Category: Politics

Categories
Divorce Politics

The "IVA" Deception

JPO is happily heading a coalition of sorts that will campaign for the introduction of divorce. While it is definitely encouraging that persons from both sides of the parliamentary divide can join with social powers that have been stonewalled out of the institution thanks to the PLPN rules it would seem that the very participants are blissfully unaware of how this IVA business can turn into a great deception.

It is one thing to form a movement that lobbies for the introduction of divorce and another to choose a slogan that is an evident throwback to the referendum moments pre-EU accession. I am sure that I will be called the eternal cynic in this respect and that the excuse that “some effort is better than no effort at all ” will be thrown back at me in full force but the advocates of this new IVA movement should be made aware of the constitutional (and marketing) pitfalls of their arrangement.

By orienting their movement to a referendum style formation the IVA for divorce group has already conceded valuable ground in the battle for the introduction of the divorce. They are virtually admitting that this will have to be a majority decision in the form of a referendum and/or consultation of the people. They are allowing the parties in parliament to do what they do best – i.e. abdicate from any responsibility of legislating for divorce as they should have done decades ago.

Instead JPO & friends give the impression of being much more interest in the limelight afforded by this discussion than by the actual force of their argument. Divorce is not a majority question. The Bonnett Balzans of this world may come back at divorce arguments with the fire and brimstone philosophy but the endline in a normal democracy operating in normal conditions would be for the parliament to legislate and allow for a legal possibility that has long been missing in our juridical system.

Instead we have IVA. And IVA to what? As we have pointed out previously under Maltese law we do not have a propositive referendum. Should we have a referendum on the matter that would probably come AFTER parliament introduces a law on divorce – because our law allows for abrogative referenda: a referendum asking the people whether they want to abrogate (cancel, annull, remove) a law that has been enacted. In which case the answer for the IVA movement should be LE (no, I do not want the divorce law removed) and not IVA. Quite a quandary no?

But of course the PLPN will play along with the whole idea of a consultative referendum. It pays them because they can blame “the people” for whatever decision is taken in the case of divorce. We might have JPO & friends to thank for any eventual cock up…

Categories
Politics

Government Spokespersons

Why does the government seem to be replete with spokespersons when it comes to the need to call a spade a spade or say something that is closer to black on white than the catch-all statements of your standard politician? Whether it is Arms or Aviva there seems to have been a proliferation of spokesmen (we have yet so read of a government spokeswoman incidentally) who are at hand to fill the gaps of information as their master commanded.

The relative anonymity of the spokespersons could be chalked down to a couple of reasons: (1) their closeness to one newspaper means that they will not reveal their true identity because they would have to explain why other papers were not given the same news at the same time, or (2) a linked explanation is that these spokespersons are really a smokescreen for a leaked ministerial idea that is best not attributed to the minister himself/herself for fear that it would all seem to be too un-ministerly.

Take the ministerial spokesperson speaking about Aviva Bus Tickets this morning. You’d like to know who he is in order to ask him a supplementary question. Of course, this being a government spokesman being quoted by a newspaper (and not a government press release) we also have to factor in the ever increasing possibility of the newspaper reporter making a hash of the quote. But first the quote (Times, of course):

Tourists will pay higher bus fares than local residents to ensure that subsidies on the new public transport system are focused in favour of those who pay for them through taxes, according to the Transport Ministry. For this reason, a ministry spokesman insisted, the difference in bus ticket prices will not discriminate against visitors.

Now I know I am being (legally) finicky but what the spokesperson/paper is missing here is that the whole point of a difference in rates between those paid by tourists/visitors and those paid by locals is to discriminate. The quote/statement/leak is unfortunate because it seems to, as they say in logic, tell a lie about itself. It’s an amazing way to get stuck in a rut by making things sound complicated when they are not.

The point being made by the Transport Ministry seems to be that Malta – or the transport operator engaged by Malta – will be fully justified in introducing different prices for tourists than those for locals. In other words they are trying to explain that there will be discriminatory fares but that this discrimination will be justified. But in order to say that, they actually say: “‘No discrimination’ in new bus fares (Times headline). which is wrong and misleading.

The reason being given for the eventual discrimination, albeit in a convoluted manner, is that locals pay taxes while tourists do not (really?) and it is the locals taxes that subsidise the ticket.

I honestly do not think that AVIVA will have a problem creating a fare structure that incentivises use by locals but I do think that all this fuss and clamour will lead straight into the hands of a certain Commission Européenne  if we go on in this direction. After all, all that needs to be done is to look around how transport operates in huge touristic cities and get a general idea which can then be localised to cater for certain needs. I was amazed at the efficiency of the Venetian transport system which seemed to have plenty of local patrons notwithstanding the fact that a single fare costs an exhorbitant 12€.

The key it seems is not in discriminating between local and foreigner but in the length of the bus ticket. Not the physical length silly, but the length of time you can use it. “Oyster” style, rechargeable cards can be offered with the greater discounts for long term purchases. The usual other incentives that discriminate – not by nationality or residence but by age and regularity of use – would (should) work wonders for the regular user.

That is why any visitor to Venice is bound to purchase a three or seven day transport card that at most costs 55€ (7 days). Now I am not saying that should be the fare in Malta but a similar line of thinking would probably work (at different rates of course). Italian transport has long done away with most exchanges with drivers/conductors and the only familiar interaction I got with the Vaporetto personnel was the Venetian equivalent of “move back” in order to let other commuters jump onto a dancing boat.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Arts Fireworks

XI

November gives us not one but two days of remembrance. Today, the first, is the 5th of November – associated with Guido Fawkes and the failed gunpowder plot against James I of the United Kingdom. In six days time the second day of remembrance – emblazoned with the words “Lest We Forget” will once again remind us of the millions of dead in last century’s darkest moments. In the US there’s also Thanksgiving – another day in which events past are recalled. It might be because I was born in this month (and therefore a heavily biased Novembrino) but I always felt that the month was intended as a period of reflection before the great renewal and restart that would soon be celebrated just after the hibernation. Here’s V reminding us what he was all about and a Last Post from XI.XI. (Image from “the Shepheard’s Calender” – November)

V.XI

XI.XI

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tom “Desperation” Waits – November

Categories
Politics Travel

Serenissimo (I.M. Back)

We’re back from a five day stint in La Serenissima. Two days of sun and three days of windy drizzle turned out to be a relaxing (and eventful) holiday. More about the eventful part later. There’s loads of bloggable news to be seen to after the break  but we thoroughly enjoyed switching off from the world for a little while. There’s been all sorts of items to comment upon from the sublime (Juve beat Milan) to the terrific (Tottenham uncovered the intercettato true colours) to the worrying (a parcel bomb addressed to the ECJ). Obama’s lost his majority in Congress, Labour has lost its cool with photoshop and Berlusconi’s just lost it. His latest foray into the world of political bumbleness included the statement of “better someone who likes women than a gay”. What will continue to baffle is the manner in which thousands of people will still vote for the midget on high heels even after this kind of gaffe. Still, politics has a way of suprising us doesn’t it? I’m looking forward to catching up on Tonio and Friends….
Accompanying photo is of a t-shirt spotted in a shopwindow in Venice. Subliminal advertising? It was a bridge or two away from a huge graffiti stating in no uncertain terms: “Lega merda”. Serenissima indeed.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics

Budgetary Woes

I’d almost apologise for not commenting on the budget but then again there is not much to comment about nowadays. Reactions to the budget could have been predicted much before Tonio Fenech opened his mouth and in any case J’accuse has never professed to be an expert in matters economical. Reactions to the budget on social networks served to prove that the critical mass of our voting population have been overfed clichés so many times that they are quite capable of spouting them back when requested “budget responsabbli” must have clinched the winning vote for the ayes. On Labour’s side, the realbudget.com gimmick turned out to be simply the yawn inducing assessment of what was not there. How else can you explain Labour’s obstinate refusal to factor, ever so slightly, the EU economic scenario into the context?

One of the most intriguing part of the budget is the increase in VAT on tourism to 7%. While the private sector began its whinge fest about how this would destroy the tourism industry nobody seemed to be aware of the fact that the European tourist industry is folding upon itself. Thomas Cook, one of the largest tour operators has recently communicated to its partners that it will be unilaterally deciding not to pay 5% of what it had promised. It was an offer they could not refuse for in the industry, the bulk provided by Cook is enough of an incentive for the receivers to hang on to Cook notwithstanding its bullying ways.

For a country that claims to be heavily dependent on tourism we seem to be surprisingly slow on adapting to the European mood and insist on depending on what we deem to be the veritable gold mine of mass supply from the likes of Birmingham, Manchester and Luton. Air Malta’s reaction to the budget was to downsize the number of flights to and from the UK – with the impact that 38,000 beds will not be filled come next summer.

Malta’s absence from hot deal sites that cater for DIY tourists from all over the world and the reluctance to explore new routes to the more stable parts of Europe really have me flummoxed.

Another point that has me even more confused is our inability to cater for the pension bomb more directly. Luxembourg has just calculated that the current rate of 14% of the population will change to 1 in every four persons being a pensioner over the next 50 years. I am sure Malta is not far behind on that ratio. While our current crop of politicians have proven diligent enough to steer the cake clear from the poorlands of the economic crisis, both government and opposition seem too tied to short-term gains (in the opposition case it is short-term fantasies coupled with irresponsible planning) to have an eye on the big picture.

Still. You reap what you sow don’t you. Remember that next time you vote PLPN.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Divorce Politics

CMB and the Marriage Certificate

There’s a logical leap in Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici’s article in today’s Times (The burden of public interest on indissolubility of marriage) that has escaped the attention of the many anti-divorce campaigners who have been linking the article all over facebook. CMB is eager to explain the stake the state has within the boundaries of private marriage – he has to be clear why the state believes in the tool of indissolubility as being the best bet for civil society’s sanity. To get to the point of arguing on the importance of indissolubility of marriage for the public interest, CMB has to justify the interference of the state in the first place: why does the state care whether or not marriage can be dissolved or not?

Aha. And that is where the quick gloss by CMB is glaringly obvious. CMB tells us:

The state should not in any way be involved in the decision to enter into that union and in the choice of marriage partners. The state registers a marriage and recognises certain rights of the parties.

This is not to say that the state has no stake in the stability of marriage, because it is within stable marriages that its future citizens are nurtured and brought to maturity in the best possible way and because the spouses in a stable marriage are not distracted unduly from their normal civilian working life.

Q.E.D. right? Not really. If you really were to follow CMB’s logic to its conclusion then the first part of his statements is built on a deceitful assertion. The state cannot suddenly develop an interest in the success or otherwise of a marriage ONLY once it has been sealed. CMB feigns a passive role of the state until the marriage union is sealed – it recognises the union and certain rights of the parties. Then – only then – according to CMB does the state develop a stake in the stability of marriage. This stake is supposedly because the spouses should not be distracted unduly from their civilian working life.

Why not before the union then? What stops the state from ensuring that its stake in the civil union is safeguarded? How? Well by making sure that its citizens about to engage in the union are fully prepared to do so – that they can guarantee a stable marriage that “nurtures and produces the maturity that does not distract from their civilian working life”.

If CMB were serious about the role of the state as he describes it, then his kind of logic would lead to marriage permits and marriages being sanctioned by the state. The state would be able to tell you whether or not you are allowed to marry in the first place – based on suitability. If the state’s role is in trying to ensure the stable, mature etc marriage then it should do so in full. Imagine that. Imagine criteria for stable marriages – the certificate of a suitable wife and husband who will contribute to society.

It would not work would it? And maybe that’s the very same reason why the state has no business imposing indissolubility on the marriage contract. It cannot decide for the parties if they are willing to move on and try again. CMB’s logic is false because it is built on a false assertion about the motives of the state. The problem of CMB is that his logic is in a twist because no amount of legal philosophy will justify the denial of divorce rights. He cannot declare his ultimate motivation at the end of the day because it has nothing to do with laws and civic duty. It is a fettered discretion based on his private beliefs.