Tag: referendum

Categories
Hunting

Getting Simon

gettingsimon_akkuzaIt looked like a shot in the foot. The Times headline was unequivocal – “Busuttil: Politicians should keep away from spring hunting controversy”. I was lost for words. Here was the leader of Malta’s opposition, still struggling in the trust ratings at the polls, coming up with a declaration that stank incredibly of fence-sitting. Could it be possible that after the disastrous management of the Civil Union issue the PN was once again falling far short in the battle of public perception?

I was mistakenly (as it turned out) provoked to putting together another Banana Republic poster that decried the fence-sitting qualities of the declaration. A facebook reader pointed out that there was much more to be read than the headline. Mea culpa, it seems, but only to a point. In fact after reading the Times article in full I began to understand where Busuttil was coming from. It all hinged on the fact that Busuttil was placing importance on the referendum – “the decision rested on the will of the people in a referendum”. What Busuttil seems to be saying (as confirmed further on in the report) is that for this particular decision “political parties have to bow their head to the will of the people”.

Could that be it? Is the PN leader telling anybody who listens that the PN will not stand in the way of a popular decision? This was reinforced by Busuttil’s reference to the party’s position – that of having a limited and controlled season. So we do know that officially the PN is not against spring hunting as such – if anything it has a position that is in favour of limited and controlled hunting in spring. What we are also being told by Busuttil is that notwithstanding this position, his party (and the politicians) should keep away from the controversy and let the referendum run its course. Presumably so the PN will not be campaigning for or against a particular position but has committed to respect the final decision in the referendum.

Is that really fence-sitting? Not really no. It falls much, much shorter than the ‘liberal’ anti-hunting sentiment that has been whipped up over the last year. The PN has definitely decided not to take up the baton of the anti-spring hunting movement and form some sort of coalition for the purposes of the referendum. Insofar as that is concerned it is a form of fence-sitting. On the other hand,  it is also not actively gathering hunters’ votes in Cyrus Engerer fashion or sending out equivocal statements that worryingly threaten the very possibility of the referendum. A positive passiveness if you will.

What has happened though is that the gist of the Times headline spread far quicker than the convoluted institutional message that Simon wanted to send out. It is far easier to jump to the conclusion that the PN is fence-sitting (I for one am guilty of doing so) than to see that there is a clear commitment from one of the two parties in parliament to respect the outcome of the referendum and give full power to a useful tool of political representation.

AD’s criticism of the PN position is not entirely correct in this respect but it is an inevitable result of a grave mishandling of communication from Busuttil’s PR team. The PN is not neutral – it has a position on spring hunting but it is choosing not to lead with it – promising to honour the outcome of the referendum instead. True, if like me you are dead set against spring hunting you would have preferred if at least one of the two political behemoths puts its full force behind getting a referendum result in favour of the abolition of spring hunting.

Whether it is for a calculated purpose or out of a purist interpretation of the institution of public referenda Busuttil has other ideas. The way his speech was reported results in a mini-disaster at PR and spin level. The leftovers at Dar Centrali in Pietà are proving rather inept at understanding the basics of communicating to the extent that even a bungling Labour party in government that rides roughshod over basic constitutional concepts manages to survive ahead at the trust polls.

As the MEP elections approach the PN remains an incoherent machine that is unable to clearly define itself and as a consequence unable to sell a clear defined message to the electorate. They should have learnt by now that voting PN by default is for many not an option – no matter how evident the ugly warts of the party in government have become.

As thing stand, even if you do “get Simon” the safest and clearest message on spring hunting comes from the candidates in green. It has always been and now it is louder and clearer than ever. It is not only about spring hunting but also about taking clear unequivocal positions on issues that are not only (as some mistakenly seem to suggest) restricted to national policy but that are also based on an open European vision.

 

 

.

Categories
Citizenship Constitutional Development Politics

The Hunter outside the Palace

When we decided to change the logo of SDM (the Christian Democrat Student organisation) in the mid-1990s we had decided to include a motto within a design that was meant to portray citizen participation and inclusion. The slogan, taken from Caldera’s tome describing the Christian Democrat principles translated as such “the ideal democratic palace is made up of the whole people”. We were very much into the notion of participatory democracy at the time and it was an interesting formative period of my  life.

One crucial question I have been asking myself recently, particularly after the discussions at the Vilnius closing conference of the European Year of Citizens, is “how far do citizens really want to participate”? Is not an ideal democracy one where citizens are duly represented and where such representatives go about with the business of managing the demos as entrusted unto them? Should a citizen be “active” on a daily basis or should his interventions be limited to the two instances of (1) electing those to be entrusted with the res publica and (2) intervening in moments of crises (taking to the streets)/extraordinary intervention by referendum.

The referendum – a method of public consultation is by now a familiar concept in Maltese politics. European Union membership and divorce have served to speed up the learning curve in this field and we know have a petition for a new referendum this time in the hope of abolishing Spring Hunting for good. It would seem that the representatives of our hunting community are suddenly alarmed that this petition for a referendum might be successful and they have kicked off a counter move – this time the move is a petition by the hunters to amend the very act that gives rise to Referenda. In the hunters’ opinion, such an act should never be used to stifle minorities.

It would seem therefore that the learning curve has hit a huge obstacle. The hunters’ move betrays a lack of understanding of the basic tenets of democratic action and participation. An act such as the referendum act is written in such a way so as to ensure that it does not become a tool for minorities to be ‘stifled’. Given the size of our population, it is already a gargantuan task to obtain a number of signatures that is sufficient to get a referendum going. Then, once the referendum does take place, one should also remember that it requires a majority vote – very much like a national election where similar issues are (supposedly) put on the plate in the form of electoral manifestos. That is why this blog (and a few others) have often insisted for more clarity from political parties during election time as to their commitments for their period in government.

hunter

That is also why the vague propositions found in manifestos are often more of an affront to representative democracy than the very clear aims of a referendum proposition. One should also not forget that a law that is a direct result of a referendum could also be challenged in the courts of law – especially if a citizen could claim that his fundamental rights are being infringed. I seriously doubt that a hunter’s right to shoot at will in Spring  time falls within the ambit of the fundamental rights of humankind and I only mention this check in order to paint a clear picture that goes beyond the PR-oriented assessment of rule of law and politics that is very much encouraged by our political classes today.

As it stands, the hunters are firmly entrenched outside the palace. They are not alone. Our political class have diluted all forms of accountability that would normally allow a democratic system based on rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances to work. When you have a government that first enacts a law, then rethinks it, then admits it was wrong, then admits it failed to consult stakeholders, then also remembers that there was no mention of this law in its political manifesto – and all the while such a government acts as though this was the most natural way of things and actually tries to get brownie points from its whole u-turn by claiming that it is “listening”… well then, something is rotten in Malta’s democratic palace.

“We are accounted poor citizens, the patricians good.
What authority surfeits on would relieve us: if they
would yield us but the superfluity, while it were
wholesome, we might guess they relieved us humanely;
but they think we are too dear: the leanness that
afflicts us, the object of our misery, is as an
inventory to particularise their abundance; our
sufferance is a gain to them Let us revenge this with
our pikes, ere we become rakes: for the gods know I
speak this in hunger for bread, not in thirst for revenge.”

(from Coriolanus, William Shakespeare).

 

Categories
Divorce Politics

This is my Church

This is where I heal my hurts. Today is referendum day. Not in Malta of course – that one is still a couple of weeks away – but in Britain. The UK votes in its first referendum in 36 years and chooses whether or not to change its voting system. The No vote seems to be miles ahead in the polls but what seems to matter most is not the result itself but the aftermath of the referendum campaign as the forces of different parties return to home base.

The UK coalition government is facing a bleak future following the “mud slinging and bad blood” of the campaign. As LibDems and Tories return to the governmental fold they will be sharing the space with people who were on opposite sides of the referendum battlefield and this does not bode well.

We are so caught up in the run-up to the referendum in Malta that we have not even considered this eventuality that seems to be inevitable. After all once push comes to shove and once referendum and parliamentary vote are over, the likes of Evarist Bartolo, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando et al will return to their parliamentary grouping and sit next to other MPs who were on the other side of the divorce divide. Will this have an effect on the running of the parties? Will the wounds in what has already been described as a “dirty campaign” run deep enough to create (more) fissures in the PLPN set up?

Another participant in the divorce battleground that will be nursing unexpected wounds is the local version of the Catholic Church. It has long dumped any semblance of the non-crusade stance and is now facing a few unpleasant realities that had long lain under the carpet of history. These are but a few glaring examples:

  • the Church-State agreement is under review: Thanks to the whole situation in the Rota vs Civil Courts issue, the anomalous status quo with regard to the workings of our laws has been brought to the fore of public debate. The Church can no longer hide the fact that its courts are also liable to the scrutiny of the rule of law so long as their decisions are intricately bound with the rule of the land. The first arrow in the heart of the church state agreement remains the right to a lawyer of choice and to a fair trial. Expect a test case moving on to the Constitutional Courts any time now. Does the local Catholic Church really want to have Rota decisions reviewed by Ceasar’s court? Is it aware of the possibility?
  • the local Church is an anomaly: the workings of the local Church, (comforted by the entrenchment of the Church-State agreement) have been exposed as being different from the workings of the church worldwide. In a bout of investigative journalism prompted by a priest’s comments MaltaToday exposed the fact that elsewhere in this world it is the Church that waits for (or expects) a civil divorce decree before proceeding with annulment. Again this kind of information begins to highlight how the Church-State agreement is turning out to be a very bad idea indeed. Time for some brainstorming on the church front – for the church’s sake.
  • the weakness of spirit: It is ironic that, of all churches, the one of the island of St Paul is failing its members drastically. All the actions of the church in this divorce campaign have uncovered an uncomfortable truth about its faithful: they are weak and need protection. For were our local version of the church confident in the lessons it has partaken with its flock then it would not fear the availability of the civil right to divorce. The church’s teachings are being misdirected and abused. The fact that God does not want divorce (whatever divorce that may have meant 13 centuries before Christ) has little to do with the availability of divorce in society but much to do with the strength of christian character in believing that assertion and following the scripture. I am sure John Zammit, the infamous John Zammit, would not divorce even if it were possible… but would all those who are being exhorted to vote No and deprive their neighbours in society of a civil right be of such a strong character? The Church of Malta and its messengers does not seem to think so. A massive Christian Fail.

So whatever the result of this referendum a number of “churches” are bound to end up  wounded and maimed. The political party “churches” have been exposed as vehicles of opportunistic rhetoric unable to promote their respective values due to their fear of compromising their voting base. The spiritual church has given clear signs of its failure to teach and pass on its interpretation of the Holy Texts. It has misinterpreted its duty to guide the flock and instead is shielding it completely from the greatest gift that God hath given man short of His own Son… free will.

No matter what the referendum result we already have one new truth to face about our society. Our Churches are a-crumbling.

Enhanced by Zemanta

 

Categories
Divorce Politics Travel

Cheap Spin by the Times

The Times of Malta has its moments of cheap spin tapping on the volatility of your average voter in order to feed on the quickfire commentators response. Shortly after couching the appointment of the new head of the EU Representation in Malta in purely economic terms (here we go again… does Martin Bugelli earn more than the President? Does he? Oh the shame!)… we now have the bestseller: those bastards earning a living abroad.

Far be it for the Times to highlight the “suggestions” that people like J’accuse have been making for ages regarding voting abroad. No sir. Instead we have to stir the shit and the sentiment against the idea of the government hitting the jackpot for AirMalta and ensuring it gets paid for a number of full flights to Malta and back. Not to mention the lack of criticism directed towards the PLPN autocracy who thrive on the state of affairs as is and would never budge a finger to change the status quo.

Does it even dawn on the brain of these nit-picking imbeciles that in order to take advantage of a “cheap flight” that is there solely for me to exercise my vote I have to: (a) take days off work in order to get to Malta and vote, and (b) spend time and money that is involved in maintaining the uselessly long and unnecessary trip to get to a polling booth that is not located in an embassy in the country where I am currently employed (but that is not my country).

Of course it does not. Here is the full article as appeared in the Times. I am giving it the TGIL annotated treatment as it deserves.

Cheap KM Flights for divorce poll

Cheap flights heavily subsidised by the government [read: your government will be allocating YOUR taxes to AirMalta with the excuse of the divorce referendum] will be made available for Maltese abroad who are eligible to vote in the May 28 divorce referendum, The Sunday Times has learnt.

When contacted, a spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that the scheme will be applied to this month’s vote though it is not yet clear which destinations will benefit [Benefit? A rather heavy word Mr Spokesperson. Nobody benefits. We are just told that if we want to exercise our right to vote we have to trudge all the way to Malta instead of doing the normal thing and voting in embassies or by post or (heaven forbid) on the net – not to mention that for the sizeable crowd in Luxembourg there is rarely a direct flight to be seen – which means more time spent on the redundant tripping].

It is understood Air Malta will be offering return air tickets at €35 inclusive of taxes and other charges. The flights will be valid for eligible voters, including those married to foreigners, studying, working or undergoing medical treatment abroad and their dependants. [A rather exhaustive list for one to start “it is understood” – why not say “it has been leaked to us as the unofficial government mouthpiece?”]

The government will make up for the rest of the charges so that the brunt is not borne by Air Malta. [Santi Subito! AirMalta bears no brunt. It actually gets paid with YOUR taxes to fly full flights to Malta. Why do they make it sound like the Maltese abroad are the culprits? ]

The overall cost will be borne by the government. Bringing over 3,057 people to vote at the 2008 general election had cost the taxpayer over €1 million.

It had cost the country more than €442,000 to fly 1,377 people to Malta to vote in the 2009 European Parliament election – €321 per passenger. [Cor look at that. €442,000. Now how much would a ultrasecure website with personalised codes cost the government to set up? Even if it were to choose one of its favourite website builders it would be a money-saving exercise no?]

A breakdown of the figures given by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi in Parliament in December 2009 revealed that the sum included €92,600 for the operation of extra flights, €83,227 in passenger tax, €14,689 in servicing costs, and €251,828 in income lost between the normal flight costs and the €35 discounted price. [I get lost in these accounting figures but how do they really calculate the tax into the equation? I mean at the end of the day the government does not pay itself tax right? So if the government commandeers a plane to get some voters over are we saying that it would charge ITSELF tax and that therefore that is an expense?]

The initiative has been described as outdated and costly by many who believe it is high time for the authorities to opt for easier and cheaper means to vote. [Hello? Is anybody out there? Sixyears of repetitive blogging about this charade? Six bloody years.]

Suggestions that those eligi­­ble to vote could cast their preferences at a Maltese embassy, or even vote online, have never been taken on board.

The initiative is often seen [By idiots and people with chips on their shoulder] as an opportunity for a cheap holiday for those living abroad, some of whom earn high wages in the European institutions, at the expense of the local taxpayer. [Now that’s a beauty – we earn high wages in the European instituions at YOUR expense darlings… sure.. latest count per capita is a little over €1 per year contributed by you to finance the pay of EVERY EU WORKER]

When contacted, a spokesman for the ‘No to Divorce’ movement said since everyone had the right and duty to vote, the necessary measures ought to be taken to facilitate voting by Maltese people living or working abroad. Pro-divorce movement chairman Deborah Schembri said her organisation agreed flights should be organised to bring people to Malta to vote. [And of course they would. How about contacting the PL and PN crowds eh? Do your Masters not allow you a comment from the idiots behind this scheme that makes our nation look like the Hamish of Europe (with apologies to the Hamish)? ]

Asked about the cost to the economy, Dr Schembri said that if the country had enough money to organise a referendum, it should spend a bit more to enable everyone, even those working or living abroad, to vote. [Wrong Deborah (and I promise I have nothing personal against you). The country does not have money to be spent on stupid half-ass, half-brained ideas. It should be investing in a proper system of voting in embassies or by post (at least). But hey… so long as there is the European Gravy train to blame…the PLPN crowd can go on condoning stupid measures. After all Stupid is what stupid does.]

In un paese pieno di coglioni ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011

Categories
Divorce Politics

Who will love my expats?

An article penned by Nestor Laiviera in MaltaToday (Cheap flight for divorce referendum still up in the air) attempts to stir the waters with regard to the issue of whether or not Airmalta will be asked once again to foot the bill for expats coming home to vote. It’s sad really that we have to go over this business every time there is a vote or two to be taken.

You’d think that by the 21st century we’d have voting in embassies as a given – at least on a Yes/No issue such as a referendum. We don’t though and we have to hear a number of absurdities based on a twisted way of perceiving reality. Here go some of “luoghi comuni“:

1. Airmalta should never foot the bill – if expats want to vote they can damn well pay for the trip in full.

Right and wrong. Yes, Airmalta should not bear the brunt for PLPN obtuseness but that does not mean that voting should cost an arm and a leg. Actually voting should not cost the citizen anything.  So unless the PLPN movement gets its head out of its arse and agrees on legislation for ballots abroad, then all expats (myself included) will go on “abusing” of the cheap flight – even if only to make the point.

2. All expats vote PN.

Another good one that. Rewind back to Alfred Sant’s fury placing on the parliament table a list of all passengers who had used the Airmalta flights for elections. They’re all nationalist votes he thundered! Many, like Luciano Busuttil, seem to believe that all jobs at the institutions are obtained thanks to some favour with the blue eyed boys (and are sadly probably hoping for Labour to be in government to dish out such jobs accordingly). Well – they aren’t. Most jobs aren’t anyway. Unless of course we are speaking of Maltese representations in Brussels in which case it is no biggie that they are full of people who would not cause undue obstacle to the party in government. And anyway… since when does political affiliation qualify one person over another for the right to vote? What if all expats are part of the loony right? Does that give the PLPN the right to suddenly cut them off from exercising their vote?

3. It pays PN/PL more.
Not this time it doesn’t. Given as how none of the parties have a position of divorce (have I told you that before) it’s irrelevant to any of them how many of us vote in the end. Of course I’d like to hear Joseph Muscat shed a crocodile tear or two for us the expats – it’s not about divorce is it? It’s about exercising one’s opinion. I want my frijvowt too! I mean what do the 2,800 youths have that we have not got? Scratch that. I EXPECT a little video from Joseph telling me how he is doing his utmost to guarantee that my vote will be cast because it is my right. Let’s hope he does not screw up the next motion in parliament either… a ballot in Luxembourg City Hall would do nicely thank you very much. As would one in London, Brussels and probably Paris and Frankfurt. Go ahead Joseph… fight for my rights to say Yay!

 

Categories
Divorce Politics

Fault Li(n)es

Distractions, attractions and more. How easily we get waylaid by some mountainous pile of bull conjured up by the PLPN charade. Here’s the two videos made by both sides – each laying the blame squarely at the foot of the other with regards to the disenfranchised 2,800. They must both be seeing this issue as manna falling from heaven… yet another distraction to add to the referendum farce: all in the name of “consultation”. Remember – the real votes that count will be the 69 votes in parliament – and no matter what you or I say it’s the INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCES of 69 citizens that will decide whether divorce legislation is enacted or not.

PL

PN

the Beatles