Tag: constitution

Categories
Mediawatch Rubriques

I.M. Jack – the pauline edition

imjack

Gone fishing or the Public Accounts Committee

I caught a glimpse of the proceedings at the Public Accounts Committee sessions. Inelegant and clumsy are the first words that come to mind. It was never meant to be a fashion statement or synchronised swimming, sure, but the overall impression before getting down to the nitty gritty is that of yet another debasement of institutional tradition.

Sitting in the metaphorical witness dock former PM Lawrence Gonzi had his patience tried by repeat questioning that seemed to be going nowhere. There was a moment of dramatic irony when Gonzi accused the Committee of not following the procedure it should (that of the COCP) when the Committee was actually chaired by (and therefore under the responsibility of) Jason Azzopardi of team PN.

Still, the line of questioning taken up by Justice Minister seems to be one of spurious fabrication very much in line with the journalistic style at MaltaToday (which revels in the idea of having kicked off this fracas in the first place) rather than the quest for some truth or other (in a land of multiple truths the first to the media machine is King). What exactly is the PAC after? What is this Enemalta business proving in the end?

In all probability this business, like surely many others to come, will prove that businesses, businessmen and corrupt persons in power (and by this I mean persons appointed to manage/run/sit on parastatal entities) will constantly try to find a convergence point in the shadows and suck from the public funds so long as they are not caught.

Amnesties and amnesia

It was also very interesting to watch the Justice Minister justify the line of questioning by claiming that the amnesty (proklama really) requires constant checking since one of the conditions it contains is that it can be withdrawn if the person enjoying its benefits is found to have hidden the truth.

So we have a “businessman” who is benefiting from an amnesty in order to assist the authorities in uncovering illicit activity by other “businessmen”. The current government’s line seems to be to question this amnesty (with the concurrent risk that many other people might end up not being brought to justice).

While all this is happening we have another sector (construction and development) in which the government seems to be adamant to offer a blanket amnesty to all those who have abused of the law (broken it) and partaken in the rape of the nation (metaphorically speaking). The Taghna Lkoll government has made no effort to hide its tight links to the Malta Developer’s Association and it’s erstwhile Chairman (or is he President?) Sandro Chetcuti.

There is no whistleblowing reason for an amnesty here. The feeble excuse that Taghna Lkoll philosophy can throw up (yes, like vomit) is that those paying for the amnesty will generate lots of money for the coffers. A blanket amnesty that allows people to buy scars on the face of the nation. Brilliant. So long as Sandro tells us that everything is just fine for the developers we must all be grateful.

Kulcha and Karnival

It may seem too facile an argument but the priorities of Taghna Lkoll in the field of culture are so obviously linked to core voting interests that you cannot but argue on the lines that sound both snobbish and classist. As the effort to denigrate the City Gate project continues to gather momentum we are told of the Great Carnival and Music set of stalls that will offset the great vacuum that exists. Minister Bonnici (him again) told the gathered press that we cannot continue with this “silo mentality” – I must confess I had to look it up since I am not a FEMA graduate and find marketing catchphrases particularly undigestible.

It turns out that fighting the “silo mentality” means copying the design of garages and stalls that some Taghna Lkoll-ing carnival float enthusiast (and ONE employee) had visited on a trip abroad and spending some 6 million euros to build a sort of samba-drone that doubles up as a garage band gig place much to the chagrin of William Mangion.

Is it facile to argue that the ditched plans for the ditch/moat are crying for re-instatement and could well have done with some of those millions? Is it too easy to argue that while we appreciate that the carnival custom in Malta does deserve an investment of sorts (inclusive of a papier-mache’ museum) this should not come as an easy-fix solution that is obviously lacking in global planning?

Personally I love the idea of a regenerated part of Marsa hosting a carnival drove complete with museums and apprentice schools. It is the way these ideas suddenly pop up and are so very evidently the result of “lapazzar” planning simply to shut the mouths of another cohort of voters that is absolutely obnoxious. Stilll. It’s better than those bastard nationalists who never listened eh?

They’re drowning again

Far from the offices of wake up and smell the coffee. Far from the populistic approaches and ISIS scaremongering. There, in the deep blue tempest toss’d seas, more and more of them are dying. On the eve of the day when Malta celebrates the feast of Saint Paul’s Shipwreck, tens of immigrants who had left Tripoli in the hope of a better future lost their lives to the sea and the cold. What value those lives to the thousands who will throng the streets of the city of gentlemen adulating the Magnus who like the immigrants had been toss’d by the same sea?

Lawyers and Lawyers

Two issues. First the hunting then the constitutional case where the PN seems to have regained two seats. We had a parade of practising and retired lawyers stating the obvious (and then even complicating matters in interviews by not getting it quite right) when it came to referenda and their consequences. Did we need that charade? It reminded me of that farce re-enacted by Alfred Sant pre-1996 when he sat down with the an accommodating notary to sign a “contract with the people” – blissfully ignorant that the whole business of election, swearing-in and governing already covered the job.

As for the constitutional case. There is a glaring silence on the PN side when it comes to arguing which seats should be compensated and why. I watched a lawyer called Adrian Delia perform logical summersaults on an interview with newsbook.com.mt. He was clearly confused by the question as to whether or not Labour should have lost two seats in the process. Let us set aside the absolute hypocrisy of a PN representative talking about proportional representation in parliament – the proportionality has nothing to do with it.

The two candidates Buttigieg and Azzopardi were deprived of their seats because of an error by the Electoral Commission when the original set of parliamentary seats was being distributed. Thus Azzopardi lost out to Justyne Caruana for the fifth seat in the 13th district. If the error is admitted and the proper count repristinated then it should automatically follow that Caruana would lose her seat and Azzopardi would take it up (ths giving a 3-2 result for PN in Gozo). Same applies for the Edward Scicluna – Claudette Buttigieg situation.

The compensation of seats for proportional purposes takes place AFTER the original election of 5 candidates from each district. It has nothing to do with the error that took place BEFORE the proportional attribution. The PN request before the Civil Court should technically have included the request to have the Labour candidates erroneously elected replaced with the nationalist candidates who had been “cheated” by the error.

Happy Saint Paul’s feast to all J’accuse readers. We are one month away from our 10th anniversary of this blog. Thank you for your custom.

Categories
Campaign 2013

A second republic on transfiguration avenue

Joseph Muscat is doing his damned best to impart a sense of history and gravitas to whatever grandiose plans he wants to unveil to the public. We are half way through the official election campaign (not to mention the fact that we have been in election mode for over 12 months) and the Labour party is calmly approving its election manifesto this evening. Idiots (that’s you the voters) have been told that the reason for this delay is that they could never cope with understanding all the proposals at once. As the idiots grovel at the pedestal of Muscat’s porta-podium he continues to shower a concoction of non-sequiturs replete with the ingredients of flimsy business jargon, spurious historical references (and misinterpretations such as the homosexual liberation of the 70’s) and sweeping populist statements.

104039.strip

It works. God how it works. The idiots at large (please don’t be offended, I use idiots in the same way Dilbert would) just love it. Now they also have a mantra to repeat while Joseph shoots tautologies at them like there’s no tomorrow. “Uliedna …. Taghna Lkoll”, “Il-Bzulija… Taghna Lkoll”, “Il-Haddiema… Taghna Lkoll”. You’d only wish you had the time and the sort of financing parties get and you could attend one of these meetings with a huge sign – and just when Joseph is getting all het up again in his ill-fitting suit standing on the podium you could lift a board of your own… with just three letters: WTF.

1844.strip

He’s gone to Lija this morning. At Transfiguration Avenue (how apt) or Belvedere (how not) he linked his next step to the 1919 assemblies of those audacious forefathers of ours busy fighting for self-government and a constitution. You see he had the setting in mind and he needed a grand achievement of the past as a background to make whatever he wanted to say sound as pompously grand. Then he let loose. He spoke of a Second Republic (given this was Transfiguration Avenue it’s a surprise it was not a second coming). He was giving us his own idea of a metamorphosis. He’s obliterated Labour and it’s history (which was not a bad idea if you needed to change it) but has given us this new “movement” that is all emptiness and nothing. It’s only redeeming factor for most idiots (that’s us again) is that by voting for this mess we will get rid of the other mess that has been in government “too long” as they say.

What was this second republic? He wants a Convention so that people other than politicians could take part in drafting what will probably be a Kostituzzjoni Taghna Lkoll. Given his party’s track record on piecing together a recognisable plan or document I should be forgiven if I don’t hold my breath. Joseph must have been inspired by the EU’s Constitutional Convention which met around the time he was rabidly and vociferously explaining to all why the EU was nothing less than the result of an infelix coniunctio of the spawn of satan. Now he claims that he wants a Convention to make the Constitution a European (not post-colonial) constitution.

The pillars of the second republic? Electoral reform – this from the party that has contrived (together with the bunch of macchiavellian populists across the parliament floor)  to engage in all forms of filibustering techniques à-la-maltaise to block any form of sensible change: from electoral reform to party financing. And if you believe the electoral calls for this kind of laws then I’m sorry you qualify for Prime Idiot (that’s a new award here at J’accuse).

Next pillar: neutrality. Labour is still struggling with this one. It’s all the heritage of Mintoff’s dearest insistence. We have found ways to go around it though there would be no harm in redefining this obsolete clause – not exactly Second Republic groundbreaking material.

Then Joseph went all Orwellian. He probably sat up watching the sad show that was Bondi+ yesterday and when for the umpteenth time Lou could not hide his blatant partiality Joseph must have done what he always does: Spontaneous Bullshit Idea Generation. I know what we’ll do…. we’ll push for more regulation and entrench it in the constitution. The new constitution will strengthen the Broadcasting Authority by making it responsible for ALL media. We’ll then get the phenomenal rules inspired by idiot numbing exercises applied across the board.

That’s his Second Republic then. Cosmetic touch ups of electoral reform, a little tweaking of the neutrality clause and of course back to an Orwellian nightmare tightening controls  on freedom of expression. But so long as it is government by the idiot-elected, for the idiot-electors then it should be ok.

What Joseph Muscat’s sad intervention on Transfiguration Avenue ignored is that in order for our nation to really enter a Second Republic what is really needed is a tabula rasa – the stranglehold of the PL and PN on politics and how we do it must be broken. The prelude to a second republic would be the dismantling of the two parties or the breaking of the bipartisan mold with the election of a more representative democracy.

In our dreams. Il-Holma Taghna Lkoll.

30525.strip.sunday

Categories
Campaign 2013

Ex post – Elephants and the constitution

A couple of days back (28th November) I had uploaded a post discussing “the elephant in the room” that would be so conspicuous during the budget debate. The elephant in question is of course Franco Debono’s not too veiled threat to vote against the budget and thus bring about the end of GonziPN’s term in office. Having seen his last hopes of reconciliation fritter away with Simon Busuttil’s volte face on the matter Franco has been in Armageddon mode ever since.

One of the arguments I made in that post referred to the position(s) taken by Joseph Muscat – and this was before his jaw-dropping post-budget assertion that Labour is the best party to put Tonio Fenech’s budget into practice. Muscat’s appropriation of the PN government’s financial plans was to me the final straw that definitely ruled out any vote for Labour (not that there was much hope there but I had left an open door waiting for a very, very convincing argument in that respect – needless to say that argument never turned up). Muscat’s actual position on the budget notwithstanding I had stated:

If Muscat were half the statesman he wishes to be then he would be operating differently. The interest of governance and governability would trump his greed for getting into government. He should not be reinforcing Franco Debono and that parliamentarian’s hara-kiri. At the end of the day the election is months away in any case – budget or no budget. Muscat could use this opportunity to pull the carpet from under Franco’s legs and be in command of his own party’s destiny. His best move would be to instruct two or more of his MPs (how many are necessary) to abstain in the budget vote. The budget would pass, without the vote of labour who would go on record as having voted against.

As far as I know (and I’m not particularly keen on this calling dibs business) this was the first time that this theoretical approach was mentioned in the media (printed or otherwise). Last night though a “Guest Post” was up on the Runs discussing the very idea though it was presented as “A rather bizarre rumour is doing the rounds.” The abstention, according to the rumour, would no longer be from one or two of Muscat’s MPs but Joseph Muscat himself. Guestposterontheruns proceeded to rubbish the idea:

Should this scenario come to pass, Labour would once again show that it has turned inconsistency and lack of principle into an art. How can a prospective prime minister and party leader vote one way while his entire party vote for its antithesis on what is essentially a vote of confidence in this government? How can the entire Opposition vote to bring down the government while its leader votes to keep it in place? How can the party leader himself vote against the party whip?

The anonymous writer – presumably fearful of showing her name lest she loses her day job for having an opinion (you know given these oppressive times we live in) – goes on to explain that “Unlike the case of divorce, a budgetary vote is not, and cannot be, a matter of conscience. There is no free vote on the matter and there cannot be, under any circumstance.” Which might make for quite a convincing argument. In a vacuum. All other things being equal (as Labourites apparently tend to think).

What guestposterontheruns fails to notice is the constitutional underpinning of the original theoretical scenario. While it may be argued that the value of the budgetary vote is a political vote that is not tied to conscience or free votes, its value is grounded in the fact that a budgetary vote is also an implied vote of confidence in government. A budgetary vote therefore is all about the stability of government and governance.

Should Joseph Muscat take up the J’accuse suggestion and use his vote in order to undermine Franco Debono’s efforts to vote against the budget irrespective of its content then Muscat would be acting in order to guarantee the very principle of governmental stability that underpins our constitutional provisions. The message and precedent set would be of extreme importance, not just for the government of the day (whose days are counted anyway) but also for future governments and their MPs. A renegade MP linking a budgetary vote to a personal issue (Austin Gatt) will not be seconded in his actions by the opposition.

This point is valid irrespectively of the inherent contradiction of the Labour party’s political position on the budget itself (we like it, we adopt it but we will vote against it). The arguments made by guestposterontheruns are short-sighted in that they tackle Muscat as the Labour leader within the current electoral campaign and scenario. The theoretical scenario I originally posted is neutral of current events and could be applied to any future scenario where a renegade MP abuses of his position.

That is what the “statesman” business is all about. Constitutionally, the need to establish a clear precedent for our two-party system and that states that renegade MP shenanigans will not be seconded in order to cause unnecessary instability, trumps by far the usual customary rules with regard to budgetary votes (whip, free vote etc).

The “rumour” might after all not turn out to be true (or simply sourced from a careful reader of this blog). I also have my doubts about how much Muscat and his team would understand the true value of the strategy I outlined. Even in short-term political terms it would be quite a winner for Labour. To be seen as not wanting power at all costs, to pull the carpet from under Franco’s feet and to simply wait a few more months (two?) for the government to run its natural course would be a boost for a party still reeling from its mishandling of the early post-budget.

I suspect that the very fact of the danger that Muscat might actually contemplate such a scenario that runs havoc with the PNs electoral plans is what must have prompted guestposterontheruns  to write about the “rumour” in the first place. Always if the rumour turns out to be true, that is.

Categories
Euroland Politics

Tonio in Europe

Tuesday is Tonio Borg’s big day. He faces what increasingly promises to be a grilling before a European parliament committee that is tasked to metaphorically expose the worst traits of potential Commissioners to be. They don’t always work, these grillings. Had someone in the committee bothered to ask John Dalli his opinion on having intermediaries (canvassers) interceding for his cause with potential lobbyists then I strongly doubt whether Tonio would he having his three hours of sweat tomorrow.

Tonio is outraged. To begin with I believe that he is right to be outraged by the allegations with regards to Nursultan Nazarbaev’s son-in-law and the Maltese visa. An ex-East German PM is really pushing the “southern, tin-pot, corrupt country” agenda a bit too far for anyone’s liking – enough to stir the “we are Maltese and we don’t take no shit” kind of sentiments that make the Times of Malta comment board such a funny (if not sad) read. That Borg was the relevant Minister at the relevant moment is neither here nor there. Nor is the fact that a lawyer hiked his fees because of the “difficulty in obtaining the permit”. In short, the Kazakh business is not so “yakshemash” and rather overstretched.

On the other hand the general principle behind the fact of people like Mr Nazarbaev-in-law getting visas in Malta while line after line of “immigrants” get the not so kosher treatment does fall squarely at the foot of Minister Borg’s agenda. There is a concept of responsibility lying not so vaguely around Mr Borg’s portfolio – and consequently this can be used as a measure of assessment of the man’s political non-achievements.

It is not the field (or waters) of immigration that will mostly be used as a Punch and Judy stick to beat at the former Deputy PM as though he were some huge piñata. The big words being thrown at the Commissioner-in-waiting are IVF and abortion. Particularly jarring for many was Tonio Borg’s activist stance in such campaigns as the GoL’s (Gift of Life) vain attempts to entrench anti-abortion provisions in the constitution. Borg seems to be labouring under the impression that this is some kind of “persecution” for his Catholic beliefs and values. He is after all a vociferous exponent of the confessional wing of the Christian Democrat party – whatever is left of it in this day and age of opportunistic populism.

Unfortunately the pinata has got the wrong end of the stick. Buttiglione could state that he was persecuted for his beliefs because in his case he was “punished” for his opinions and thoughts notwithstanding the fact that he had not actively tried to impose them on someone else. Not so with Dr Borg. His political track record speaks with his vote if not with his active support. From the divorce issues to the GoL campaign Borg stood squarely with the movement that would have transformed “personal opinion” into national law (and in the GoL campaign case, constitutionally entrenched law). At that point it no longer becomes a matter of personal opinion.

There is no denying therefore that political formations within the EU Parliament could have a vested interest in avoiding the “embarrassment” of a mitre-wielding lay bishop positioning himself at the helm of the Commission’s health policies. It is not a question of persecuting catholics but a question of ensuring that a the Commission does not become a medium for Catholic propagation and propaganda. There’s a Vatican for that.

So yes. Expect the Greens and the Liberals to vote as they would. Expect the Popular Party to rally behind the nationalist party candidate if only out of a sense of twisted camaraderie. Inevitably the surprise ticket upon which all the vote  hinges will be the Socialist vote. We had poker-faced Muscat claiming that he will not stand in the way of the nomination  but that he cannot guarantee the Socialists giving Borg a hard time. Which is neither here nor there – and not surprising given that it is Muscat. On the one hand he wants to ring the patriotic bell – hopefully he is aware of the amount of national reputation points at stake behind this new nomination (especially after the battering our pride got with Dalligate). On the other hand he cannot resist the tribal call that would celebrate the nomination’s failure as yet another “falliment” by GonziPN.

As for GonziPN itself. Well they have a Deputy Leadership contest to dazzle the faithful (some real challengers for the leadership have wisely called themselves out of the race – “this is not the right moment”). Come Wednesday morning Tonio Borg will either find himself a comfortable office at the Berlaymont or at sea on a tiny dinghy with not much hope that the rescuers will turn up. Which would be quite ironic. Don’t you think?

Categories
Campaign 2013 Mediawatch

Academic?

It’s unbelievable. Joseph Muscat has gone on record stating that AST’s article was “an academic exercise”. What exactly is that supposed to mean? Is it to be ignored because “academia” is just an exercise in mental masturbation? Is Anton Refalo’s article in today’s Independent academic too? Should academia be dismissed in favour of the more “erudite” rantings of Joseph and his clan?

Let’s face it Joseph. At the end of the day the political chessboard has spoken. The PN is fully aware of the fact that it cannot rely on the votes of some of its MPs for much longer. That is why it “survived” the pre-estival votes and parliament is now in recess. This recess has delivered the obvious reality that the country is in full election mode: just look at the recent Billboard War. This recess will end with a few attempts at legislating that will inevitably culminate in a vote of confidence sooner rather than later.

What does that mean in real terms? It means that the PN is very aware that the present legislature and government has its days counted. What the PN does not do is erode at the legitimacy of the rule of law and the foundations of democratic government by constantly farting spurious arguments about “undemocratic government” that betray a clear will to ignore the rules of the game. Labour on the other hand is lost repeating the mantra of the obvious – clearly more comfortable in the “non-academic” field of conjecture so long as that means staying away from presenting its plan for government should it get elected.

Now Joseph has no qualms in belittling the importance of “academic” arguments  so long as he can gain more brownie points in the land of spin, conjecture and away from the tangible battles that should be the real battleground in the run-up to an election.

Incidentally Joseph, if Sciberras Trigona’s exercise was an academic exercise in, say, constitutional law, he’d be sitting in his little study sweating out over his notes prepping up for the September resit. Yes, Joseph, even his academic piece was an abject failure.

From the Times:

Labour leader Joseph Muscat has sidestepped the implications of an article penned by his international secretary, Alex Sceberras Trigona, saying the piece claiming the government had lost its “constitutional legality” was an academic exercise.

Asked if Dr Sceberras Trigona’s analysis reflected his position, Dr Muscat said he would rather focus on the political implications of the current “unsustainable” scenario and added that it was up to the Prime Minister to make the necessary decisions.

Dr Sceberras Trigona’s was “a good academic exercise”, Dr Muscat said.

Categories
Constitutional Development Politics

The Powers of a President

Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has been quoted by Malta today saying that “the President of the Republic would be justified in calling the Prime Minister to see if he has a majority after Franco Debono’s comments.” (see also on Maltastar). Well he wouldn’t. The President of the Republic need not take any such initiative because it is not up to him to do so. Our Constitution (God Bless the Paper it is written on) is quite clear about when the President may intervene with regards to the Prime Minister (and the leader of the opposition).

The Constitution

Everybody knows that the President appoints the member of the House who in his (the President’s) judgement is best able to command a majority of the members of that house. That situation arises “Whenever there shall be an occasion for the appointment of a Prime Minister” (article 80). On the other hand the Constitution is quite clear about the removal of the Prime Minister (article 81) and it that case it specifies quite clearly that this occurs: “If the House of Representatives passes a resolution, supported by the votes of a majority of all the members thereof, that it has no confidence in the Government, the President may remove the Prime Minister from office“.

You see Jeffrey. It is not up to the President to decide whether the PM still enjoys the support of the majority of members of the House. It is up to the House voting on a clear no confidence motion to do so. Had the drafters of our Constitution wanted to give the President the power to constantly use his own judgement – and not that of the House – in order to assess whether the PM commands a majority then we would have had an article similar to article 90(4):

90 (4) If, in the judgement 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 Government, the President shall revoke the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition.

The constitutional provisions have already been ignored once in the Richard Cachia Caruana motion and procedures (article 111 in particular). We cannot afford to have politicians continue to ride roughshod on the constitution, observing only the parts of the law that are convenient to them. Abela’s mission in Peru is safe for now.

Punditry Revisited

I am led to believe that some observes sill imagine an extension of the life of this government beyond the reopening of parliament after recess ends. I disagree. The summer break is a reprieve and a chance for the PN to put its house in order. An election cannot be too long in the waiting once the summer break ends – if only for the simple obvious reason that one of either JPO and Debono will be prepared to vote against the government in a crucial confidence motion.

Whether Lawrence Gonzi is prepared to call their bluff – if only to let the blame of the end of government to fall squarely on their shoulders – is a matter of electoral brinkmanship. What we can say for certain is that this kind of midsummer rumbling is a prelude to the silence before the storm. Expect that silence to occur mid-August and the storm to hit you with a vengeance around September (if you’re still around and haven’t melted in the heat).