Tag: Franco Debono

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
Campaign 2013

Elephants, rooms and budgets

This budget is as much about the elephant in the room as it is about financial measures and planning. We came to the budget after almost a full calendar year of “will he, won’t he” insofar as Franco Debono was concerned and we had the extra leverage by the man who will henceforth be called The Birthday Party. We assumed that the PN would use the summer to pull its act together and prepare for the inevitable arrival of elections. Summer would allow PN to go into top gear and to stop playing second fiddle to the Labour party’s constant taunts – as well as to the opposition from within the party.

The battle has not been without attrition. Along the way Lawrence Gonzi publicly “lost” one of his greater generals (although there is no doubt that he is operating in the sidelines). Then came the Dalli tsunami. Convenient for the conspiracy theorists, it rid the PN of what most of the current crowd consider to be inconvenient baggage. That gave rise to the musical chairs that we are all familiar with. Tonio Borg was moved upstairs. Whatever blows that would be dealt to the PN with regard to the “conservative” label were considered to be fair game. The PN is cocksure enough to believe that the “liberal mass” can still be thumbscrewed into involuntary submission with the usual endgame formulas of “wasted votes” and “responsible government”. The social rights agenda will eventually be trumped by down to earth contrasts of the “old hat” type.

Tonio the homophobe will be replaced by Francis Zammit Dimech in a sort of prize for past performances – a Ministry for at most six months. Nobody’s kidding anyone. Zammit Dimech may be affable and loyal but under other circumstances he would be anything but top choice for the job. He is being trusted to muster that part of the ship until the elections (and yes, for the punctilious, a little after). Meanwhile the post of deputy leader is the subject of a trumped up battle between old and new while other stalwarts chose to sit back and watch. Will Simon or Tonio F. do the job? That remains to be seen. They still remain distractions from the final target.

Which brings me to the budget. Franco Debono has long called dibbs on the right to bring the government down by voting against the budget. Everybody knew that but the PM and his crew have been acting as though the elephant is not in the room. Which leaves an ugly sort of damocles sword on the whole business. How credible is a budget plan if we know that they knew it would not be approved? What is to stop the PN from promising the earth. Joseph Muscat tried to call the bluff by claiming he would keep the “good parts” but of course he will vote against the budget. Let’s leave him to his contradictions for now and ask the question: what is this budget for exactly?

Well the Pn obviously thinks that this budget will be an integral part of their pitch for a new mandate. They don’t care if the PL and Franco will not vote in its favour. They want to take it to the people. And the people as we know are not easily swayed.

Back to Joseph Muscat. He is displaying an amazing level of shortsightedness in this business. It is all about parliamentary custom and tradition. First he gives us the contradictory message of wanting to vote the government out by disapproving the budget but promising to keep the good parts. That was very much what the government wanted from him – to be able to expose the opportunist, power-hungry man that he is. The second, more important, mistake lies in Joseph Muscat aiding and abetting the lone rebel backbencher.

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.

What would NOT happen is a backbencher being the cause of the downfall of a government. That is an important precedent for parliament. It would be an important precedent for Muscat’s party too. The PLPN would be sending out the message that they would not aid and abet any backbencher who suddenly develops a god complex. It is another important element for our constitutional democracy. Something that the progressive labourites should be able to understand without too much of a struggle.

Is Joseph Muscat capable of such a groundbreaking constitutional manoeuvre? I doubt it. His every act ever since he was made leader of the party has been directed to getting into Castille. Many would argue that that is his business. It may be, but it is not the primary duty of the leader of the opposition. That duty is to constructively oppose and contribute in the development of our fledgling democracy. But Joseph is too busy dealing with the elephant in the room.

In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle.

Categories
Campaign 2013 Mediawatch

Swing!

A long weekend away from the hustle and bustle of politics is not going to stop “everything” from happening. Try as you may to minimise access to wifi you still get whispers of the goings-on beyond the breakwater at Sète or the Place de la Comedie in Montpellier. Comedic much of it turned out to be – particularly the extension of the simulated obsession with All Things Franco. I get the nagging feeling that the obsession is “simulated” and forms part of the general distraction that has fortuitously blown in the PN government’s direction since Dalligate exploded. It’s a bit like a circus with a multiplicity of acts (if Silvio Zammit will pardon the reference) uncannily well placed to become a modern day “panem et circenses” for the easily distracted multitude.

Where to begin? The Debono-Calleja spat might have hogged the limelight of the absurdly surreal to such an extent as to rudely eclipse Malta’s feeble attempt at approximating the Obama – Romney debates. Somehow the gossip circle and the politically amateur auras that pervade Maltese savoir-faire manage to keep the likes of Franco Debono, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (and in other circles Emmy Bezzina) floating at the centre of attention in much the same manner as  undesirable pieces of excrement suddenly turn up floating close to a beach and draw the attention away from all other forms of beach-side frolic. Lest you forget J’accuse has long pronounced a verdict of “irrelevant” on the side-shows that are the backbench relics – dedicating columns of opinion space to their antics and “ideas” is just a waste of time.

Back to the “main parties” then. Yes the ones who happily insist on ignoring the blatant need for an electoral law reform and engage in Punch and Judy tactics on such issues as “voters abroad” or “balance of information in public media” while gainfully exploiting every nook and loophole designed for their greater comfort. It turns out that the Gonzi – Muscat debate was anything but a blast. The feeling I get was that the experienced PM got one better than Muscat but that this victory was achieved in much the same way as Mourinho’s stellar team would win matches – entrenched in defence in the hope that one long ball to a speedy long-legged attacker could do the trick. Apparently the long ball came early with some exchange about a Brasilian company that did or did not set up quarter in Malta.

First things first. What emerged clearly from the reporting of the debate is that both parties insist on keeping the level of discussion strictly away from presenting ideas and plans for the future and to confine the chitchat to “You are ugly” and “Your family stinks” sort of behaviour as best manifested by the billboards. James Debono expressed my exact sentiments when he described Joseph Muscat’s attitude to electoral plans as an “I show you mine you show me yours” approach. Drawing parallels to kindergarten banter is fast becoming a cliché in itself but this is what our political intelligentia have to offer us in 2012 ladies and gentlemen.

In a way it should have been obvious. If we want everything to change then everything must remain the same. It’s as old as the hills in the Mediterranean. I read about Alaric, a Goth or Wisigoth, who had decided to take on the Roman regions of Narbonne and had grand plans to obliterate the memory of Rome and replace it with some Goth equivalent (at the time not exclusively linked to black make up). When he noticed it would be a tad difficult he opted for the Med option – he took the place of the Romans and acted as though nothing ever changed. That was in the 7th century AD. It still works today. The battleground for a symbol of change has never been so wide – and so confusing. On the one hand you have Prince Simon the anointed one (in yet another pointless distraction) exclaiming how yes – change is necessary and he is the one to bring it about. On the other you have Joseph who is trying hard to explain that we need to rid ourselves of the nationalist scourge but at the same time he is at pains to point out that the switchover to his party will be painless : almost as though no change has really happened.

Contradictions? You’ll get plenty of them. We still have not spoken about Tonio Borg but we’ll leave that for another time. Today is the day we should be focusing on the US where Republicans are hoping to swing the vote from the agent of change himself. Reporting from across the pond has it that this has been very much of a déja-vu campaign. Both the GOP and the Democrats are recycling old speeches. I strongly suspect that this has much to do with an increasingly unfathomable and volatile electorate. The post-crisis world has shaken liberal democracy at its very foundations – it is not in trouble but some major tweaking might be in order to re-establish the age old Hobbesian covenant upon new terms and criteria.

Representation is not what it used to be and the represented are beginning to take note… (finally I would add). Last night we had a vivid exchange between two MPs. One ended up asking the other (sarcastically, we hope) whether he had inherited parliament from his aunt. Ironically we should be asking the question to both our main parties – or at least reminding them that parliament is not theirs to own but ours to entrust.

In the end… all that matters might be the swing.

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

Election fever

Recent events in the holy of holies that is parliament are beginning to make the Council of Trent seem like a walk in the park. I have already registered my consternation at what seems to have been a missed opportunity by the PN to take the initiative following the summer recess and to finally call the damn election. My observations seem to have found an echo in (of all places) Franco Debono’s latest rant (Gonzi had planned an October election) – and I am not sure whether this is a good thing. It would seem that the initiative was not taken because of a +12% gap at the polls that did not augur well or a snap October/November scrutiny.

Whatever the case may be and no matter how much of my guesswork was actually right I would like to look at another element in this pre-election frenzy and that is the magic BUDGET. I do not have the powers of foresight that the late Spiridione Sant proclaimed to have with much rasputinian fervour and cannot claim to be privy to the content of the forthcoming budget. What I can do is ask a few questions with regard to the budget and how it places itself in an eventual election run.

Some pundits are assuming that a PN budget is planned as some sort of “show and tell” exercise with the electorate. In this scenario, Gonzi and Fenech would present a budget that clearly shows the direction that the PN is taking with the management of the country. Bar any contradictory hiccups (St. Philip’s being the prime candidate for contradictory hiccup material) we would have a budget that doubles as a practical electoral manifesto that would presumably contrast greatly with Muscat’s pie in the sky lists of “ma nindaħlux lill-business” style.

The grand underpinning point in this plan is that Gonzi’s PN knows full well that Franco Debono is bound to hijack the budget and will be lying around in wait like a taliban strapped to his panties with dynamite, semtex and more ready to blow the project to smithereens with his (now openly declared) vote against the budget. The idea here is simple (pace the spinmeisters at Pieta)… a lovely budget that will most likely be endorsed by Brussels (we have to get a nod of sorts because of the concerted austerity plan – there IS a world beyond Joseph and Lawrence) that might even tickle the fancy of the doubters but that gets shot down by the new villain in the story – Master Debono of Għaxaq. Q.E.D.

Now I am no master of the polls and statistics but I do have a legitimate question to ask. What weight are we supposed to give a budget that is very evidently being presented with the extreme likelihood that it will not be adopted or accepted? I mean, in the long run it’s a case of “You know that I know that you know” and Fenech & Gonzi’s hopes about the Franco party-pooper business are not exactly secret. So with that perspective don’t you think that this budget would be a budget lite?

We might not get to answer the question should Franco and Labour continue with the barrage of motions trying desperately to alter the orders of the house. On the other hand it is beginning to seem extremely likely that the current interpretation of the house rules will lead us to a November Budget as the first real vote that would make the PN’s plans re Franco and his sabotage come true.

Whatever the case don’t forget to ask yourself – is it a budget or the modern PN equivalent of a trojan horse?

 

Beware of the nationalist finance minister bearing budgets.

Categories
Campaign 2013

The last rites

No. I am not ignoring what is going on in Parliament. How can you? On the other hand I still am amazed at how ridiculously shallow is the level of political assessment in this country of ours.

Kudos, first of all, goes to Lawrence and his “team” for having managed to string together a mini-Med summit that will go down in the annals of history as yet another photo snapping opportunity for a group of 10 leaders who sat together all bearing the same expression of “why the hell am I here?”. Sure, Med cooperation and plans are great and necessary but we know much more than go fawning at the foot of an idea that had lain frozen since the last meeting in 2003, lived in a coma right throughout enthusiastic Sarkozy’s “Mediterranean  Union” and proved to be worth jack shit at the time of the Arab Spring.

Anyways, after the Arab spring we get this cocktail-glass-clinking event that gets us a bit of tarmac, Monti giving the obsequious nod about security in the Mediterranean, Lawrence Gonzi spouting some circum tauri about the common values and aspirations of these nations and … oh yes… there will be an MCAST in Misurata. I am told that Arriva officials panicked at the idea of getting thousands of schoolboys to the college across the sea in time. (Just kidding, I’m not that stupid you know… if I were I’d have planned the new transport system in Malta and would be running for elections as a certain party’s future promise).

Which brings me to the Allies continually battling the Axis of Evil and who face Armageddon single-handedly. Why oh why are we still bothering with Franco and Jeffrey? Well one reason is that Gonzi’s PN are trying to make some point of pride and “we shall not be moved” business. Which is beginning to look damn silly. You know, the kind of silly as surrounds the kid who is caught with nutella all round his mouth and bread crumbs on his shirt and claims “I’m not eating in class miss”. Yep. Gonzi and his PN are strolling around with pie all over their face and they don’t seem to be bothered one bit.

Meanwhile, across from Pieta and over to Hamrun you have the other bunch of idiots. They are swooning and swaying all over that gullible piece of work that is Franco Debono – egging him on to get at Austin, Joe or whatever tickles his renegade fancy. The Earl Grey sipping dork still believes that he is somehow remotely relevant to the business of government and accountability when in actual fact his actions (and those of his companion in crime) belie the true base nature of his intentions. Were it not clear enough we now have the concerted effort between the Paladins of Progressivism, the Cavalier of Democracy and the Sipper of Teas to get a debate and motion onto parliament’s agenda that smacks of desperate opportunism to say the least.

Gonzi must have been hoping that it would come to this. The PM seemingly busy with his ultra-important tête-a-tête with nine leaders of state while Labour scrabbles for the floor and whinges and whines in order to get a very very important motion on the table of the house. What motion? Well …. it’s a motion about plans to privatise the management of car parks. Well actually it is a motion about plans to privatise the management of car parks …. that have been shelved. AND Franco Debono and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando – still playing at the game of “we care so much for the people and are duty bound to represent them” have been performing somersaults trying to slip in a motion of no confidence in Austin Gatt.

What a sad and sorry bunch. Labour’s high and mighty appeal about all the woes of our nation and then just look at what kind of subject they want to use as a motion of no confidence that might (in their hopes) bring the government down. A utility measure? A budget bill? IVF? Immigration? What else could it be? Hell no… it’s a shelved plan for a car park. This coming from a party whose exponents are not ashamed of  representing a party that gives off all the signs of having no clue about what to do when in government.

Franco and Jeffrey? Less said about them the better. Jeffrey’s intellectual prowess when it comes to defending arguments is tantamount to “unfriending” people whom he disagrees with. Shallow and transparent does not even begin to describe him. Franco – well enough has really been said about Franco. He can no longer hide behind grand plans of reform – legal or otherwise. If ever they were close to his heart then he lost them some time ago and he has definitely succumbed to the battle of nerves.

As for the party in government. You get the feeling that just before the end of summer they had sort of sniffed out an exit strategy – one that could be a repeat of the famous “snatching victory from the jaws of defeat”. Something has gone very Pete Tong though and this must have happened on or around the Independence day festivities. The guess here at J’accuse is that the PN has opted to focus on the wrong issues and hit the wrong targets. Above all, the PN is repeating the same mistake that it risked committing in 2008 – the same mistake that Labour persists in committing every election. What mistake? Simple. The mistake of treating your electorate like absolute fools and taking their vote for granted.

We will definitely be seeing new efforts at denigrating the wrongly called “floating voter” (not floaters as that tautological fool Musumeci calls them) the closer the election gets. J’accuse has a message for these people (yes, that includes you Mario Vella) – stay strong and don’t vote before you’ve got their attention. Every single one of them. Including those who will tell you that (alas) you are setting yourselves up as objects of hate right before they rush off and vote intelligently with a huge number one next to the name of … Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando.

Categories
Campaign 2013

The politics of denial

Something’s going all Pete Tong in the Nationalist party pre-electoral strategy. Either that or the  powers of self-persuasion among some people must be unnaturally high. If a week is a long time in politics then surviving the minefield of a combined JPO & Franco Debono assault on the stability of a slender parliamentary majority for almost a year is quite a feat. For a long time we had to make do with the histrionics of a party in government attempting to horse-trade its way to the end of the last parliamentary session. The nationalist government alternated from a policy of accommodation to hard-bargaining with the volatile requests of the rebel MPs.

By the time Parliament went into recess we had an obvious situation of Cohabitation Government with Pullicino Orlando and an undefinable shape-shifting relationship with Franco. So long as parliament had been in session Franco Debono’s clout with the PN was simply stated as that extra vote needed to guarantee a governing stability. With the recess came the PN’s definite confirmation that Franco Debono would not be standing for another election in its name (and that instead the electorate would be regaled with the unenviable choice of such party stalwarts as Emmanuel Arriva Delia).

Parliament is still in recess. Franco Debono is not. One of his latest posts is dedicated to pointing out that while school is starting parliament is still “on a break”. A laborious read through Franco’s blog will also lead anyone with a brain between his ears to one conclusion: this man has undoubtedly chosen to break ranks from the party (or rather realised that there is no place for him therein). Bridges are being burnt with every misspelt word that appears on his blog. There will be no more horse-trading. No more appeasement. No more winning of valuable time. The time for Franco to be consigned to the footnotes of history is fast approaching (see the J’accuse “When Franco is history“).

Which brings me to the questionable strategy mentioned at the start. For a long time it seemed obvious that the only use that Gonzi’s PN had left for Franco was as the final trigger before the election. It was evident that the PN government’s last move would be to force Franco to be the catalyst for the end of this legislature and the beginning of the next. So far so good and Machiavellian. The rebel MP seemed to be slow on the uptake at first but has now sussed up to this plan and seems determined not to fall into the trap of becoming the ultimate scapegoat.

Which makes all the songs and dances emanating from Pietà rather incongruous. On the one hand there is the general theme of “all is fine and dandy and it would be even better had we not had the minor inconvenience of Franco Debono” and on the other there is the “we will remain in government so long as we enjoy the confidence of parliament”. Now it was one thing before summer to allow public opinion to dither as to whether or not the latest confidence vote would be clinched by “convincing” unsettled backbenchers. We could dismiss the horse-trading to nervous shifts within the power structures of an ageing government. It is another thing though for Lawrence Gonzi to speak to the assembled faithful in Floriana and act as though Franco Debono’s blog is just a bad dream.

What do you mean so long as we enjoy the confidence of parliament Lawrence? Surely it is also clear to you, following this summer’s shifts in the rules of the game, that any kind of confidence you might believe you enjoy is entirely superficial? As David Guetta’s music played and the new breed of nationalist (what nationalist exactly) candidates marched onto the stage (Without You!) sans Franco we were entitled to ask: for how long more this charade of denial?

Yes denial. Because no matter what the PN strategists might try to sell you now, the setting of an election is a decision that is fast slipping from their hands. We were prepared to tip our hat to a strategic victory that meant winning valuable time over the summer months for a regathering of the forces and (re)drafting of a final electoral strategy. The delay strategy might backfire though if extended to an illogical period beyond the convincingly realistic. For Lawrence Gonzi to resume the “government as usual” spiel in September while the evidence all around him points to anything but that might be a hard act to convince even the most blinkered of nationalist flag-wavers.

Financial estimates, votes of confidence… Gonzi’s PN is lucky if it gets to the finish line and the cutting of the ribbon at the new parliament complex. There’s that and the amount of time being wasted focusing on the almost has-been rebels when much could be done at the moment exposing the faux politics upon which Labour and its Potyemkin Congress has embarked.

The botched strategy at the moment points to a possibly bigger fault line within the party itself that goes farther than Franco Debono and the tantrums of the discontent. One could hypothesise that various strands within the Pieta party have already smelt the scent of an inevitable loss at the polls and most efforts are being channelled into the post-electoral battles that will define the new post-Gonzi PN. That would explain the new alliances and alignments when it comes to candidates and districts and it would explain why little or nothing seems to be done in terms of real election campaign tactics.

Above all – and now more than ever – it seems that together it is no longer possible.