-istitut ta’ l-istudji orjentali). Ramadan ma hux biss professur universitarju għax hu ukoll persunalita medjatika bi preżenza qawwijja fuq il-mezzi tax-xandir dinjija (mis-CNN sa Al-Jazeera sa TV Iranjani) fejn sikwit ikun preżenti jiddiskuti l-islam fis-soċjeta kontemporanja – b’mod partikolari fis-soċjeta ewropea.  Ħafna misilmin Ewropej iħossu li Ramadan huwa rappreżentant den tal-kawżi u drittijiet tagħhom.

Jekk tfittex ismu fuq youtube issib ħafna interventi tiegħu f’dibattiti u programmi televiżivi u personalment insib li huwa tajjeb li wieħed josserva dawn l-interventi tiegħu biex ikollok perspettiva differenti ta’ kif persuna ta’ twemmin li ma hix nisranija (s’issa t-twemmin dominanti Ewropew) tħabbat wiċċa ma sitwazzjonijiet fejn il-prinċipji, valuri u morali tagħha ikollhom jinsiltu minn ġo soċjeta li trid jew ma tridx kull ma jmur qed issir iktar u iktar eteroġeneja. Ara per eżempju dan il-vidjo qasir:

F’sens liberal-demokratiku ma tistax ma taqbilx mal-konklużjoni kemmxejn relativista ta’ Ramadan. “Live and let live” tinstema soluzzjoni tajba ħafna għall-għawġ kollu imma ikun hawn min jgħidlek (bir-raġun) illi s-sinsla tradizzjonali tal-Ewropa qed jitherrew b’dak il-mod. Tħarsux biss lejn kwistjoni ta’ omosesswalita. Rajt lil Ramadan jiddiskuti l-obbligu tal-velu u d-dritt li nisa misilmin jilbsu il-velu anki fil-pixxini pubbliċi. Ħin minnhom waqt li kien qed jiġi interpellat b’mod pjuttost vivaċi minn ġurnalista qalilha ħaġa li għalijja kienet familjari ħafna. Qal: “Allura biex inkunu liberali u tolleranti b’bħalek irridu nobbligaw lil kullħadd jgħum mingħajr velu?” Hemm hi. Arma komuni dan l-aħħar, nasba li taqbad lill-liberali dgħajjef fl-argumenti imma ferventi fil-proselitizzazzjoni… bl-iskuża tat-tolleranza jispiċċa isir iktar intolleranti.

Imbagħad jgħidlek Tariq li l-Lhud kienu ilhom għexieren ta’ snin bil-ħinijiet differenti għan-nisa filgħodu fil-pixxini pubbliċi imma “ħadd ma qajjem għagħa fuqha”. U jidħlu elementi oħra ta’ tipi oħra ta’ diskriminazzjoni u ta’ tolleranza u l-kobba tibqa titħabbel.

Fil-verita il-kwistjoni qiegħdha f’għażla ta’ soċjeta. Il-kuntratt soċjali impliċitu jimplika qbil fuq tip ta’ soċjeta li trid titfassal. Diskussjonijiet dwar normi u valuri li huma neċessarji għas-soċjeta għandhom jitqiegħdu f’dan il-qafas iktar wiesgħa. X’irridu mis-soċjeta tagħna? Fejn hi sejra bħalissa? B’liema valuri irridu inrawmu lit-tfal? Jekk trid eżempji estremi issib kemm trid bħall-iSpartani antiki li kellhom sistema tagħhom ta’ l-ewġenika. Trid soċjeta li tindokra lil membri tagħha jew waħda li toħloq biss il-“level playing field” utopiku biex imbagħad titlaq lil kullħadd f’tellieqa?

Din id-diskussjoni (u għażla) ma ssirx biss meta tinħoloq soċjeta ġdida b’għanijiet ġodda iżda hija waħda kontinwa. L-irwol ta partiti politiċi u membri tagħhom huwa li jkunu katalisti f’din id-diskussjoni. Li qed jiġri hu li l-valuri u prinċipji tilfu l-importanza tagħhom u saru sekondarji għat-tellieqa għall-poter. Wisq drabi ikollhom isiru kompromessi tal-kuxjenza (jekk ikun għad baqa kuxjenza) u kull ma jmur d-diskussjoni formattiva – dik li ssawwar is-sisien li fihom titrawwem is-soċjeta ma hix qiegħdha issir. Issir biss metadiskussjoni b’dak li jissejħu “catchwords” illi huma tifkira imbiegħda (souvenir) ta’ żmien ieħor meta l-valur kien sovran u l-bniedem kien verament uman – verament umanista.

Diskussjoni ma hix ġlieda biex timponi jew tolleranza relativista li iddgħajjef imma proċess soċjali meditattiv u ta’ żvilupp li jwassal għat-tisħiħ tal-membri kollha a prescindere mit-twemmin u ħsieb individwali tagħhom. Allura iva, meta Tonio Borg iqum fil-parlament u jħeġġeġ lill-membri kollha sabiex “iħaddnu t-twemmin tagħhom” huwa mhux biss xieraq imma neċessarju. Imma dak huwa l-ewwel pass biss. Li tagħraf li twemminek ma hux universali u li tkun lest tiddiskuti, tinvestiga u tistħarreġ l-aħjar mezz kif bi twemminek u forsi ukoll bl-input ta’ twemmin ħaddieħor ittejjeb il-qagħda soċjali huwa t-tieni pass.

Dak il-pass kif se naraw ma hux ħafif. Huwa pass mimli riflessjonijiet, ftuħ għal ideat u iva… fejn hemm bżonn… kompromessi.

 

Categories
Euroland Politics

Tonio’s Non-Metamorphoses

Was it a case of “Veni Vidi Vici”? Did the Commissioner designate “sail-through” the grilling that never was last Tuesday? Has the dinosaur really convinced the trough-addicted pigs of his inveterate submission to the constitutional bible of this “sui generis” system of state collaboration? There was a telling moment during the marathon session when Tonio Borg addressed his interlocutors and reminded them that in politics “perception is important”. Indeed. Perception nowadays is a huge part of the pie and politicians are as much made or broken by the creation of a hash tag (that’s twitter talk for a subject such as #BorgEU) than by anything else.

The speed with which media will deal with a story – compounded by technological Chinese whispers – not only means that a media avatar of a politician can be created with uncanny expeditiousness but also that such avatar might morph in accordance to the predominant push of whoever is throwing the most information into the system. Tonio Borg was contemporaneously both a victim and a victor of this kind of phenomenon. The time it took Borg to study the files and dossiers relating to his new “portofolio” (sic) the liberals-in-hiding got working with their European counterparts in order to  fill them in on the “true nature” of Tonio.

What “true nature”? Well they referred to Borg’s handling of immigration affairs, to his position on IVF and on divorce, to his consorting with the Gift of Life movement and to his previous stances on homosexual rights. The spiel essentially that Borg was an uncompromising imposer of conservative values and that his political activity clearly reflected this stance. The link to the Health and Consumer portfolio was not exactly tenuous and to put it mildly there WAS a point to be made. The point though was meant to be and should have been limited to the capacity of Tonio Borg to perform his duty as a Commissioner independently of his views – unlike his performance in Maltese politics where he had no problem mixing the two.

It’s the EU Law, Stupid

And this is where Tonio Borg built his defence. It was obvious from the start who had been involved in prepping the Commissioner designate. For all his protests that he was not “thinking as a lawyer” I’m prepared to safely bet that many a night was spent in the company of Simon Busuttil and a former EU Ambassador. Nothing wrong there either. The most telling moment was Tonio’s slight hesitation in reformulating the classic description of the European Law system – many a law student would have recognised that brief moment of panic when the explanation that was just at the tip of your tongue has rushed away only to return in the form of a rehash of the original definition “in your own words”. Hence Tonio and his version of “a sui generis system of international law and an agreement between sovereign states”. (He could also have quipped a happy 50th birthday to the Van Gend & Loos case while he was at it – much more important than the International Day of Courtesy in this part of the world).

The prepping was necessary because Tonio had to use every trick in the book (better known as “the treaties”) in order to justify his speedy metamorphoses from Maltese politician to European Commissioner. In doing so he highlighted the most difficult barrier that Europe faces with regards to social harmony. For while economic barriers have come crumbling down at a faster rate than the Visigoth invasion of Rome, social mores have found the borders of old to be less permeable. Subsidiarity that great concept first brought to the world in a Papal Encyclical came to the rescue and suddenly Tonio was raising the Commissioner’s equivalent of “taking the sixth”.

You’ve seen it all so no need to dwell on it. Dr Borg could get away with packaging his national performance in a tight corner by stating that he can not and will not be able to act similarly at an EU level because the rules that apply there are different. So for the sake of argument Tonio Borg’s catholic values will have to be put in abeyance whenever he is dealing with the Commission programs to promote the use of contraceptives. He claims not to have a problem with that and I guess that his conscience will deal with the “superior orders” dilemma in its own time.

Those Shoddy Liberals

Tonio Borg did not metamorphose. He remains the same man committed to the same principles (save maybe the gaffe regarding the gender quota ) a sudden rush of arse-licking could be a most simple explanation. Or even euphoria experienced with the sudden rush of endorphins at the realisation that the Liberal Inquisition was really conducted by a bunch of pussy-footed, ill-informed bungling radicals. That last point actually really got to me. For here we were – as my friend David Friggieri puts it – with a representative of the conservative parties (yes plural) in Malta in the dock and with no real prosecutor asking the real questions.

I’d have asked a simple question to Dr Borg. What does he think of the fact that a person who is a doctor in an EU country where abortion is legal and who performs a legal abortion on a Maltese woman (who has willingly travelled to his country and consented to such an operation) is criminally liable in Malta? Simple really. In case you are wondering it’s Article 5(1)(d) of the Criminal Code in combination with article 241(1). Incidentally once said doctor is condemned to a term of imprisonment for a term of eighteen months to three years, the willing patient also becomes liable to the same punishment. But I guess that’s OK because she’s Maltese anyway.

We did not get these questions. We got questions that were obviously fed to MEPs by the type of shoddy activists who base their accusations on hearsay and conspiracy theories rather than facts. How else do you explain that Dutch liberal’s question about contraceptives in Malta that was an invitation to Tonio Borg to eat her alive (which he did with the usual classy rhetoric of a PN politician who knows he has the upper hand).

A Metamorphoses?

In the end we have what the French call a “match nul” – which means a draw but the word “nul” also means “useless”. At an EU level Borg might not really “sail through” when the voting time comes. The ALDE (liberals) and European Greens have unsurprisingly called themselves out of any support vote – they’ll be voting against. The Popular Party will back him (and also heap lauds and praise that will be hyped in the relevant media). The socialists might dilly-dally for a while and make Tonio Borg (and Tonio Fenech and Simon Busuttil) sweat a little bit more but in the end they might just give in and vote him in after having asked for more “written commitments” from his part.

Tonio Borg did not really metamorphose in the end. His was no apostasy before the baying house of atheists and agnostics. This was more of a modern Give Unto Ceasar kind of business that left many of us Maltese questioning the use of a two-tier Europe when it comes to social rights. Yes the liberals – particularly the Maltese liberals – were bitten and if you are really fond of the term then they were “defeated”. Their defeat lies in the lack of organisation and lack of clarity. It lies in the lack of identifiable leaders who could take the battle to the next level. It lies in the fact that Maltese politics rarely translates into conservative vs liberal when push comes to shove.

That is why Joseph Muscat feels comfortable standing up in parliament without any hint of irony on his face and saying “I’m a liberal” while at the same time sanctioning the PN position on embryo freezing. Joseph will continue to woo the liberal fold that have elsewhere been described as the “ex-stricklandjani” so long as his credentials are not questioned and so long as he can be contrasted to the dinosaurs that have long camped in the mainstream parties.

Unfortunately for the silent liberal movement in Malta change will never come from within any of the two parties. So long as we continue putting our eggs in their basket they’ll be happy doing what they do best – fuck all. Because as we know so well : “if we want everything to change, then everything must remain the same”. And long life to our next EU Commissioner !

Pictor has scarcely set foot in paradise when he found himself standing before a tree that had two crowns. In the leaves of one was the face of a man.; in the leaves of the other, the face of a woman. Pictor stood in awe of the tree and timidly asked, “Are you the Tree of Life?”

Read also today’s article in the Times by Ranier Fsadni.