Tag: Tonio Borg

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
Values

L-Ewropa ta’ Toni u Fred (II) – In-* Tagħna

Mela Tonio issa sar Kummissarju Ewropew u s-Saħħa għandha prominenza kbira fil-portfoll tiegħu. Id-dagħdiha u skambju ta’ kliem bejn elementi liberali u konservattivi laħqet il-quċċata tal-attiża nhar l-interrogatorju parlamentari tal-kummissarju deżinjat sabiex ftit wara waqqhet fuq fommha meta għadda mill-eżami tal-vot. Tħallu lil ħadd jitnejjek bikom. Il-proċess ta’ skrutinju innifsu kien neċessarju u leġittimu – biss biss a bażi tal-pożizzjonijiet li kien ħa Tonio Borg meta kien għadu politiku f’Malta. Jekk wieħed jinsa għal mument l-ammont kbir ta’ informazzjoni bażwija li iddawret dwar il-konservatiżmu Malti xorta waħda jifdallu ħafna fuq x’hiex jagħrbel dwar Tonio Borg u l-potenzjal tiegħu.

Tonio jirrapreżenta element politiku importanti fil-qofol Malti. Huwa element politiku li inbena tul iż-żmien reazzjonarju demokristjan waqt il-perijodu tal-gvern soċjalista fis-sebgħinijiet. F’dak iż-żmien id-determinazzjoni u viżjoni demokristjana kienet tinvolvi għanijiet ċari li ma jistgħux jiġu sempliċement diminwiti fi kristallizzazzjoni tas-suq ħieles u liberta. Xogħol, ġustizzja, liberta u ftit wara solidarjeta ma kienux għadhom saru il-munita dgħajfa jew “catchwords” li drajna bihom illum. Kienu sisien sodi għal pjan soċjali ġdid wara l-falliment tas-soċjaliżmu a-la-carte Mintoffjan. Kellha tkun soċjeta illi wieħed iħossu kburi li jifforma parti minnha u li jista jaspira għal (kwalita ta) ħajja aħjar.

Tonio kellu sehem f’dak il-moviment. Dak il-moviment wasal biex għaraf ir-rieda (u l-bżonn) ta’ sħubija fil-proġett Ewropew u kien parti fondamentali (iżda mhux unika) sabiex din il-ħolma isseħħ. Post Malta fl-Ewropa, ma’ l-Ewropej. Ma kienx hemm dubju. Issa u mhux imbagħad. Fuq dak ma kienx hemm dubju lanqas. Imma l-ġgant tal-libertajiet qisu tnikker u ddewwed u mal-ewwel ħjiel ta’ diskors usa’, mal-ewwel bżonn ta’ elaborazzjoni tal-għanijiet soċjali sabiex il-“just society” tolqot iktar nies u drittijiet – qisu bħal donnu beża. U kellna l-ewwel trasformazzjoni. Minn ġo Malta imsieħba fl-Ewropa żammejna sod ma “tradizzjonijiet” u “valuri” Maltin mingħajr ma azzardajna inħarsu jekk kellhomx bżonn xi aġġornament.

Il-partit li jridha li xpruna il-poplu fl-Ewropa sar l-istess wieħed li tella barrieri u ħitan biex mhux l-Ewropa kollha tidħol għax mhux kollox jgħodd. Għalhekk Tonio ma ħeliex wisq ħin qabel ma beda jikkwota trattati u eċċezzjonijiet. “Iva” stħajjiltu jgħidilhom, “ħaddanna l-Ewropa imma l-ewwel u qabel kollox inħaddnu l-prinċipji tagħna… erm tiegħi”. Hekk qalilhom fil-fatt. Hemm kompetenzi u kompetenzi u mhux kull ma hu fl-Ewropa se jidħol f’Malta. U din kienet tweġġa aktar minn kull metamorfosi li seta’ kien hemm bejn Tonio ta’ Malta għal Tonio ta’ l-Ewropa.

Tweġġa’ għax kienet ammissjoni fil-miftuħ li l-mod ta’ kif il-ġenerazzjoni reazzjonarja tas-sebgħinijiet qiegħdin jiffaċċaw il-pass li jmiss huwa wieħed difensiv u magħluq. Malta tagħna u timxi bil-pass li rridu aħna. Ma hemmx diskussjoni. Ma hemmx ftuħ għal utopja ta’ djalogu u sinteżi ta’ ideat. Tiftakruha l-Ewropa ta’ Kajjin u Abel? Kajjin u Abel ilhom li telqu… imma minflokhom għandna l-Ewropa ta’ Malta u l-Ewropa l-oħra.

Tonio komdu jiffirma li se joqgħod għal li jgħidulu – anki jekk b’xi mod tmur kontra l-kuxjenza u valuri tiegħu stess. Kellu jiffirma inkella kien jibqagħlu dubju jgħadduħx fil-klabb tal-Ewropej. Eddie Fenech Adami – missier id-demokristjani reazzjonarji tat-tmeninijiet qallu li kieku ma kienx jiffirma. Kien ikun iktar konsistenti Eddie – għallinqas hekk naħsbu aħna. Għax Tonio b’għemilu u b’ħidmietu baqa jsaħħaħ l-inkwiet li għandna. Li verament għandna żewġ “Ewropa” – dik tal-Maltin u dik li Tonio tant ħabrek biex daħal fiha issa.

 

Categories
Euroland Values

L-Ewropa ta’ Toni u Fred (I)

Xtaqt nibda billi inkellimkom dwar Tariq Ramadan. Huwa doċenti universitarju ġewwa l-universita ta’ Oxford fejn huwa professur ta’ l-istudji iżlamiċi kontemporanji (Kulleġġ ta’ St Antony ġewwa l-istitut ta’ l-istudji orjentali). Ramadan ma hux biss professur universitarju għax hu ukoll persunalita medjatika bi preżenza qawwijja fuq il-mezzi tax-xandir dinjija (mis-CNN sa Al-Jazeera sa TV Iranjani) fejn sikwit ikun preżenti jiddiskuti l-islam fis-soċjeta kontemporanja – b’mod partikolari fis-soċjeta ewropea.  Ħafna misilmin Ewropej iħossu li Ramadan huwa rappreżentant den tal-kawżi u drittijiet tagħhom.

Jekk tfittex ismu fuq youtube issib ħafna interventi tiegħu f’dibattiti u programmi televiżivi u personalment insib li huwa tajjeb li wieħed josserva dawn l-interventi tiegħu biex ikollok perspettiva differenti ta’ kif persuna ta’ twemmin li ma hix nisranija (s’issa t-twemmin dominanti Ewropew) tħabbat wiċċa ma sitwazzjonijiet fejn il-prinċipji, valuri u morali tagħha ikollhom jinsiltu minn ġo soċjeta li trid jew ma tridx kull ma jmur qed issir iktar u iktar eteroġeneja. Ara per eżempju dan il-vidjo qasir:

F’sens liberal-demokratiku ma tistax ma taqbilx mal-konklużjoni kemmxejn relativista ta’ Ramadan. “Live and let live” tinstema soluzzjoni tajba ħafna għall-għawġ kollu imma ikun hawn min jgħidlek (bir-raġun) illi s-sinsla tradizzjonali tal-Ewropa qed jitherrew b’dak il-mod. Tħarsux biss lejn kwistjoni ta’ omosesswalita. Rajt lil Ramadan jiddiskuti l-obbligu tal-velu u d-dritt li nisa misilmin jilbsu il-velu anki fil-pixxini pubbliċi. Ħin minnhom waqt li kien qed jiġi interpellat b’mod pjuttost vivaċi minn ġurnalista qalilha ħaġa li għalijja kienet familjari ħafna. Qal: “Allura biex inkunu liberali u tolleranti b’bħalek irridu nobbligaw lil kullħadd jgħum mingħajr velu?” Hemm hi. Arma komuni dan l-aħħar, nasba li taqbad lill-liberali dgħajjef fl-argumenti imma ferventi fil-proselitizzazzjoni… bl-iskuża tat-tolleranza jispiċċa isir iktar intolleranti.

Imbagħad jgħidlek Tariq li l-Lhud kienu ilhom għexieren ta’ snin bil-ħinijiet differenti għan-nisa filgħodu fil-pixxini pubbliċi imma “ħadd ma qajjem għagħa fuqha”. U jidħlu elementi oħra ta’ tipi oħra ta’ diskriminazzjoni u ta’ tolleranza u l-kobba tibqa titħabbel.

Fil-verita il-kwistjoni qiegħdha f’għażla ta’ soċjeta. Il-kuntratt soċjali impliċitu jimplika qbil fuq tip ta’ soċjeta li trid titfassal. Diskussjonijiet dwar normi u valuri li huma neċessarji għas-soċjeta għandhom jitqiegħdu f’dan il-qafas iktar wiesgħa. X’irridu mis-soċjeta tagħna? Fejn hi sejra bħalissa? B’liema valuri irridu inrawmu lit-tfal? Jekk trid eżempji estremi issib kemm trid bħall-iSpartani antiki li kellhom sistema tagħhom ta’ l-ewġenika. Trid soċjeta li tindokra lil membri tagħha jew waħda li toħloq biss il-“level playing field” utopiku biex imbagħad titlaq lil kullħadd f’tellieqa?

Din id-diskussjoni (u għażla) ma ssirx biss meta tinħoloq soċjeta ġdida b’għanijiet ġodda iżda hija waħda kontinwa. L-irwol ta partiti politiċi u membri tagħhom huwa li jkunu katalisti f’din id-diskussjoni. Li qed jiġri hu li l-valuri u prinċipji tilfu l-importanza tagħhom u saru sekondarji għat-tellieqa għall-poter. Wisq drabi ikollhom isiru kompromessi tal-kuxjenza (jekk ikun għad baqa kuxjenza) u kull ma jmur d-diskussjoni formattiva – dik li ssawwar is-sisien li fihom titrawwem is-soċjeta ma hix qiegħdha issir. Issir biss metadiskussjoni b’dak li jissejħu “catchwords” illi huma tifkira imbiegħda (souvenir) ta’ żmien ieħor meta l-valur kien sovran u l-bniedem kien verament uman – verament umanista.

Diskussjoni ma hix ġlieda biex timponi jew tolleranza relativista li iddgħajjef imma proċess soċjali meditattiv u ta’ żvilupp li jwassal għat-tisħiħ tal-membri kollha a prescindere mit-twemmin u ħsieb individwali tagħhom. Allura iva, meta Tonio Borg iqum fil-parlament u jħeġġeġ lill-membri kollha sabiex “iħaddnu t-twemmin tagħhom” huwa mhux biss xieraq imma neċessarju. Imma dak huwa l-ewwel pass biss. Li tagħraf li twemminek ma hux universali u li tkun lest tiddiskuti, tinvestiga u tistħarreġ l-aħjar mezz kif bi twemminek u forsi ukoll bl-input ta’ twemmin ħaddieħor ittejjeb il-qagħda soċjali huwa t-tieni pass.

Dak il-pass kif se naraw ma hux ħafif. Huwa pass mimli riflessjonijiet, ftuħ għal ideat u iva… fejn hemm bżonn… kompromessi.

 

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.

 

Categories
Politics

So it shall be written

It’s a juicy time for pundits out there. Try as they might to feign boredom and blame it on the infantile tactics that were manifested via the billboard wars commentators cannot ignore that the pre-election has entered an interesting phase thanks in no small amount to the sudden injection of life caused by Dalligate.

Of pigs and men

Tonio Borg’s grill-non-grill allowed us to revisit the debate about liberalism, progressivism and values. The fact that we are on the cusp of a national election does not help most of the political parties (I say most because AD are quite at ease with calling a spade a spade). The final judgement seems to be unanimous – Malta’s political scene is not, and will not be in the foreseeable future, divided  along progressive vs conservative lines. The conclusion can be reached primarily because of the fact that party fidelity has proven time and again strong enough to trump any need to remove the cobwebs of value-ambiguity that the PLPN seem to be quite happy to nurture.

That your average voter does not think in terms of progressive vs conservative is an issue that is further complicated by the current battle raging about the true meaning of being liberal. It is as though the “real liberals” and the “faux liberals” cannot co-exist because of what are being described as the “wrong motives” of the “faux liberals”. A case in point is the issue of Tonio Borg where the “faux liberals” where accused of imposing their opinions on the Commissioner designate. In our view both sides are “sinning” of excessive zeal. On the one hand the “faux liberals” did fail to fact-check and went for the jugular without any chance of success.

On the other hand the criticism that I have just mentioned fails to consider that the main test for Tonio Borg is whether he is capable of not letting his personal opinions (those of Dr Borg) interfere with his work (that of Commissioner Borg). It’s not an irrelevant question and the seven extra commitments that have been asked of him only go to show how important it is.

They had to get them in writing, the commitments, because as the old latin adage goes .. verba volant, scripta manent….

 

 

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.