Tag: European Parliament

Categories
Rule of Law

The Lies that Bind Us

Tander and Lying

Alex Agius Saliba (Tander) Labour MEP and member of the S&D group is a liar. More specifically Alex Tander Saliba is lying about what happened in the European Parliament on Thursday 17th when the parliament voted on a resolution entitled “EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences“. The controversy drummed up at EU level has been taken to a different level in Malta thanks to the immigration controversy that is vying with COVID for top heading in the news.

Ironically this gives us the opportunity have a detailed look at what happening on both fronts: immigration and COVID. Along the way it allows us to dispel several untruths that are being fed through a ghastly government spin that feeds on populism, nationalism and sovreignist claims with a heavy dose of EU skepticism and mistrust. This fomenting of public sentiment has proven a welcome distraction for politicians from all sides unable to lift themselves out of the mire of abject incompetence.

Let us look therefore at what happened in Brussels last week and while we are at it we may understand the wider dynamics of European and national politics in times of COVID. I will take advantage of our semi-lockdown situation by assuming that a long read is a welcome time-filler these days.

A resolution of sorts

What was the vote about on Friday? Resolution RC-B9-0143/2020 is titled, as we have seen, “EU Coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences”. Let us step back for a moment and see WHO is resolving before we see the WHAT. This is the European Parliament (EP) – the institution of the EU made up of directly elected members from all the states. Compared to the Council (made up of Member State government representatives) it is the more ‘Europeanist’ of institutions – acting in the interest of the European Project.

The vote was for a resolution: less legal as an instrument and more political or diplomatic if you like. While the EP can and does have a role in law making in the EU (it has a direct role in the making of regulations and directives) it can also use the instrument of “resolutions”. EP resolutions are non-binding which means that they have no legal force and are often used in areas where the EU has no formal competence but where the EP would like to push a certain agenda. So that is a first point to be made: this was a non-binding resolution by the EP on a specific issue.

Wake up EU! The EP Alarum!

Now to the subject matter of the resolution. The EU is not passing through a good patch. The COVID pandemic has exposed huge faults in the European project and is severely testing the will of its parts. Landmark events in the previous decade or so seemed to point to a project that had gone off the rails as the original inspiration from the European forefathers began to lose its shine. There was no longer any appeal in the pooling of resources nor in the deepening of cooperation.

Migratory pressures had piled upon economic differences and the COVID pandemic brought out the worst of the worst. It can be summed up simply: there was no longer a team Europe. From the start the reactions were anything but coordinated. Ironically at the early stage of the spread on the continent, even the EU institutions were distracted by an immigration problem: Turkey’s Erdogan was pulling all the stops to wreak havoc and blackmail the Union by unleashing thousands of migrants at its borders.

So by the time we were knee deep in pandemic-mode the States had engaged in a free for all DIY approach – to each his own. If this was not bad enough, we also had to deal with the fact that the EU barely had any competence in terms of healthcare provision. As the state of affairs worsened in State after State part of the blame was put on the EU. What can the EU do for us?

The opening considerations of the EP resolution include an admission that “the EU response to the COVID-19 pandemic has so far been marked by a lack of coordination between Member States in terms of public health measures, including restrictions on the movement of people within and across borders and the suspension of other rights and laws; whereas with our economy having been put on hold, the effects of the ensuing disruption on European citizens, businesses, workers and the self‑employed will be dramatic”.

Why is the EP ‘admitting’ this? Well, in part it is not an admission but an admonition. The lack of coordination between Member States is no fault of the EU institutions but rather a result of the will of the Member States themselves. This resolution, based on the values of solidarity and economic, social and territorial cohesion is an attempt to urge the MS out of this lack of collaboration.

The EP resolution is a reminder of the duty of solidarity to Member States and also a reminder to the European Council to get a move on concerning economic measures to deal with the crises. This resolution is an answer to all those who have been asking where the EU has been in all this time. The EP is taking the lead in urging the Member States back in line and away from their knee-jerk populist go-it-alone reactions.

L. whereas this is a moment of truth for the Union that will determine its future and that can only pull through this crisis if Member States and European institutions stand together in solidarity and responsibility, and when a strong and united voice of the European Parliament is needed more than ever;

Preamble of the resolution

The resolution itself reads as a summary of what has happened till now and what should be done when moving forward. There is the collective admission of failure to act collectively and a rallying call to turn this around in order to fulfill the Union’s mission of helping the most vulnerable and those who are suffering most as a result of the pandemic. These include the elderly, the sick, those in conflict-afflicted areas and areas prone to natural disasters, the migrants and those who are exposed to domestic violence – especially women and children.

Contrary to what people like Alex Tander would have us believe this is not a resolution about immigration. It is a resolution about COVID and how the Member States should be working together.

Is concerned by Member States’ initial inability to act collectively and demand all future actions taken by Member States to be guided by the Union’s founding principle of solidarity and loyal cooperation; believes that the COVID-19 crisis has shown above all the importance of joint European action; stresses that the Union and its Member States have the common resources to fight the pandemic and its consequences, but only when cooperating in a spirit of unity; recognises that Member States, having acted unilaterally at the beginning of the crisis, now understand that cooperation, confidence and solidarity are the only way to overcome this crisis;

Point 5 of the resolution

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to act together and to rise to the challenge and ensure that the Union emerges stronger from this crisis; stresses that Parliament will cooperate with the other EU institutions to save lives, protect jobs and businesses, and drive economic and social recovery and that it will stand ready to hold them accountable for their actions;

Point 6 of the resolution

Action Plan

The 14 page document is practically a to-do list for all actors in the EU system – from Council to Commission to Parliament to the Member States – to be able to do their part and work together during the crisis. There is a part concerning “European solidarity and action in the health sector” urging different measures in this area of weak central competence.

The section concerning “European solutions to overcoming economic and social consequences” tackles the economic dimension of the crisis with a step by step account of what should be done at different sectors and what injections the EU can provide.

The next section concerns “Protecting democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights“. Much of this part reads as a reminder of the duty and obligation of Member States to respect fundamental rights and the rule of law even in times of crises when they may be tempted to put these rights in abeyance for ‘public safety concerns’.

The message is simple: Yes, we may have a pandemic on our hands but this is no excuse to trample on fundamental rights and backslide on the rule of law. Temporary suspension of certain treaty rights (Such as free movement) must be necessary, coordinated and proportionate. Interestingly the section on sexual and reproductive health rights attracted no controversy from the Maltese MEPs even if it would have been easy fodder any other day.

Calls on the Member States to effectively guarantee safe and timely access to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and the necessary healthcare services for all women and girls during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially access to contraception, including emergency contraception, and to abortion care; strongly rejects any attempts to backtrack on SRHR and LGBTI rights, and in this context condemns the attempts to further criminalise abortion care, stigmatise HIV positive people, and undermine young people’s access to sexuality education in Poland, as well as the attack on transgender and intersex people’s rights in Hungary;

Point 48 of the resolution

Point 50 of the approved resolution is where Tander’s lies begin. The final approved point reads as follows:

Calls for full respect of the Geneva Convention and European asylum law; points out that provisions have to be made for the reception of new asylum seekers in appropriate sanitary conditions and medical support, and therefore expresses its deep concern at the situation of refugees and asylum-seekers arriving at the Greek islands, and in hotspots and detention centres, who do not have access to adequate health care and who are particularly at risk; considers that necessary solutions, including the preventive evacuation and relocation of the population at high risk, must be found to ensure the appropriate material conditions and social distancing to avoid contamination; stresses the important contribution of many migrants and descendants of migrants who are working to ensure the proper functioning of many essential sectors across the EU, and in particular in health and care sectors;

Point 50 of the Resolution

Hot isn’t it? Hal Far anyone? Still. This is not what got Saliba’s tits in a twist. We have to look at a motion for amendment that ultimately did not pass. Basically before the text that I am quoting from (the Final Resolution) passed, the EP got to vote on a list of motions for amendment. Essentially these are suggested changes to the text that might add to the overall shape of the resolution. Saliba’s Mendacious accounts relate to one particular amendment that was suggested. Amendment 52:

Obey the Law: Amendment 52

So here is the text of the amendment that got Saliba’s patriotic balls into hyperdrive:

39a. Calls on Member States to abide by their obligation under international
law to assist ships in distress and provide a place for disembarkation for people who have been saved at sea, including by civil society boats and merchant vessels; recalls that solutions should be found to protect the lives and health of both the people in distress at sea and the people on land;

Amendment 52 to the Resolution (failed to pass)

It’s not a complicated amendment is it? This would have been a paragraph inserted before what would eventually become Point 50 quoted above. You do not need a law degree to understand the import of this amendment. The EP would be calling upon Member States to abide by their international law obligations. That is laws that ALREADY EXIST and obligations that are ALREADY IN PLACE. The EP is not inventing the wheel. It is not saying anything new. The obligations EXIST. The amendment would be a timely reminder in context just in case some hypothetical government decides that the COVID pandemic is a good enough excuse to renege on these obligations and allow people to die at sea. Hypothetically of course.

What does Tander (doctor of laws) understand of all this? Well, his reading of the paragraph includes these pearls of wisdom:

“Emenda illi b’mod dirett kienet se taffettwa lil pajjizana b’mod dirett. … L-emenda kienet tghid (ghalkemm ma ssemmix lil pajjizna b’mod dirett) illi pajjizna f’dawn iz-zminijiet ta’ emergenza sanitarja ghadnu jispicca centru ta’ salvatagg f’nofs il-Mediterran.”
“An amendment that would effect our country directly. The amendment said (Without mentioning our country directly) that in these difficult times of a health emergency our country would have to become a Salvage Centre in the Middle of the Mediterranean Sea.”

“ahna inkunu mgieghla illi naccettaw f’pajjizna bejn seba’ mitt elf u miljun immigrant irregolari illi bhalissa dawn jinstabu fuq ix-xtajta tal-Libja lesti sabiex jaghmlu t-tragitt taghhom u jidhlu fl-Ewropa”
“We will be forced to accept into our country between 700,000 and 1 million immigrants who are currently on the shores of Libya ready to start their trip into Europe”.

Tander’s Wisdom

Now before I go on to explain how far down the rabbit hole Tander’s interpretation is, let us look at the voting results that shot down the amendment. 299 MEPs voted in favour of the amendment. That included almost all of the Socialist Group of which Tander forms part. Almost because Tander was among the 369 who voted against. The only S&D member to do so in fact. There were 29 abstentions and these included 3 S&D members among which were Labour’s Cutajar and Sant. Miriam Dalli was the only Maltese MEP to vote in favour since the PN MEPs voted along PPE lines with Comrade Berlusconi. More on those later.

Back to Tander’s outrageous claims. It is obvious why he is taking his stand. He claims it himself in the video he circulated on facebook trumpeting his vote. He is aligning himself with PM Abela and Varist the confessor who have gone into spinning overdrive concerning the ‘tough decision’ that ‘ic-ckejkna Malta’ (Little Malta) had to take when allowing people to die at sea. The Malta First claims come out in all its force and the tune that is music to the ears of the patriotic, populist bunch of energumens that are the worst plague of the island will continue to be sung in this manner.

Tander can and will get away with these claims to the point that now even Miriam Dalli has become the target of the populist wave for having dared to vote in favour of what after all would have been a relatively innocuous addition to the resolution. The situation in Malta is such that the false lines on NGO collaborators of people traffickers have been fanning the flames long enough to have become true. The migrant devil is shot down via the messenger – the chimera of mafia driven NGOs who run the “civil society boats” mentioned in the abandoned amendment.

Sadly for Tander anyone intelligent and patient enough to read the resolution will be able to see through his hypocritical statements and lies. He portrays himself as some hero who saved Malta from an obligation to take on a flotilla of immigrants ready to evacuate the shores of Libya tomorrow. Did he for one second even imagine how many dinghies or boats are necessary to carry that amount of immigrants if it were true? What kind of buffoon comes up with this shit?

He may have a degree in law but I doubt whether he has ever had to use it. The international laws referred to in the amendment did not vanish away once the amendment was defeated (with a little help from the EPP and those schizophrenic Nationalist Party MEPs). The obligation to save lives in distress remains. Not only that but the rest of the resolution, as we have seen, includes references to other duties towards migrants already held in detention centres. Tander missed those.

The end of the beginning

We are far from the end of the COVID crisis. Resolutions such as this one are welcome signs of that the heart of Europe is ticking notwithstanding the reticence of its limbs to play their part. The puerile attempt by the likes of Tander to turn a national problem into an anti-EU crusade should be easily unmasked. Sadly the spin and speed of fake news and fake information is doing its part to undermine any efforts of revival of the European project.

We can only vow to soldier on. Fighting lies with facts and exposing the charlatans for what they really are. Next one on the list: Varist the Confessor. That’s all for now.

Good night and good luck.

Categories
Constitutional Development Mediawatch

The Beautiful Garden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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
Mediawatch Values

Conscience, liberally speaking

François Hollande has found himself in quite a fix. His government is currently pushing the kind of law that is very easily labelled as ‘liberal’ (and consequently carries all the baggage that you might identify with the word these days). It’s France – the epitome of laïcité – and you’d expect the citizens of the republic to be either enthousiastes or at the most nonchalantes about the adoption of a law that has been dubbed “Marriage pour tous” (marriage for everyone). Yep. The biggie in France right now (apart from the herd of elephants in the corner called Angela Merkel, the Economist and the failing economy) is the new law that finally legalises same-sex marriages.

The debate is not so simple. Protests this weekend led to up to 100,000 catholics hitting the streets. In some cases we had violent scenes against the French version of FEMEN who had bullied the protesters in their usual topless garb with the words “IN GAY WE TRUST” writ all over their angry boobies (like angry birds but sexier) and spraying “Holy Sperm” out of cannisters. The religious organisations – still unable to get to grips with the very basis of laïcité are vociferous in their criticism. It’s not just the Malta of Tonio Borg that has obvious trouble coming to terms with certain concepts.

What was really intriguing were François Hollande’s declarations yesterday. Faced with a backlash from the mayors of many municipalities who found the idea of having to bind two persons of the same sex in marriage appalling he came up with a controversial solution. We still have freedom of conscience. He said. They are free to step back and nominate a delegate in their stead. He said. The possibilities of delegation can even be widened. He said. (In the likely scenario of a whole commune of representatives – from deputy mayor to cleaner of the Hotel de ville – refusing to preside over a lay marriage he is suggesting that they nominate “a valid outsider”).

Really François? How bloody socialist of you. Seems to me that the socialists of the 21st century are all bla and no substance. The proverbial men without balls (and women without…. oh you know… balls). What is the bloody point of asserting a right within a lay constitution only to say that there is a freedom of conscience involved and that the official person appointed by government to sanction that right might step out because he does not like it? Is the socialist movement asserting that it is a right or is it not? I’d love to see the gay mayor of Juan-les-Pins (disclaimer I don’t know whether he really is gay) refusing to sanction a heterosexual marriage… claiming that his conscience dictates otherwise. Where does this stop? What civic rights and duties could we thenceforth forego on the basis that we are conscientious objectors.

You know Monsieur Hollande, my conscience does not see paying exorbitant taxes in too good a light. I think I’ll take a pass and leave the tax form empty…. In today’s jargon messy Hollande deserves to have one big WTF? tattooed across his chest and paraded all along the Champs Elysées.

***

So while Hollande was busy crafting an escape vehicle for all the officials in his country whose conscience barred them from performing certain duties within their “portofoglio”, his colleagues within the European Socialist Party were taking a vote with regards to whether or not back that great Conscientious Politician Tonio Borg. In the end the Nays had it. Sure, socialist leader Swoboda seems to have quite a fancy for Tonio (not that kind Mr Borg) but for two-thirds of the grouping, Tonio had not provided enough guarantees. What guarantees I hear you ask? Well, the socialists in Europe expect Tonio Borg to never raise a conscientious objection to whatever projects the Commission embarks upon based on the laws of the treaties.

At the end of the session Maltese Labour MEP Edward Scicluna had this to say on facebook (where else?):

“An hour long humiliating experience I, as a Maltese, could have done without in group meeting today. Irreparable damage to our reputation. […] Condescendingly Malta pigeon-holed as the most backward and intolerant in Europe. This as a positive reason why EP should approve Borg.”

Apart from the fact that we have yet another example of garbled nonsense from yet another politician it is hard to decipher whether Scicluna is angrier at the fact that the Socialists were being condescending to Malta or whether he is angry at the fact that they seem to be intent on rejecting Borg’s nomination. Scicluna is a socialist himself so it would not be too big a deal were he trying to give the impression of both. They’re a strange breed these socialists – and they’re about to do another of their “free conscience” moves by allowing their europarliamentarians a “free vote” : which basically translates into “we cannot make head or tail about what we really want so best leave it to the disparate group to send a garbled message”.

***

Finally yesterday was also the day when the Church of England’s synod session continued. Hot on the agenda was the introduction of female bishops in a church that has already embraced the concept of lady priests (that’s not a cross-dressing father but an honest-to-god female with a dog collar). The “House of Laity” (The synod is tricameral, consisting of the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity) fell 6 votes short of approving the motion that would allow women to be appointed Bishops. Both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy had obtained the 2/3 majority necessary for the motion to pass but this fell at the final house – the one where the lay members of the church are represented.

The vote against women bishops included some women’s votes and this was a huge disappointment for the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. The new Archbishop Justin Welby has also described the vote as a disappointment. Interestingly, the Bishop of Christchurch (New Zealand – where female bishops have been ordained for decades) Victoria Matthews described the result of this vote as “the product of fear”.

***

21st century Europe might be afflicted with economic problems. Beneath these problems lies a deeper moment of crises that is shaking the foundations of our moral and political compasses. Much of what happens around us today is a result of this struggle that is afflicting or effecting the collective conscience of the Old World.