Tag: Tonio Fenech

Categories
Zolabytes

Panamagate: Labour’s Fell Swoop

fell swoop _ akkuza

Occam’s Laser is a long-time J’Accuse reader who works in the financial services sector. In this article Occam argues that Labour is willfully muddying the waters over Panamagate, exploiting the concerns of conscientious liberals to further its own agenda.

The Labour Party is desperate. For three months it has tried to brazen out Panamagate, but despite its survival of various protests, no confidence motions and other crises, the issue simply won’t go away. Now it is hoping that by tarring the whole Maltese professional class with the same brush, it will cause enough of a distraction for people to start talking about something, anything, but Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri’s egregious misdemeanors.

This is clear from the recent PL attacks on Tonio Fenech and the private sector companies he works for, the attacks on the law firm EMD and its consultant Richard Cachia Caruana, and its general bewildering aggression towards any PN leaning individual somehow involved in financial services. What PL is trying to do is obvious; they want to conflate public concern about the disparate issues of global tax avoidance and its own internal governance disasters in order to dissipate public outrage. This is yet another of the PL’s dirty tricks, and the public shouldn’t allow the PL to wave this red herring in its face with impunity.

To start off with, Malta’s strategic decision to become a financial services centre is one which enjoyed (and below the surface, still enjoys) broad cross-party consensus. So PL is being maliciously disingenuous when it feigns getting its knickers in a twist over this week’s various pseudo-revelations. Secondly, while there is no denying the inherent link between a world order that allows international corporate secrecy, and the exploitation of that secrecy by persons such as Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri, the two problems require radically different solutions.

Regarding the problem of international tax avoidance, this is one which requires, at the international level, a global co-operation and a deep philosophical rethinking of the way the world works; and at the local level, a careful repositioning of Malta as a jurisdiction which adds value beyond its low tax base (this is already the case to some extent, but a truly well intentioned government could do much more to improve things). This is going to be a big, slow job.

The Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri situation, on the other hand, is a pressing governance catastrophe that requires urgent and immediate action. Every day they hold on to their position, they cause irreparable harm to our reputation, and indeed deprive us of the valuable time that we need to reposition and further diversify our economy.

Perhaps the most galling thing about this PL manouvre is the way it exploits the feelings and concerns of the country’s most conscientious individuals, those who genuinely worry about things like global inequality and corporate ethics, turning these noble concerns into tools to further its own ends. Worryingly, we’ve already seen PL try to exploit the concerns of the conscientious before, as with that other red herring about Joseph Muscat supporting gay marriage a few weeks ago. This is shockingly unscrupulous behaviour; the Maltese public deserves better, and PL shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 10 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Categories
Politics

Spies like Tonio Fenech

spies_akkuza

We are slowly getting used to obtaining information from this government through some leak or better still through foreign news or media. There can no longer be any doubt that Joseph Muscat’s government is anything but forthcoming on any kind of information – just take a look at PQ time in our snazzy new parliament to get an idea.

Major contracts are hidden from view and rarely tabled as the government hides behind feeble excuses such as “commercial interests”. For a government that leaps at every chance to speak of “national interest” this one seems to be quite reluctant to acknowledge the obligation and duty that it has to act openly and transparently in order to be constantly held accountable.

A stint in government is not a stint at 5-year periods of despotism. The mechanisms of the state are such to allow constant monitoring of decision taking at government level. Both the fourth estate and the opposition have a fundamental role in all this. We are getting more and more used to “Freedom of Information” requests by newspapers to obtain information that was being held close to the chest by government. Sometimes, as happened with the head of the State Aid Monitoring Board when questioned by the Times,  an ingenious technicality is invoked. Mr Paul Zahra invoked the obligation of individual members of the board to regard all information as secret and confidential. A pity then that the request was directed to a member of the board and not to the Board as a whole under the FOI provisions.

Ministers often hide behind “commercial sensitivity” to explain why a private companies’ rights trump those of the public to know the truth. So where does that put Tonio Fenech and his Google Finance Group? Sharing of data and information that would otherwise not be made public has to be seen in two contexts. The first is the context where that data and information ought to (and will eventually when enough pressure is put on the government) be made available but the government will drag its feet on making it available. The second is the context where the data and information is indeed classified.

It is evident from the official government reaction to the idea that information was being provided to the opposition that the first is as much of a worry as the more legitimate second. The concern that such information could “damage” government is only a concern if the government is not doing its homework right. If all is fine and dandy then there would be no worry that such information is made public. What we have here is a clear attempt at trying to tighten the grip on public information and thus an attempt to choke accountability.

After all this feeds to the government idea of “persons of trust” – read incompetent persons placed in sensitive positions solely on the fact that they blindly back Labour. This is supposed to be the reason why we should accept the Phyllis Muscat’s of this world – because they would never send data and proof of their hapless management to the opposition and the public would never be able to learn how their money is being squandered to pay the salaries of incompetent sycophants.

One last thing. I sure hope that the existence of the Google ring was discovered thanks to some error by those involved. Heaven forbid that the government’s IT division hacked into a private google account in order to make such a discovery. In that scenario we would be reaching the bottom through a new set of violation of civil liberties – all in the name of Taghna Lkoll’s Chinese Wall of Secrecy.

 

 

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 Politics

So it shall be done…

Simon says, Tonio does

The contest for Tonio Borg’s seat is giving us another very interesting glimpse into the workings of the nationalist party. Lawrence Gonzi believed that a contest would be healthy for the party, that still remains to be seen. The impression we get is that no matter how united a front the two candidates will show before the media (and the united grilling of Joseph Muscat is an example of that) this is a battle that has inevitably reopened old scars and divides within the decision making bodies of the PN. This kind of battle would have been postponed to after the election. Instead it will be held right on the eve of an election almost contemporaneously with one of the latest budgets in Maltese history. Did you say healthy Lawrence?

Simon Busuttil. The (relatively) young lawyer is supposed to be the breath of fresh air that is much needed by the PN. Like Obama he has invested much of his campaign in the concept of “change”. Unlike Obama he has a habit of hitting obvious bumps as his strategy unfurls – not the best sign for a future leader. He started with the big bump with regards to Franco Debono et al. The doors are always open he said. That made him sound like Joseph Muscat at the start of his leadership – a bit of a contradiction really because it is (Inhobbkom) Joseph’s openness that led to the PN criticism of his new team (cue billboards). It also turns out that Simon had voted against Franco’s interests in the original vote at PN HQ – which makes his appeal for inclusion sound a bit superficial.

Simon’s strong point seems to be media coverage. He is everywhere – and even gets weird boosts such as when (Greek PM) Samaras barged into an interview in order to tell a stunned Times interviewer that Simon is the best MEP. It is not clear whether the “too good” image of babyface Busuttil is sellable as leadership material in the future – I am sure the polls will help in that respect. It is one thing garnering votes on the basis of expertise in a field that has been plugged to kingdom come (viz EU) and another to suddenly become the all round politician – warts and all.

The latest forays by Simon Busuttil make a very interesting read. Judging by some media reports he seems to have been the first PN politician to give a clear indication of a time-frame for both budget and elections. Was this on purpose? Did he pull the carpet from under both the Finance Minister’s legs and the PM’s? It is no small detail that the Finance Minister happens to be his rival in the upcoming deputy leader showdown.

In the same interview on TVAM, Simon Busuttil told viewers that he was writing the new PN manifesto and that he had also written the 2008 manifesto. Where do I begin? Let me start from the end. It is ever so easy to own up for the writing of what ended up to be a winning manifesto. Nothing was mentioned of Simon Busuttil’s role in 2008 so why should we hear of it now? The only reason we can think of is for Simon Busuttil to pin the  medal of the 2008 victory firmly to his chest as being his own. Not that the manifesto had much to do with the victory did it?

Which is another interesting point. Does Simon really want to arrogate to himself the ugly baggage of PN2008? Did he form part of that strategy team that called the shots with regards to the JPO lies and the anything goes philosophy that lumped us with this rainbow value government for five years? What does that say about change?

Which brings me to the now. Simon says that he is writing this year’s manifesto. The most obvious reaction has been universal: so it’s not just Aaron Farrugia and Karmenu Vella who are late with their homework? And then a myriad questions more. Such as is this Simon’s manifesto? What about all the dialogue and consultation? What values will Simon’s imprint leave on the manifesto? We’ll need another blog post just to see the implications of this decision. One thing that we hope is that Simon is a little more creative with his slogans – from Obama’s “Change” to Sarkozy’s “Together everything is possible” there seems to be no end to the amount of leeching going on.

Also with regards to this point, the day after Simon had announced his authoring of this election’s manifesto, PM Gonzi sat at his computer for a Q&A session with voters in order to listen to their suggestions. Was this another case of Simon grabbing the limelight?

At this point we can only measure Simon by these “moves”. His novel, clean act might be just what certain disgruntled PN voters will look forward too. The danger is that it is a thinly constructed mask that counts too much on being pleasant and that continues to drag the PN into the field of ambiguity, much in the same way as Joseph Muscat has done with the PL and its non-agenda.

Tonio Fenech on the other hand is fast proving to be the champion of the old guard. His nomination to the contest was a statement in itself – getting 136 endorsements compared to Simon’s 26. The Minister carries a difficult portfolio to sell and is also responsible for the budget – which Simon reminded us that Tonio is writing. He is definitely tied to the conservative wing of the PN and is less of an agent of change than Simon Busuttil in that respect. In many ways, the vote that Tonio Fenech manages to garner within the PN council will be a clear indication of exactly what dose of change the PN wants. This is not only the result of Simon’s pitch for the “change” corner but also because Tonio Fenech has become one of the current government’s representatives of the “nothing’s really wrong” policy.

Therein lies quite a tough nut to crack. While Busuttil’s pitch seems to include an implicit admission that change is needed because not everything is right, Fenech’s pitch includes an element of continuity because “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. Insofar as leadership qualities are concerned, Fenech too does not cut quite the imposing figure that we have come to expect of the nationalist party. Often in his impromptu interviews (not Q&A’s on a paper) he seems to be unable to keep his calm and manages to lose his nerve and become imprecise. Nothing that a few coaching sessions with the right people might not fix mind you but a telling factor just the same.

Round up

Elsewhere I have described the deputy leader race as an irrelevant distraction. In many ways I still stand by my original assertion. I still believe that the real race for posts within the PN will happen after the election should there be a Labour victory – and so far the polls seem to point in that direction. On the other hand, the gamble that is being made on this race might turn out to be an interesting weapon for the PN. First of all it allows them to gauge the feel of their own electorate. By creating a battle between two possible alternatives (and styles) the PN might be allowing their faithful to do the talking.

The distraction from the real election that is to come is minor, granted, but a distraction it remains. And now we also know that the race involves the two men who are responsible for two very important documents : the PN electoral manifesto and the budget. There is another point that cannot be overlooked: the PN is parading its assets with this race. This hits home hard to the undecided and the garrulous. For you see, while Simon Busuttil writes the PN electoral manifesto, the PL manifesto is written by … Aaron Farrugia and Karmenu Vella. Tonio Fenech is responsible for a financial situation that is winning plaudits from the Commission and the EU – while we still do not know how MuscatEconomy will work.

That simple contrast is more than enough to justify the collateral damage of a bit of resetting within the PN before the big war. Everybody seems to be writing something at this point and soon it will be time to produce the wares. Scripta manent indeed.

Categories
Campaign 2013 Dalligate Mediawatch Politics

Men of the Moment

“We need a contest”. Prime Minister Gonzi apparently believes that a bit of competition would be healthy for his party. In a way you cannot blame him. The opposition is anything but good competition in that respect given how it seems to be banking solely on the concept of “victory by default”. Joseph Muscat’s schizophrenic approach (the country needs an election yesterday but we won’t tell you our plans because election time is not here yet) does little to force the debate down to practical terms and Gonzi’s team are stuck in an eternal time loop of the clichéd criticism (same faces).

We want a fight from our rightful parties

I’d love to have the parties trade blows on factual positions. Energy for example – not just highlighting what is bad and what has been done wrong but rather what will be done in the future. The same goes for a myriad other topics: water alone takes a prime place in future planning priorities – from floodings to wastage to the cost of providing water services efficiently. Health? Beyond the hospitals is there a concrete position on health care and its weight on the national budget? How do the behemoths fare on that. The nationalist party has been busy waving new “rights” in our faces – and depending on whether you believe new government appointee Antonio Ghio or IT Law Department guru Cannataci it is not clear whether we are getting this business of rights right.

Then there were the recent bandwagons such as censorship. Apparently it is dead and if you believe people like Owen Bonnici it’s thanks to the divorce debate that censorship was finally tackled. You couldn’t make it up if you wanted to (unless you were Robert Musumeci on a tautological aphorism generating trip ). The big issues lie ahead unsafely entrenched in a minefield of fence-sitters and conservative loonies. IVF, abortion (yep the big A), gay marriage, adoption by same-sex couples – don’t be amazed if we get to an election without clear positions on all these points in a manifesto (except for AD of course but they don’t count).

We want positions, we want battles over positions. Instead we get billboards. DWLLWGAF?

Dalligate and its leftovers

Did you notice how John Dalli’s moment in the international limelight petered away quietly? Oh of course, you will get your columnist in some agenda-driven papers trying to highlight the strength of the tobacco lobby or the weaknesses of some EU institution or another but in general terms Dalligate (now termed Snusgate by some) is unfolding into the two-dimensional issue that we had predicted early on. Why?

Well. On a European level Dalli finds himself with little to argue with. All his hopes seem to be pinned on a report that remains hidden from public eyes. On the other hand his random interventions before an ogling public at the height of the news items’ four days of fame have produced such gems as his justification of the use of canvassers as intermediaries for Commissioner business. That in itself negated the need of the results of the OLAF report becoming public. Put simply Dalli had confirmed with his own words that his modus operandi made him anything but unimpeachable. Ceasar’s wife was not above suspicion. We can leave the legal bickering on whether a sacking it was to his lawyers but on a political level Dalli’s way of working – though not illegal per se – was sufficient to raise enough eyebrows and get him kicked out of the Commission.

Does it really matter whether Barroso did it out of spite? Not really. What matters here is that Dalli (with Mr Zammit) left a door open wide enough to create the pretext for his elimination from the Commission. It will be up to his successors (and future Council meetings) to clear this messy state of affairs and to ensure that such situations are more clearly regulated. On a European level the pie is all over the place. A dark cloud remains on the modus operandi of the tobacco lobby, on the workings of OLAF itself, on the potential conflict of interest by some members of the Supervisory board and on the Commission (including its relations with member states). There is also no denying that Malta’s reaction as a state to the Dalli sacking would have been different had it been any other politician than the one who had burnt all his bridges with his own capital. If journalists could come up with probing questions about the iter of the sacking process then I am sure in that in the rear corridors of power a properly placed question regarding one’s own nominee would have been due.

After Dalli

After Dalli we get Borg. Another one. Was he a safe nomination? Well we can never be too sure. Let us start with the party/government that nominated him. The reasons behind the nomination are very evidently based on a mixture of self-preservation and priorities that put Maltese issues firmly above anything European. Nothing that has not happened elsewhere in Europe. Still they must be noted. I’d insist that the most ideal candidate for that position had been “burnt” thanks to the inability of the PN to control its dissenters. That too must be noted. Within Richard Cachia Caruana’s CV there will forever remain the blemish of a parliamentary vote that claims to de facto have found him guilty of having worked against Malta’s interests. No matter that the discussion and vote did anything but prove that point.

Borg goes to Brussels with a heavy baggage that no amount of excess fines can justify. His position within the ideological framework of the nationalist party has clearly been one of the hard-line christian democrat that stops just short of wearing a cassock. Although I would dare say that his views do not necessarily reflect those of the majority of persons of a nationalist persuasion (given the panoply of values that have recently been swallowed like a bitter pill for vote purposes) he still managed to throw them around forcibly like some latter day Savonarola. From the treatment of immigrants to positions on IVF, divorce and gay marriages we cannot really say that Borg is exporting a bit of liberal Malta to the Commission.

In any other time this would be neither here nor there – and this coming from a blog that still sees Buttiglione’s rejection as substantially unfair and legally incorrect. This is not any other time though. This is Malta reeling from pie on its face that results from its last nominee becoming the first Commissioner to resign individually. Even without the greens and socialists giving Borg a hard time the chances of some more pie on the face are quite high. Having said that there is also the possibility that Borg softens his hard-line approach on a European level and keeps his personal views to himself. The Commissioner role after all is about a Commission agenda and not a personal one.

The Contest

And after Borg? Well the John Dalli news must have been a godsend to PM Gonzi. As the nationalist party announces a protracted campaign for the Deputy Leader contest (practically one month including two weeks for nominations) you can see how much time can be wasted on what is essentially a pointless race. Yes, you read right. Pointless.As Tonio Fenech and Mario De Marco giggle away with reporters – “I’ll be your campaign manager” joked De Marco, “Madonna, what’s the rush” replied Fenech, prompting Mario to check if there was someone else in the room – you sense that this is yet another transparent time killing manoeuvre. Yes, this is the moment when the striker for the team that is winning in extra time notices he is about to be subbed so he rushes to the farthest point on the pitch before developing a sudden bout of walking-itis that would make for First Secretary at the Ministry of Funny Walks.

Suddenly the post of Deputy Leader has become the most important position in the universe and even the resignation of iOS6 responsible Scott Forstall pales in comparison (it doesn’t really, Apple’s turnover is many many many times larger than Malta’s economic worth). Previously this Deputy Leader business might have been considered an anointment for the future leader of the PN. Previously though there were much less strands and cliques within the party. Forget the thin veneer of a united face that is about as convincing as a Halloween mask designed by a three year old. This Deputy will be a deputy in any case. Whoever is elected will still have to face a new battle should the place for leader become vacant. I doubt that at that moment there will be any “power of the incumbent deputy” issues to deal with because chances are that “that moment” will be a time of renewal for the whole party.

So as I said. Gonzi is not lying when he says “We need a contest”. Don’t get all confused by the “we need a contest” bit though. The only benefit of this contest is that it is a welcome distraction from the “election today, election tomorrow” uncertainty and, if the rumours that Franco Debono is interested in contesting are true then there’s one hell of a distracted person that can be kept busy at least till the end of November when he will get his first reality check with the PN Councillor votes. (Last time round there were 818 of them voting).

Sandy

Hurricanes like Sandy really give us a sense of perspective. Battered by winds and water New York (and, lest we forget much of the Caribbean and East Coast) has suffered heavy damage and loss of human life. Reactions by Presidential candidates Obama and Romney just a week away from the elections should serve as a lesson to many politicians the world over. When in doubt do the most decent thing possible.

 

J’accuse will be silent over this All Hallow’s Eve, All Saints and Dia de los muertos. It’s wedding anniversary weekend and we’ll be heading to the Languedoc region hoping for the last of the sunny warmth.

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.