Category: Politics

Categories
Constitutional Development

The Constitutional Matters (I)

As Malta braces itself for an invasion of constitutional experts I thought it would be opportune to throw my hat in the ring with a short series of Constitutional posts related directly or indirectly to what is happening at the moment.

The matter of who is the de iure and de facto Leader of the Opposition is the current hot potato just as the hapless Delia has lost a vote of confidence among the nationalist MPs. That vote confirmed that Delia no longer ‘commands the support of the largest single group of members of the House in opposition to the Government who are prepared to support one leader’. The words in quote are taken from article 90(2)(b) of the Constitution and as we shall see they are part of a conundrum relating to the appointment, tenure and removal of the Leader of the Opposition under our Constitution.

I say conundrum with intent. The whole of article 90 presents us with a series of alternative situations that should they occur would lead to the appointment or removal of a Leader of the Opposition.

Appointment

Unlike in the case of the appointment of the Prime Minister, political parties are mentioned when it comes to the choice of Leader of Opposition. Article 80 concerning the appointment of the Prime Minister in fact refers to the member ‘best able to command the support of a majority of the members of that House’. Article 90 on the other hand is the only article in the constitution to refer to the leader of a political party.

So, insofar as the appointment of the leader of the opposition is concerned, the first option for the President (article 90(2)(a)) is triggered if there is one opposition party whose numerical strength is greater than any other opposition party (in our case PN is larger than PD). In such a case the President will appoint the leader of that party as Leader of the Opposition.

In the hypothetical situation that no one opposition party is larger than the other (equal number of MPs) or there is no opposition party (all MPs are independent in opposition) then the President has to look for the person who commands the support of the largest group of members in the opposition. In this case no reference is made to party leadership. (article 90 (2)(b)).

Vacancy

Article 90(3) gives us all the options when the office of the Leader of the Opposition becomes vacant. The obvious reasons are when there has just been an election (dissolution of parliament) or if the leader of the opposition has ceased to be a member of the House. There is a final option which is covered by Article 90(4) which covers revocation of his appointment,

Revocation

If , in the judgment of the President, a member of the House of Representatives other than the Leader of the Opposition, has become the Leader in the House of the opposition party having the greatest numerical strength in the House or, as the case may be, the Leader of the Opposition has ceased to command the support of the largest single group of members in opposition to the Government, the President shall revoke the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition.

Article 90(4), Constitution of Malta

This sub-article really provides two alternatives. First of all we have the situation where the Leader of the Opposition is replaced as leader of his own party. Presumably this would mean that there has been a move within the party and the Leader was voted out with a new one voted in. That automatically triggers a change in the office of the Leader of the Opposition.

The second, more delicate, alternative occurs where the Leader of the Opposition ceases to command the support of the largest single group of members in opposition. No more talk of political parties here. The measure is clear – if the Leader of the Opposition no longer enjoys the confidence of a majority among the opposition members then the President must revoke his appointment.

Now the vote of confidence taken at PN HQ is clear. Of the 30 PN MPs 19 voted against Delia (17 of these are MPs, 2 (Metsola and Casa) are MEPs). 10 voted in his favour (and Delia himself). We do not even need to factor in the two other Opposition MPs from the third party (PD) because that still leaves Delia in a minority. There should be no way out constitutionally for Delia.

The Presidents’ prerogative is qualified with the words “in his judgment” though I doubt if George Vella can come up with a plausible reason to deny all evidence pointing to the obvious. Delia no longer commands the confidence of a majority of opposition MPs. His appointment to Leader of Opposition should be revoked.

Political Party Leadership

Delia is pandering to the harridans and populists with his calls to respect the vote of the tesserati. He is using that excuse to cling to his position as Leader of the Opposition. As we have seen though the two posts are not linked directly. Rather, that vote of confidence has effectively ended Delia’s tenure as Leader of the Opposition both de iure and de facto. What remains to be done is for George Vella to snap out of “standby” mode and revoke his appointment.

For the time being Delia can cling to the leadership of the party with desperate claws. It would not be the first time that he prioritises his own aims over the needs of a nation and of his own party. Meanwhile the ‘rebel MPs’ need to get going. There is a constitutional role that needs filling. Finding one among them to fulfill the duties of leader of Opposition should not take too long. Also, if the President drags his feet any longer on the revocation they might need to up their ante by walking up to his door and presenting their chosen candidate.

And the UK

Interestingly enough our former colonial overlords who bequeathed upon us a particular form of parliamentary democracy have a peculiar way of identifying the Leader of the Opposition. It is not the Queen (in lieu of our President) who determines the leader but the Speaker of the House – and this only in case of dispute. The accepted choice is normally, as in Malta, the Leader of the largest party in Opposition. However under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act (1975), we find the following provision:


(1) In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons; and “Chief Opposition Whip” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, the person for the time being nominated as such by the Leader of the Opposition in that House; and “Assistant Opposition Whip”, in relation to the House of Commons, means a person for the time being nominated as such, and to be paid as such, by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons.

(2) If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive.

Ministerial and Other Salaries Act (1975), Article 2

Categories
Constitutional Development Corruption Panamagate

We ain’t seen nothing yet

One by one they walked out of Mile End HQ with that pathetic smile that convinces only themselves and the diehard faithfuls that all is well in the State of Labour. No comments to the assembled press though, at least not until PM Abela walked out of the glass door of the infamous Dar it-Trasparenza. Abela was, rightly, the one to face the music and give some kind of rendition of what had gone in the meeting.

Good news first. Mizzi has been voted out of the Labour Party. The man who has been unfit for purpose since at least the Panama Papers revelations is finally party-less and has been left to fend for his sorry self (while still in quarantine).

In other news, Abela is still playing to the circus that voted his party back into power notwithstanding the fact that many of the what he calls ‘allegations’ were known to them in 2017. The accolytes gathered around him for moral support included such luminaries as Edward Zammit Lewis and Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi and they were there to applaud and yell their support to make whatever happened that moment look and sound like a resounding victory.

Pressed and cornered to take a position about Joseph Muscat, Abela writhed and squirmed trying hard to build a case for not having ditched il-Kink along with the rest of the ballast. The biggest problem that Abela had was the elephant in the room : he could not say that Muscat deserved being ditched by Labour for the enormous responsibility that he has carried at the very least for standing by the Mizzi and Schembri Roadshow from the start.

He tried. He did say that had he been in Muscat’s place in 2016 he would have ditched Mizzi immediately. But Muscat’s responsibility goes further than that. It is a continuing responsibility borne by the fact that he stood square behind Mizzi and Schembri until yesterday. And here comes the elephant… that responsibility is carried by each and every member of the Labour governments who have stood square behind Muscat’s line of defences.

These are the Labour government and members who accused investigators and civil society of being traitors of the nation. They are the same members who backed Mizzi’s corrupt deals to a hilt. They are still unable to bring themselves to commit on a revision of every single contract and deal in which Mizzi was involved.

Abela today tried to get cheers for a non-achievement. His distraction biscuit today was that we would not be going to the polls any time soon (cue cheers and cries from the rent-a-crowd). The cries came from people who are just as tainted and just as mixed-up in this mess. As long as the collective responsibility for our nation’s current predicament is not borne then we continue living a lie.

As a friend of mine rightly noted earlier tonight: “Daphne Caruana Galizia would have still been alive today, had it not taken you ages to decide. Had our institutions been truly independent and allowed to function.”

That, Robert, is the reason we cannot have accolades and triumphalisms. You might convince yourself and your roadies that tonight’s vote is some big cut off moment. As far as we are concerned, we literally ain’t seen nothing yet.

photo: M. Mirabelli

Categories
Constitutional Development Mediawatch

Rajna f’Idejna

Writing in today’s Times of Malta controversial ex-politician Franco Debono discusses recent happenings in the field of constitutional reform. The article titled “The reforms we implement should be our own” concerns what Franco calls “the colonial mentality of having reforms imposed”. Constitutions and constitutional reforms must be autochthonous Debono tells us and not granted by a foreign sovereign.

What interests me today is the basic premise of Debono’s argument: that we are having reforms imposed on us by some foreign power or authority much in the same way we depended on sovereigns granting us constitutions in the past.

In simple terms, what Debono is advocating here is that any changes to our constitution must not be imposed from the outside but must come from within the country (“We the people”, presumably through the able hands of our representatives and their advisors). There is very little to criticize here: the sovereign constitutional power resides with the people who delegate their representatives (and specialists) to give legal shape to that power.

Debono does not stop there. He speaks of what he calls ‘the unfortunate and tragic circumstances in which the Venice Commission, a respected organ of the Council of Europe, was requested to make proposals about this country’s institutions two years ago”. After outlining what he terms the Commission’s ‘proposals’ he states the following:

Benefitting from the expertise of international bodies is one thing. But having fundamental structures extensively imposed on the country by external institutions is humiliating and marred by a bitter colonial taste, especially when those proposals have a local origin. Steering away from a colonial mentality towards a sentiment of national pride is the greatest reform that this country needs. The rest should follow.

The reforms we implement should be our own – Franco Debono

This is where Debono’s original premise falls flat. The implication is that the Venice Commission is imposing content on Malta, and that somehow the constitution of Malta has slipped from the sovereign hands of the people into the hands of foreign writers. M’ghadniex rajna f’idejna (we no longer have the reigns of our country in our hands). This jingoistic, nationalistic nerve that Debono is tapping fits conveniently in the current narrative of misplaced patriotism and anti-European sentiment.

The assertion of any imposition of the actual rules and laws and structures is false. This argument can be extended not only to the Venice Commission (an institution within the Council of Europe) but also to the Commission and Court of Justice of the European Union (institutions of the EU), both of which may be tasked to review the conformity of Malta’s laws and regulations with the rule of law.

Debono is ignoring the fact that such institutions are tasked with checking the standards of our laws and not their content. Every member state of the Council of Europe and European Union remains the sovereign master of its legal system. Member states are free to alter and draft their own laws as they deem fit but such laws are tested against standards which the very same member states have agreed to in their full, sovereign membership of international communities.

Think of this as a VRT test. You are free to purchase any car you choose and can tweak it to your liking so long as it conforms with the agreed standards for roadworthiness. A VRT tester does not impose a car on you but makes sure that your car is up to the standards everyone agrees to.

The Venice Commission will look at any suggested reform which the Maltese state makes. It will do so using a standard measure that is the rule of law. Should any of the measures fail to fit that standard the Venice Commission will make that known. The same goes for potential cases before the ECJ. As the Polish government found out recently, every Stateis free to change its system of appointment of judiciary – so long as that system guarantees an observance of the basic tenets of the rule of law.

Being held to certain standards is not the same as being forced to accept laws that are not ours. The standards are standards established for our own good and which we, as a sovereign nation member of international communities, adhered to. Our laws must be safe. Safe for us, the citizens who abide by them.

At the heart of such standards is the interest of “We the people” who are protected by their application. Far from being an imposition, it is an international guideline of democratic standards that we are being asked to conform to.

Given what Franco calls the “unfortunate and tragic circumstances” into which our country was dragged, the fact that the abusers of our constitution and law for so long are now being set to a higher standard when tinkering with the laws is a small but worthy consolation.

The only colonial mentality of submission would be to allow those who have held our constitutional rights hostage for too long in the name of a party duopoly to dupe us into thinking that conforming to the right standards is some blow to our national pride.

Categories
Values

Braying Donkeys and Hyenas

The Maltese have a saying ; “Ħanqa/naħqa ta’ ħmar qatt ma telgħet is-sema”. (A donkey’s braying never reached the sky). I never quite put my finger on what exactly we are to learn from this proverb and normally put it down to mean that the noises some individuals make are best ignored because of their emptiness.

I am reminded of the saying every time I come across posts by that sans pareil of Maltese wankellectualism Mario Azzopardi. It is not just now that he is steeped in controversy for his latest base brainfart attacking Roberta Metsola – it is practically always. The energumen has styled himself as some sort of facebook demagogue riding the filthy waves of jingoistic patriotism, unbridled racism and collective bigotry. His appeals are followed by a herd of like-minded individuals whose common lineage is found in the perverted interpretation of civil society that has prevailed in the age of TaghnaLkolllism.

Just before his tirade against Metsola, on St. George’s day, this latest version Malta’s illuminati had written his own appreciation of what politics is about:

He’d rather have a son of a bitch in power than a floppy romantic ‘saint’. Poor old Macchiavelli gets drawn into this Manual of the Political Warrior as Pilate in the creed. Were it a politician talking you might even salute the bold assertiveness of the position being taken. Black on white it is there. This is no politician though. This rabble rouser is a leech on the public purse – one of the many who enjoyed the patronage of Muscat’s Aqwa Zmien… one of the few for whom this was really a golden age.

Metsola rightly did not stoop to the levels of this hyena (far from sharks Mario, far from sharks) of the political jungle. Her reply to his ridiculous tirade was exemplary:

Yes, because lessons on what politics should be about are not to be taken from hyenas scavenging for some prize but from those who work hard for the common good. Incidentally it will not go unnoticed that the hyena’s efforts are part of a concerted effort encouraged daily by the authorities in power. Internet bullying and rabble rousing remains the order of the day as a long list of insignificant politicians and pseudo-politicians attempt to harness the anger of a misinformed population.

It is with the weapon of information that the hyenas and donkeys of this world will be finally relegated to the dust heap of irrelevance where they belong.

Categories
Environment

Fuck You Dolphins

We’ve been so happy spotting dolphins all over the island. Clips of the cetaceans zipping contentedly over and under waves have been shared again and again and have also made the news – to the point of getting an archbishop’s blessing. Some experts (we still have some somewhere) told us that this was because there was less noise underwater so the dolphins will come and play closer to the shores.

You barely have the time to enjoy the extra adrenaline rush from this newfound moment of natural goodness that a Minister will come along and spoil the show. Minister Farrugia’s little brownie badge acquired for his new plans for petrol stations had just about found place on his inflated chest when he came up with this blooper: Rubble could be dumped in the sea as a short-term solution, Environment Minister Aaron Farrugia has suggested as the roadworks projects in the country remain at a standstill.

The roadworks in Lija – one of the many asphalt laying projects of the Government of the Best – are at an unacceptable standstill and this because the debris created by said project can find no place to call home. Funnily enough it is actually a question of money since the problem seems to be a disagreement on the price per tonne that has to be paid to quarry owners to accept the debris. I say funnily enough because this government has given us a simple modus operandi of throwing millions of euro at preferred customers in the private sector in order to solve its problems.

It seems however that while our elders may be dumped and crammed into a hotel at exorbitant prices in order to fill the huge gap of inadequate hospital and care facilities (1.6 million euros to Downtown Hotel), while direct orders for illegal batching plants may be the run of the day… while all of this is possible, the quarry owner’s demands are not feasible.

Nope. In this case our option is to take the debris and DUMP IT IN THE SEA. Apparently it is ok because the Nationalists (remember them?) have done it before when building Smart City. There HAD to be a precedent didn’t there Aaron? Because now it will be ok if you go on and proceed to dump debris in the sea in accordance with whatever sick law you lot conjectured together in parliament.

This is the government that often toys with the Gozitan community by proposing to build a tunnel between the islands. I’d love to see that. Really. I wonder where they would plan to put all that debris. In the sea right?

Aaron Farrugia and his hobz-biz-zejt eating half-brained colleague Ian Borg can both stick their heads far up where the sun does not shine (while we’re at it that pea brained excuse for a human Clint Camilleri can join them). Their love of asphalt and development (and hunting) is seriously prejudicing whatever is left of our islands.

Their big fuck you to dolphins today is another nail in the coffin of our environment.

Categories
COVID-19 Environment Immigration Politics

The Foreign Legion

There’s no two ways about this. Tackling the effects of the coronavirus pandemic requires a particularly well-honed toolset that is fully integrated with the global realities of today’s world. The by-now standard reaction in any nation wanting to brace itself and mitigate the impact of the virus is the dreaded lockdown.

The nature of the lockdown – a standstill of day to day life as families are confined to their living quarters and only the most essential of commerce is available – can be widely misinterpreted. Since part of the lockdown entails a shutting down of borders; and since the transmission of the infection is identified with travel, movement of persons and importation, the mover, the border, the foreign is rapidly becoming the enemy.

We are living in unprecedented times of Global War. This World War III is cross species. Homo sapiens vs COVID-19. Unfortunately the misinterpretation that I spoke of above means that across the globe governments and people are confusing persons on our side of the war with the enemy.

The foreigner becomes the suspect carrier, promoter and deliverer of the deathly virus kiss. Short-sighted, knee-jerk, populist reactions fail to factor in that the foreigner on ‘our’ land is part of the army needed to fight in the trenches.

Boris Johnson and Donald Trump ‘nationalised’ the reaction to the virus. Their politics built on the nostalgic pull of rekindling wartime memories of Greater America and Imperial UK could only produce the kind of nationalistic verve that was oblivious of international realities. In Little Malta we had a Minister whose name is not worth mentioning who openly declared that the first expendables would be the foreigners who had until very recently aided in the boosting of the market.

Yet the interdependent society that we had been in the process of building in fits and starts cannot suddenly be waved away with a magic wand. Nations like Luxembourg with 50% of the population ‘foreign’ by definition quickly realised that rather than kick out the non-natives, the nation depended on them. Vital sectors like the health sector ran on the transfrontalieres – cross-border commuters.

As soon as the borders threatened to shut the message from Luxembourg was an invitation to health workers to move their residence to the Duchy – even temporarily – in order not to let the health system collapse. The German Minister for Agriculture has already stated that the country would have to import manual labourers to work in the fields and prevent a food shortage.

However, there could be problems with the harvest in the fields, confirmed DBV President Rukwied. Of the approximately 286,000 seasonal workers who work in German fields every year, many come from abroad. According to Klöckner, their ministry is currently working on “workable solutions” to recruit the required workers. For example, workers from other sectors, such as catering, which are currently at a standstill, could be used. Temporary, flexible solutions will be worked out, such as relaxing the law on ‘mini-jobs’ or Sunday working. If not enough seasonal workers can be made available, they could also be flown in from abroad to cross closed borders, said the agriculture minister.

Source

The key to understanding this aspect of the Global Reaction to the epidemic is to understand that this is everybody’s war. The cliche’ that the virus knows no borders is not an excuse to build those walls that the populists had so desperately advocated for in pre-plague times. Rather it should lead to an understanding that there is no local answer to the problem – it has to be world wide.

And in these cases the foreign legion is that extra army that might help us cross the line at the end of the tunnel.