Tag: Joseph Muscat

Categories
Euroland Politics

Tonio’s Non-Metamorphoses

Was it a case of “Veni Vidi Vici”? Did the Commissioner designate “sail-through” the grilling that never was last Tuesday? Has the dinosaur really convinced the trough-addicted pigs of his inveterate submission to the constitutional bible of this “sui generis” system of state collaboration? There was a telling moment during the marathon session when Tonio Borg addressed his interlocutors and reminded them that in politics “perception is important”. Indeed. Perception nowadays is a huge part of the pie and politicians are as much made or broken by the creation of a hash tag (that’s twitter talk for a subject such as #BorgEU) than by anything else.

The speed with which media will deal with a story – compounded by technological Chinese whispers – not only means that a media avatar of a politician can be created with uncanny expeditiousness but also that such avatar might morph in accordance to the predominant push of whoever is throwing the most information into the system. Tonio Borg was contemporaneously both a victim and a victor of this kind of phenomenon. The time it took Borg to study the files and dossiers relating to his new “portofolio” (sic) the liberals-in-hiding got working with their European counterparts in order to  fill them in on the “true nature” of Tonio.

What “true nature”? Well they referred to Borg’s handling of immigration affairs, to his position on IVF and on divorce, to his consorting with the Gift of Life movement and to his previous stances on homosexual rights. The spiel essentially that Borg was an uncompromising imposer of conservative values and that his political activity clearly reflected this stance. The link to the Health and Consumer portfolio was not exactly tenuous and to put it mildly there WAS a point to be made. The point though was meant to be and should have been limited to the capacity of Tonio Borg to perform his duty as a Commissioner independently of his views – unlike his performance in Maltese politics where he had no problem mixing the two.

It’s the EU Law, Stupid

And this is where Tonio Borg built his defence. It was obvious from the start who had been involved in prepping the Commissioner designate. For all his protests that he was not “thinking as a lawyer” I’m prepared to safely bet that many a night was spent in the company of Simon Busuttil and a former EU Ambassador. Nothing wrong there either. The most telling moment was Tonio’s slight hesitation in reformulating the classic description of the European Law system – many a law student would have recognised that brief moment of panic when the explanation that was just at the tip of your tongue has rushed away only to return in the form of a rehash of the original definition “in your own words”. Hence Tonio and his version of “a sui generis system of international law and an agreement between sovereign states”. (He could also have quipped a happy 50th birthday to the Van Gend & Loos case while he was at it – much more important than the International Day of Courtesy in this part of the world).

The prepping was necessary because Tonio had to use every trick in the book (better known as “the treaties”) in order to justify his speedy metamorphoses from Maltese politician to European Commissioner. In doing so he highlighted the most difficult barrier that Europe faces with regards to social harmony. For while economic barriers have come crumbling down at a faster rate than the Visigoth invasion of Rome, social mores have found the borders of old to be less permeable. Subsidiarity that great concept first brought to the world in a Papal Encyclical came to the rescue and suddenly Tonio was raising the Commissioner’s equivalent of “taking the sixth”.

You’ve seen it all so no need to dwell on it. Dr Borg could get away with packaging his national performance in a tight corner by stating that he can not and will not be able to act similarly at an EU level because the rules that apply there are different. So for the sake of argument Tonio Borg’s catholic values will have to be put in abeyance whenever he is dealing with the Commission programs to promote the use of contraceptives. He claims not to have a problem with that and I guess that his conscience will deal with the “superior orders” dilemma in its own time.

Those Shoddy Liberals

Tonio Borg did not metamorphose. He remains the same man committed to the same principles (save maybe the gaffe regarding the gender quota ) a sudden rush of arse-licking could be a most simple explanation. Or even euphoria experienced with the sudden rush of endorphins at the realisation that the Liberal Inquisition was really conducted by a bunch of pussy-footed, ill-informed bungling radicals. That last point actually really got to me. For here we were – as my friend David Friggieri puts it – with a representative of the conservative parties (yes plural) in Malta in the dock and with no real prosecutor asking the real questions.

I’d have asked a simple question to Dr Borg. What does he think of the fact that a person who is a doctor in an EU country where abortion is legal and who performs a legal abortion on a Maltese woman (who has willingly travelled to his country and consented to such an operation) is criminally liable in Malta? Simple really. In case you are wondering it’s Article 5(1)(d) of the Criminal Code in combination with article 241(1). Incidentally once said doctor is condemned to a term of imprisonment for a term of eighteen months to three years, the willing patient also becomes liable to the same punishment. But I guess that’s OK because she’s Maltese anyway.

We did not get these questions. We got questions that were obviously fed to MEPs by the type of shoddy activists who base their accusations on hearsay and conspiracy theories rather than facts. How else do you explain that Dutch liberal’s question about contraceptives in Malta that was an invitation to Tonio Borg to eat her alive (which he did with the usual classy rhetoric of a PN politician who knows he has the upper hand).

A Metamorphoses?

In the end we have what the French call a “match nul” – which means a draw but the word “nul” also means “useless”. At an EU level Borg might not really “sail through” when the voting time comes. The ALDE (liberals) and European Greens have unsurprisingly called themselves out of any support vote – they’ll be voting against. The Popular Party will back him (and also heap lauds and praise that will be hyped in the relevant media). The socialists might dilly-dally for a while and make Tonio Borg (and Tonio Fenech and Simon Busuttil) sweat a little bit more but in the end they might just give in and vote him in after having asked for more “written commitments” from his part.

Tonio Borg did not really metamorphose in the end. His was no apostasy before the baying house of atheists and agnostics. This was more of a modern Give Unto Ceasar kind of business that left many of us Maltese questioning the use of a two-tier Europe when it comes to social rights. Yes the liberals – particularly the Maltese liberals – were bitten and if you are really fond of the term then they were “defeated”. Their defeat lies in the lack of organisation and lack of clarity. It lies in the lack of identifiable leaders who could take the battle to the next level. It lies in the fact that Maltese politics rarely translates into conservative vs liberal when push comes to shove.

That is why Joseph Muscat feels comfortable standing up in parliament without any hint of irony on his face and saying “I’m a liberal” while at the same time sanctioning the PN position on embryo freezing. Joseph will continue to woo the liberal fold that have elsewhere been described as the “ex-stricklandjani” so long as his credentials are not questioned and so long as he can be contrasted to the dinosaurs that have long camped in the mainstream parties.

Unfortunately for the silent liberal movement in Malta change will never come from within any of the two parties. So long as we continue putting our eggs in their basket they’ll be happy doing what they do best – fuck all. Because as we know so well : “if we want everything to change, then everything must remain the same”. And long life to our next EU Commissioner !

Pictor has scarcely set foot in paradise when he found himself standing before a tree that had two crowns. In the leaves of one was the face of a man.; in the leaves of the other, the face of a woman. Pictor stood in awe of the tree and timidly asked, “Are you the Tree of Life?”

Read also today’s article in the Times by Ranier Fsadni.

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

Future views

Until I find time to post about “the issues that aren’t” I’d like to take a quick look (and provocation) at the idea of “the future” that has slipped in among the top hit concepts in Maltese political discourse.

“The future” and its natural antithesis “the past” feature prominently both as the centre-stage of marketing spin as well as the obvious underpinning building blocks behind most arguments. It is of course inevitable that if you are plugging change from a situation of quasi-inertia you will be pushing an agenda that automatically projects you to a future that is (another catch-word) different. This is a key question at this point in time since change and difference are strong selling points once you accept that the current situation just won’t do.

On a superficial level – one that is easily pricked into reaction by billboards that provoke and appeal to the instant idea – being associated with the past is supposed to be an immediate point-killer. You’re stuck in the middle ages, you’re backward or you’ve failed to shed some heavy luggage. Unless of course you manage to retaliate that too much talk of the past implies a misplaced nostalgia or, worse still, a deceptive lie. The bad thing about the past – in marketing terms – is that it lies there like a giant wart for all to see. It has happened. It is a fact. Indisputably so. You can hardly contradict it without engaging on a principled level – without talking politics.

The future? Now that’s something else. Campaigns built on the future appeal on a number of levels. Look at Obama’s hope-filled “Yes we can” campaign. It’s all about what could be done in the future. It builds on aspirations and desire for change. Look closer to home. Sarkozy’s “Ensemble tout est possible” cloned to the PN’s “Flimkien kollox possibli” relied on a promise that working together could make everything possible. That was when the promise was still a future possibility. We’ve seen how that “together” quickly crumbled to an impossibility – that future is now another past, another wart crying out to be analysed.

Joseph Muscat and Labour are trying hard to portray the image of having a project for the future. Their language is replete with concepts such as the famous “road-map“. The Labour party relies heavily on the sale of dreams – a future that is not only unquantifiable but also one that cannot be assessed. The selling of a dream involves simply being careful enough not to step on anyone’s dislikes. It is a combination of band-wagon politics and fence-sitting. The final key to this strategy is the reliance on the electorate’s general disgruntlement with the current band and their apparent inertia. In order to promise everything to everyone Joseph Muscat simply has to sit back and promise nothing. At least not tangibly.

The moment there is the danger of being associated with a fixed idea Muscat will shy away into the clouds of non-commitment or denial. He will return with words about road-maps and consultation. It’s less of a case of leadership with direction and more of a case of blind man’s bluff. The excuse of not being in election campaign is wearing thin. Especially when Muscat’s party has long delivered the judgement that (a) PN is no longer fit to govern and (b) Labour is.

Nationalist futures are worse than bleak at the moment. With a 12 point gap in the polls and a seeming inability to take control of the pre-electoral agenda setting it will take a miracle to get back into a fighting chance at this stage. Much will depend on the PN machine’s ability to bring Labour down to discussing the real and now. If the language of politics is shifted into the present temporal dimension – ignoring the histrionics of back-benchers on the way out and the media circus – then the tired party of government might (might) be back with a fighting chance. This will require stronger displays of clarity of vision, brutally honest introspectives that reflect upon past mistakes and a strong sense of determination that would finally eradicate the deep-seated doubt that has entrenched itself in the popular mindset.

The intangible politics of the future might only be eclipsed with a presentation of the very tangible politics of the present. It’ll be a hard trek but given the alternative scenarios and possibilities it is not only worth a try… it is their duty to do so.

Categories
Campaign 2013 Politics

The wrong shade of green

I must admit to being surprised. My duties elsewhere keep preventing me from blogging with a more teutonic regularity but I still take a peek at what is being said ‘ere and there just to keep abreast of the latest developments. Seems like a November election can all but be ruled out as in the latest development in the amateur chess game between the PN strategists and the Honourable Blogger from Ghaxaq there seems to have been a tiny impasse reached. Franco has (finally) sussed out that the PN strategy involved pushing him to the brink of voting down the government and has retaliated with the usual aplomb:

“Gonzi, dik ix-xi haga se naghmilha meta rrid u meta jidhirli jien! Grow up!”

There you go. Grow up Gonz. Meanwhile Varist, Leo and the merry band of Joseph’s movement creators have taken a break from blaming everything on GoNZiPN because they are very into the latest discovery that is “The Congress”. It deserves a capital C because it is apparently a revolutionary idea for the Labour party – the first of its kind. Basically what is happening is that the Labour posse uproots itself and goes to the “specialists” in every field and asks them what they think about a particular topic. Now I’m not sure whether it is apocryphal or whether it is a fact but it seems that the modus operandi involves a general show of hands indicating the IRL (in real life) equivalent of a contemporaneous multitude of LIKES for a particular idea.

Such ideas as pass muster during these very public plebiscites are then incorporated into a set of GUIDELINES that will be presumably taken into consideration when the Labour party finally decides that the time is ripe to actually lead people and come up with a real plan. In the meantime this marketing gag has us all in awe at Joseph’s unlimited capacity to come up with obvious tautologies on a regular basis – healthcare to centre around patients, business not to be obstructed, Gozo needs work etc etc. We’d seen it all before, only now there is the confirmation among folk who “understand” the subject. Can you imagine asking a taxpayer what he thinks we should do with taxes?

Great marketing move by Labour though. This way we get to forget that we STILL have no concrete plan beyond the usual medley of buzzwords. We forget that Karmenu Vella and Assistant Aaron Farrugia have still not produced the goods and in case we were wondering here is Leo spelling out the main reason why we should not expect a manifesto any time soon (on Facebook – where else?):

Meta ser nkunu nafu x’fih il-manifest elettorali tal-PL?
Twegiba f’waqtha ta’ Joseph Muscat illum. Fil-MALTA TODAY.
“Ahna ser naghmlu preciz kif ghamel Gonzi fl-ahhar elezzjoni generali. Nippublikawh BISS wara li tkun thabbret id-data u rrankat il-kampanja nnifisha….”
Din il-gimgha nhejju ir-Road Map u l-Linji Gwida ghall gejjieni

So there you go. Screw  you voter. If  Gonzi is bad enough not to give you his plan before an election is called then we will do the same. You’re screwed anyway because it’s not like you’re spoilt for choice. Meanwhile we get this Congress – a cross between Potemkin Villages and the People’s Jamahiriya of Libya Collectives. People being conned into thinking they count because they are giving “linji gwida” to a party that is mostly prone to never taking positions. I wonder whether there will be Linji Gwida about gay marriage or immigrant policy? Which public show of hands will count?

That was my surprise incidentally. That no one hooked on to the uncanny similarity between Joseph’s congress meetings and the concept of collectives, committees and conferences that underpinned that load of trash that was Muammar Gaddafi’s Green Book. Then again… Karmenu Vella MIGHT have been working on something all these months after all….

“The democratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundation stones are firmly laid one above the other, the Basic People’s Conferences, the People’s Conferences, and the People’s Committees, which finally come together when the General People’s Conference convenes. There is absolutely no conception of democratic society other than this.” – The Green Book (Muammar Gaddafi)

The Green Book announces to the
people the happy discovery of the way
to direct democracy, in a practical
form. Since no two intelligent people
can dispute the fact that direct demo-
cracy is the ideal -- but its method has
been impossible to apply -- and since
this Third Universal Theory provides
us with a realistic experiment in direct
democracy, the problem of democracy
in the world is finally solved. All that
the masses need do now is to struggle
to put an end to all forms of dictatorial
rule in the world today, to all forms of

                  [28]

what is falsely called democracy --
from parliaments to the sect, the tribe,
the class and to the one-party, the
two-party and the multi-party sys-
tems.
  Democracy has but one method and
one theory. The disparity and dissimi-
larity of the systems claiming to be
democratic is evidence that they are
not democratic in fact. The people's
authority has only one face and it can
be realised only by one method, name-
ly, popular congresses and people's
committees. No democracy without
popular congresses and committees
everywhere.

 

Categories
Rubriques

I.M. Jack – It never rains

Blogging being the very private enterprise that it is (and the one-man exercise too) there are times when the frequency and immediacy of posts is not exactly up to scratch. That this week has been one of those times is the result of a combination of circumstances that are best not delved into (especially since they involve exposing the lazier side of me). Having said that much has been happening that deserves the J’accuse once over and it would be a shame not to at least give the past ten days or so the I.M. Jack treatment.

1. What’s so gay about marriage?

We have to begin with the number one pet peeve that J’accuse has had all this week. If I was to pick it up from its backside then I’d say the whole issue is about gay marriage – or to give it the politically correct moniker: same-sex marriage. We have seen the protests, the rock stars (!) gone political, the pressure groups getting miffed, the supposed civil rights groups getting hoity toity and the inevitable bandwagon politicians yelling “What-ho” and all that. Why? Well apparently Minister Chris Said, is guilty of not having introduced same-sex marriage or a legally decent equivalent when he produced the Civil Partnerships Cohabitation bill (or whatever its name may be) out of the Nationalist government’s pre-electoral hat.

Really MGRM? Say what Aditus? No same-sex marriage eh? How horrible. Devastating. The only problem is that the bill intended on putting civil unions within a more sound legal framework was never intended to introduce gay marriage. What various pressure groups were “given to understand” is legally, constitutionally and politically irrelevant. A cohabitation bill is a cohabitation bill is a cohabitation bill. Across Europe one can witness a variety of do-it-yourself models of civil partnership laws. They are all intended to be a sort of package of rights for people who live together but who DO NOT WANT TO or CAN NOT get married. Siblings living together is the least controversial of examples.

Not gay marriage though. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. Of course you can site examples of countries where short of obtaining the ultimate (and most obvious) solution of legally sanctioned same-sex marriages, the nation has settled for a similar package of rights that does not go by the name of marriage but gets rather close to it. This was never the case in Malta. At least not from a legislative point of view. Civil unions, cohabiting persons or what have you – the idea is to get this set of persons a bundle of rights under Maltese law.

Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with this. Neither does the concept of family which the Minister was drawn into commenting upon. All the ruckus about discrimination within the context of “marriage” is a false alarm. Now if we were talking about a bill to introduce same-sex marriage in Malta. Now that would be another thing altogether – and J’accuse would be right behind the inevitable process where persons of the same sex are allowed to tie the knot and have that union recognised as a marriage under civil law.

2. So what is the bill about?

Sadly for the nationalist party it is beginning to be a bit of an enigma what the bill should really be about. This blog still sticks by its theory that the bill is being forced through because of a pre-electoral pact struck hurriedly around 2008. As has rightly been pointed out in other quarters (MaltaToday methinks), the inability of the conservative elements of the party to come to terms with the liberal content of this kind of legislation has led to a half-baked law that manages to insult sectors of society by treating them as second class citizens. Even without the useless conflagration about what constitutes family, the nationalist government could not really believe to get away with a law that blatantly discriminates between classes of citizens when defining the same right.

It should have been so simple really. A clearly defined framework of rights that would be available to any two persons entering a civil union. Property rights, fiscal rights and social service rights to begin with. Issues of gender would have been cleanly skirted and most controversy would have been set aside barring the few nitpicking details. That we are where we are – and that controversy has not only not been skirted but is dancing naked on the tables of Said’s ministry – is a clear indication of the Faustian pact entered into before last election. The gay sector is very obviously (and rightly, in an opportunistic sense) up in arms. On the one hand it has every reason to do so given the bumbled manner in which the law discriminates between types of partnerships and on the other it is taking advantage of the sudden outburst of public sympathy to drive same-sex marriage into the agenda even though it was evidently not the original aim of the bill.

Just what the doctor ordered innit?

3. Joseph and the Rainbow Coloured Fence

Muscat is having a hard time disguising his glee at the PN’s latest faux pas in the world of gays, lesbians and other happy people. He should be careful. The MGRM community is thankfully not headed by a bunch of gullible sods who will drool at every ambiguous word thrown at them by politicians. I am sure that by now they can tell a bandwagon riding politician (and party) when they see one – even if it flies the rainbow flag on party HQ on gay pride days. What the MGRM could do is try to take advantage of the apparent openness of someone like Joseph Muscat – and boy would they be courting trouble.

Take his declaration yesterday when he stated that politicians have no right to decide who is a family. Would you really yell bingo? Is this really as liberal as it sounds? Let me spell it out for you: it is about as liberal as the pope’s underwear. What this is, in fact, is a declaration of yet another open season of fence-sitting by dear Joseph. Just like in the divorce debate, Joseph plans not to lead but to fence-sit and declare “free vote” season again. Joseph is correct when he says that it is not a politician’s right to determine who forms a family.

Joseph forgets a second, more important, and responsible corollary though : that it is a politician’s duty to listen to the needs of society – the interest of the common good and the rights of minorities – and ensure that these needs are properly safeguarded by participating in the enacting of laws to that effect. A same-sex marriage law will not write itself while Joseph, Owen and Varist are busy waving rainbow flags in some protest walk. A same-sex marriage law will be drafted, presented and voted in by responsible politicians who responsibly read the signs of times and legislate the obviously inevitable. Something tells me it won’t be Inhobbkom Joseph.

4. Franco rebutted

Before I start the usual rant about Malta’s unpreparedness come the first storms let me just point out that this evening’s rebuttal by the PN executive of any Franco attempt to get reinstated onto their list of candidates is just par for the course according to J’accuse’s pre-estival predictions. The time-table has long been set and parliament does not have a very long life beyond the opening session once summer recess is over. Trust you me… the PN is not counting on Franco voting for any bill and Franco knows this only too well hence his latest private members’ bill regarding fuel oil – a bid to get voters for his inevitable splinter “party” come next elections.

5. It never rains…

Xita happens. Nuff said.

 

 

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.