Wednesday, 3rd December 2008
New Labour, new politics
That Labour’s far reaching overhaul of its rule book has been a success is proved by the way the Nationalist Party has tried to dismiss it as an unmitigated failure.
This was the tone it set in its media last week and since last Sunday.
Of course this rings very hollow with the average, intelligent non-committed voter.
The more the Nationalist Party’s media machine tries to depict Labour’s landmark conference last week as a non-event the more the PN loses its credibility and the more it casts itself as the party which is embedded in the old way of doing politics. It is, indeed, simply amazing how the Nationalist Party is failing to be smart in the face of such events.
The reason for this is that Labour, and particularly its Dr Joseph Muscat, its young but definitely not a novice, leader has caught the Nationalist Party on the back foot with this conference. Just a few months ago the Nationalist Party and its media made much of the fact that the new Labour leader was not elected by the Party’s entire membership but by its 900 odd delegates who were described as hailing mostly from the south and predominantly male.
This conference has changed all that. The next leader of the Labour Party will now be ultimately be chosen by the newly established party congress which will be made up of the delegates and all those party members who have been paid up for at least the preceding five years. Furthermore, the delegates, 40% of whom were already female anyway before the new statute was approved, will now be more representative of Maltese and Gozitan society. Indeed, the new statute approved last Sunday ensures that there is affirmative action in favour of delegates who are female and youths.
These two new rules alone mean that the two points the PN used to cast a shadow over Labour’s new leadership and the way it was elected last June have been simply eliminated by the very same delegates whom the PN criticized as being outdated and eager to hang on to their privileged position.
Of course, there are many other new changes which amount to a total overhaul and not just some tinkering here and there to the Labour Party’s statute. These will all shortly be available in hard and soft format. Personally, however, the fact that an appreciable number of the delegates not only attended the plenary sessions but also practically camped all week at the National Labour Centre where they went through the draft line by line is futher evidence and evidence enough that last week’s events confirm not only that we have a new Labour Party but also a new way of doing politics.
RSS
Comments
There is no need to quote long selections from recent previous comments that readers can scroll down to and read for themselves in their entirety. This unnecessary padding only makes it more difficult to find the grain of wheat in a bushel of straw.
As I have said already, the murder of Karin Grech (unlike that of Raymond Caruana) could have no relevance to the negotiations regarding the constitutional amendments that took place ten years after the Karin Grech murder but only weeks after that of Raymond.
When you have no relevant retort please refrain from diverting the issue in another directions. The ploy is evident to everybody with a grain of salt. And please, please, refrain from acting as a father confessor to me - you are absolutely non suited.
@ Dr. Francis Saliba
This was your initial comment, quote............ – “as if he were accidentally hit by a bus and not gunned down in cold blood when innocently having a drink in a PN club!” Unquote. That was your way to make me look as if I was trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes. The accent was on my use of the term “tragedy”
This was my reaction, Quote “In my book, when an innocent victim dies I call it a tragedy. Karin Grech was not hit by a bus but I also term that as a tragedy. Twisting other people’s words to make them look evil is also tragic and sinful and no amount of bible bashing and quotations from the Holy Scripture would suffice the asking for forgiveness.” Unquote. I have already given you my views on Autobiographies and allowed you the last word.
Now tell us how I dragged the Karin Grech tragedy into this controversy as my usual red herring to distract attention from the fact that I have no response to the credibly quoted historical accounts by Guido deMarco and Lino Spiteri?
As everyone admits the murder of Raymond Caruana and its implications are inextricably tied up with the amendments to the Constitution - but Karin Grech's murder? That had happened ten years previously! You drag it into this controversy as your usual red herring to distract attention from the fact that you have no response to the credibly quoted historical accounts by Guido deMarco and Lino Spiteri.
"As to your reference to Lino Spiteri’ book, I read the book as I had read other biographies, I stick to my opinion about my perception of autobiographies without denying or reaffirming any particularly selected lines or chapters taken in isolation".
It seems that your opinion is always more valid than Mr. Spiteri's or other authors who were much closer to the action than you ever were.
No use arguing with someone who, when expedient, remains firmly planted on a fence.
I share your dissatisfaction with the level of argumentation especially your evasive and irrelevant dragging in of extraneous material to distract attention, to side-track and to meander away from the matter under discussion.
Quote. “December 5/6 1986. Raymond Caruana’ tragedy" - as if he were accidentally hit by a bus and not gunned down in cold blood when innocently having a drink in a PN club!” Unquote.
In my book, when an innocent victim dies I call it a tragedy. Karin Grech was not hit by a bus but I also term that as a tragedy. Twisting other people’s words to make them look evil is also tragic and sinful and no amount of bible bashing and quotations from the Holy Scripture would suffice the asking for forgiveness.
As to your reference to Lino Spiteri’ book, I read the book as I had read other biographies, I stick to my opinion about my perception of autobiographies without denying or reaffirming any particularly selected lines or chapters taken in isolation.
I don’t mind if you have the last word on this subject, as far as I’m concerned the level of argumentations here can’t lead us to a conclusion, more so with the use of insulting adjectives and innuendoes.
Quote "Dec 13 1986: PP Busuttil taken to court re frame up" suggesting that he was the author, not the victim, of the frame up “Unquote.
Maybe it’s your suggestion to make me look so naive and\or evil-spirited to dare suggesting that. The excerpt was a mere bullet note. How else would you have noted it? Knowing you, if I say that ‘• condoms save lives’ you would translate it to • condoms are heroes.
You must admire JButigieg's cunning finesse in these excerpts from his comments:
"Dec 13 1986: PP Busuttil taken to court re frame up" suggesting that he was the authour, not the victim, of the frame up!
"December 5/6 1986. Ramond Caruana's tragedy" - as if he were accidentally hit by a bus and not gunned down in cold blood when innocently having a drink in a PN club!
As to his version of events preceding the amendments to the constitution note his stubborn omission to make any allusion to the very authentic version of those memorable events as vividly described by the Labour veteran Lino Spiteri in his memoir "Jien u Ghaddej fil-Politka" Pages 203 - 216!
Instead of bickering and speculating idly about the manouvering/negotiating behind the scenes prior to the constitutional amendments Mr Butigieg should read slowly the whole of Chapter 22 "Demm u Sens" of Lino Spiteri's "Jien u Ghaddej fil-Politka". That should convince anybody no matter how stubbornly blinkered and biased in any direction!
Dec. 13, 1986 PP Busuttil taken to court re frame -up.
Late Dec1986. Mintoff’s Speech in Parliament (The moment of truth) (de Marco P.170)
Guido de Marco’s testimonial, in that, Mintoff’s discourse made it impossible for his colleagues to vote against the amendments, is speculative as the vote wasn’t taken during that sitting. The date of that sitting is not mentioned in the autobiography
In Jan 1987, according to de Marco, a unanimous vote was taken in parliament (autobiography p.170). Truth is that that sitting actually took place on 27 January 1987 and the vote was not unanimous as claimed by de Marco. 64 members voted for and Josie Muscat voted against.
In response to your trivia, when I spell Guido’s surname ‘Demarco’ instead of ‘de Marco’ my credibility does not alter, all the Demarco in our telephone directly are written thus and nobody complains. You are not so consistent either because you use different versions, ‘de Marco’ and ‘De Marco’. In my hard back copy its written ‘GUIDO DE MARCO’.
The proper way to write my surname is Butigieg but everybody, including Prof. Guido de Marco, writes it with a double‘t’.
The bone of contention is at which stage Dom Mintoff garnered the full support of the cabinet to amend our Proportional Representation system. My unequivocal statement was that the tragedy of Raymond Caruana helped for the cabinet to become unanimous and agreed to amend the constitution. The entire PL parliamentary group became unanimous while the PN’s weren’t.
The sequence of events vindicates my statement.viz-
“Raymond Caruana’ killing jolted the country’s to its senses ...In a way it also served as a catalyst for progress in talks” (de Marco’s page 164 Last Para)
Nov 1986 “Eddie sensed that Mintoff did not have as yet KMB’S support ,still less of the Labour parliamentary group and therefore felt it was not wise to accept a proposal that was not yet endorsed by the Labour Party”(de Marco Page 160) That was a conjecture not a fact.
Nov 30, 1986 Tal Barrani incidents.
Dec 5\6, 1986 Raymond Caruana’s tragedy.
This proves that he did not even inform his colleagues of what he would propose in Parliament. Of course, they applauded him, because anything short of that and a favourable vote to put the amendments through, would in Dom's mind, have been nothing less than treachery.
Your choice of mentioning the Raymond Caruana murder was a poor one indeed because to this day nothing will stir a Nationalist and the general public's wrath more against the violence occurring with great regularity then.
If you want to learn the truth about the MLP cabinet real degree of "unanimity" - claimed by Charles J Buttigieg - for the constutional amendments please consult Lino Spiteri's "Jien u Ghaddej fil-Politika" (pages 208-209). I am quoting that book solely because Mr Buttigieg would only accept as authentic the MLP version of history.
It was not some act of God "tragedy" that jolted the MLP cabinet. It was the insensate murder of Raymond Caruana inside a PN club, the subsequent failed attempt to frame an innocent PN supporter and the PN supporters determination not to be cowed by a chronic state-sponsored murderous violence. Learn to call a spade a spade!
Manouvering? Negotiations? Spot the difference if you can!
“The whole of Malta and the PN in particular came out on top of the behind the scenes manouvering!” Your opinion.
My opinion is that the whole of Malta came out on top after the behind the scenes negotiations.
The tragedy of Raymond Caruana (see Demarco’s biography page 164) helped in no mean terms for the cabinet to become unanimous and agreed to amend the constitution. With or without the acceptance of the PN for the neutrality clause Mintoff’s government was set to go for the historic amendment. The neutrality clause was a decoy, with his secret talks with Josie Muscat and his meetings with Guido Demarco Mintoff knew how the PN felt about our neutrality. Some were in favour some were against it.
At the end of the day, the united spirit of true patriotism prevailed thanks to our two main political parties. U mela bill ‘political blackmail’?
Re your last to Dr. Saliba, really do you seriously think that you are dealing with inept people here? Of course I do not know that the PN privately did not oppose neutrality but vehemently argued with Dom, How can anybody know that when it never happened.
Let me tell you what I do know first hand- In 1987 I was on secondment at the OPM reporting directly to the Prime Minister. From day one after the 1981 election result, Dom Mintoff was adamant to go for an early election as he felt very uncomfortable with the election result however he had an opposition from some members of his cabinet. Proof of this may be given by Dr. Josie Muscat who used to have secret meetings with Mintoff that caused him getting sidelined by his PN colleagues.
Politics is the art of the possible. The MLP was manouvered into accepting to alter the Constitution so as the enable the political party that obtained a majority of the votes cast would also enjoy a majority of seats. As a sop to Cerberus the MLP was rewarded by a meaningless equidistance between two major powers when only one still exists. It was undeniably a sort of horse-trading blackmail but it restored a functioning "proportional representation" to the democratic republic of Malta. The whole of Malta and the PN in particular came out on top of the behind the scenes manouvering!
The use of "Grudgingly yielding to political blackmail" may have been too harsh a judgment passed on the situation at the time. Bear in mind the despotic politics at the time.
Mr. Buttigieg perhaps does not know, that the NP privately did not oppose neutrality but vehemently argued with Dom, in private negotiations, against neutrality as a leverage for amending the electoral rules. When it almost appeared that the talks were headed for the rocks, the NP made a deal - neutrality, for the government to agree to amend the proportional representation issue which in future prevented perverted results such as it did in the 1981 election.
At no time did the NP succumb to any of Dom's blackmail, on the contrary, the MLP still thinks it engineered something of a coup when, in actual fact, it was cornered unknowingly and let through an amendment far more important than neutrality which the NP pretended to oppose.
I don't call that succumbing, I call that brilliant strategy.
“Grudgingly yielding to political blackmail would be a more accurate description.”
Who blackmailed who? If that were the case are the PN so weak to succumb to political blackmail?
The initial rules of the game were and still are the norms of the Proportional Representation system as entrenched in our Independence Constitution by a Nationalist Government without the vote of the Labour Opposition. When the rules disadvantaged the PN they refused to accept the results. In 1987 Labour agreed to amend the rules even though they had no moral and\or constitutional obligations to do so.
The new constitution (Republic) for which Mintoff preferred and obtained the vote of the opposition less six votes, did not entrench neutrality and non-alignment and, in 1987, the PN agreed with an almost uninimous vote for an amendment.
That is what the best democracies of the world call ‘a political compromise’? You call it ‘political blackmail’ even at the risk of making your own protégées look weak by succumbing to it. L’aqwa li nhammgu lill tal-Lejber?
@ J Martinelli.
“I am so grateful that you did not dispute anything in Prof. DeMarco’s autobiography. Your 'interpretation' of certain events is irrelevant. There should be no interpretation of history, otherwise history may be classified the same as fiction.”
Auto biographers face the concept of history and history cannot be treated without regarding facts. To develop a good argument a writer would describe the concrete point at which something absolute appears in history and provides it with meaning and purpose; and this is the central problem with the philosophy of history. Manuel Dimech is a real figure in our history, for many years our historians regarded him as a ruffian and now other historians have put him on the altar of Maltese patriots. Which version is fact and which one is fiction?
“It was a case (not widely known) that the NP settled for the inclusion of the neutrality and non-alignment clause in the Constitution in return for the amendment in the electoral procedures.”
Josie Muscat was the only MP who voted against the constitutional amendment solely because he was against ‘the compromise’ and that fact, contrary to what you asserted, is widely known.
I admire your euphemistic allusion to the PN "settling for the inclusion" of the clause about Malta's neutrality and non-alignment in return for an amendment ensuring rule by the party obtaining an absolute majority of No 1 votes. Grudgingly yielding to political blackmail would be a more accurate description.
I am so grateful that you did not dispute anything in Prof. deMarco's autobiography. Your 'interpretation' of certain events is irrelevant. There should be no interpretation of history, otherwise history may be classified the same as fiction.
I suggested that one reads this book, because in it one finds how through intense and prolonged discussions between Prof. deMarco and Dom Mintoff a compromise was reached regarding the election of government based on number one votes. It was a case (not widely known) that the NP settled for the inclusion of the neutrality and non-alignment clause in the Constitution in return for the amendment in the electoral procedures.
That was the only issue I was concerned with. Why you are now trying to dilute the issue by venturing into other matters is beyond me.
I have read your other comments in Maltese on ABC's blog. That is another unrelated issue full of conjectures ala CJB.
I bought Demarco’s Autobiography and read it cover to cover. Demarco is a respected politician but still a politician with his perception and interpretations of ‘historical facts’ I am not here to discredit Profs Demarco however people like me are not that stupid to accept all the content of any autobiography as ‘known facts’.
To people like you unanimity or almost unanimity on the George Abela’s nomination exist within Gonzipn. You would also put it in the category of ‘known facts’ ironically, now other people like you and people like me, have a totally different version of the ‘known facts’
‘.I invite you and people like you to read my last posting (in Maltese) on ABC blog and try to dispute that version of ‘known facts’
‘Known facts’ are believed to be true or real by some and disputed by others
How the Constitution was amended to reflect the present version can easily be determined by reading President Emeritus Prof. Guido deMarco's autobiography, 'The Politics of Persuasion' as he was directly involved in negotiations with Dom Mintoff.
For a mere twenty euros you could end a dispute and certain misconceptions can be straightened out.
Besides, it is a good book and gives a great insight on how Socialist governments did business in the 70s and 80s. No wonder the LP wishes to bury the past.
I expect someone like Charles to deny known facts.
Simple question:Does the PN and its followers believe in this?
Simple answer:NO THEY DO NOT! They accept that only when it goes in their advantage as you just wrote!
That is why people like you, who are so biased, deaf and blind, can never be credible when they write what you just did.
@ C J Buttigieg .... I totally agree on your perception of truth and facts.
Can you see how such persons argue a point with so much twisted facts and so much biased misinterpretions, that are so far away from the truth?! Can you see that J Vella and his likes have a devious way of changing facts and truth to their advantage? It is amazing how they change their tunes and their songs accordingly. Imsieken hux!
The single transferable vote, our system, distributes the cast votes equitably and always equates to a perfect proportion of votes against seats but only in that particular district. Nationwide, when you add up together the used and the surplus votes on each district, it may normally, and not perversely, result in the group which garnered less votes nationwide obtain more seats nationwide. This happens everywhere and that result is accepted and considered democratic.
If you consider Malta as a district and EU as one country, you would get a classical example as our MEPs get elected with much fewer votes than their colleagues in the EU Parliament and yet we get five MEPs.
The 1981 result was typical and although the proportional representation system was entrenched in our Independence Constitution, EFA and his PN refused to accept.
The 1987 amendment bastardised the system and now we have a unique ( not so sure) system,a hybrid of the Proportional representation and something else.
The Proportional Representation system is a category of electoral formulas aimed at a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates obtain in elections and the percentage of seats they receive. This is a democratic principle rather than an electoral system in itself. It is often contrasted to plurality voting systems, where disproportional seat distribution results from the division of voters into multiple electoral districts.
Various forms of proportional representation exist, such as party-list proportional representation, where the groups correspond directly with candidate lists as usually given by political parties. Within this form a further distinction can be made depending on whether or not a voter can influence the election of candidates within a party list (open list and closed list respectively). Another kind of electoral system covered with the term proportional representation is our system, the Single Transferable Vote, which, in turn, does not depend on the existence of political parties; it is entirely left up to the voters themselves. (Cross party voting)
"@ Joe vella & Bertie O’Cassey … please try to re-read what I wrote and once again do not jump to wrong conclusions! I NEVER WROTE that the MLP had any right to govern or anything in that sense!"
Mr. Muscat, I never said that you did.
I believe it is you who haven't comprehended what I wrote. The Constitution clearly states that the Party who gets the most "First Preference Votes" gets to Govern. Plain and simple.
For what you are preaching to happen, where one party is guaranteed to achieve the absolute majority, there has to be only TWO PARTIES contesting the election. I am sure that you are not preaching that we should have a TWO PARTY SYSTEM in Malta to ensure every time one of the parties is guaranteed the absolute majority.
So Mr. Muscat, there is nothing pervert about last election result.
On a side note. there are Countries where the Governing party obtains even less then 40% of the popular vote. Such countries, like the UK and Canada, have in place "First Past the POLL' system of electing an MP.
Truth & Facts speak for themselves no matter how both of you try to twist them. As I wrote THE MINORITY ADMINSTRATION IS IMPOSING ITS WILL & WHIMS on the MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORATE! You and no one can ever challenge that.
Once gain new changes must be made to our constitution not to have another pervert result as we had at last general election. Of course, you are too biased to accept the truth.
Finally Joe Vella wrote : “Very simple Mr. Muscat. It is in white and read in the Constitution.” Then I was right is saying that for you and your likes “ that was is good for the goose is not good for the gander!!”
What a shame on both!
@ Muscat Peter
Peter you are wasting your time. The popular vote was, still is and would always be the determining factor but you need to manipulate it effectively. The proportional representation system can never, repeat can never, give a straight forward result to allow the majority of votes elect the majority of seats with or without gerrymandering because it was not designed for that. Thanks to the 1987 amendment the system is what it is today and we all know who made the initial rules and who corrected their weaknesses. All our friends here are aware of the course of events yet some of them persist in a desperate effort to twist the known facts.
Just a reminder of gerrymandering at its worst form - the 1971 elections when the PN government was so arrogantly blatant that they stooped so low and provided for six seats in certain obvious strongholds to weaken Labour. In spite of a vote majority for Labour the virtuous PN fought tooth and nail until the very end to get the determining seat which made history. In spite of a 4000 votes majority Labour almost lost that election.
@ Joe Vella ... You wrote ; "It is the Popular vote that determines elections now". if that is so, can you please explain to me : How come we had another 'perverse result' at last general elections and as a result the 'minority' is imposing its will on the 'majority' ???
Very simple Mr. Muscat. It is in white and read in the Constitution.
The number of parliamentary seats that one party obtains is no longer the deciding factor in forming the Government.
It is the party who get the majority of the popular votes casted in the election that determines who get to form the government.
I see you are trying to pull the same stunt as Dr Alfred Sant did with the Referendum result.
As far as I know we vote for whom we WANT in office and not vice Versa.
So are you proposing that if (and this is a humongous IF) in the next election MLP get 48.1% and PN get 48% and the other 3.9% to other parties that labour shouldn't be in government cause the majority of the voters do not want a labour governement? as you said "what is good for the goose is good for the gander".
A majority for one party however small it may be, is always a majority.
What is good for the goose must certainly be good for the gander!!!! Give yourself a break and face facts and truths not whims!
Where is the irony?
Chic and Choc complimenting each other and oneself. How Ironic indeed
Any debate on any subject, to be civil and convincing, has to be a battle of wits - a contest, in which intelligence rather than cheap personal insults is used, a contest between different opinions. Sadly however when some people get beaten on grounds of logic they think that resorting to insults would weaken their opponent’s arguments.
When I didn't agree with his thinking I still reflected on what he wrote and on occasions found out that those arguments were valid. Wheter you agree with his arguments or not one has to admit that his contributions are very valid and i hope to see him back ASAP.
This is politically oriented blog and diverse opinions is what should makes it interested, personal insults, that are common here, should not form part of the forom and I therefore offer my solidarity to Mr.Buttigieg.
"...... I gave you a loaded argument to chew, is this the best you can do? I answered to your allegations and you had to come out with this? Show us your talents and try to debate the real issues."
Charles, You really did. let me see you mentioned Gerrymandering and if I am not mistaken you said that you have no desire to debate the issue. Neither do I for that matter.
Then you went on and talked about proportional representation and district boundaries.
See, your mind is still stuck in the past. Those issues are long gone. The constitutional amendment took care of those issues. It is the Popular vote that determines elections now.
But what really surprised me is that you characterised these as "real issues" and challenged me to debate them with you. If in your mind these are the real issues of today, I do feel sorry for you.
Why don't you look further down in the posts, and you will find an endless list of what the real issues of today are.
I need not mention any cases. You just did that for me.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
“ Charles, when I wrote that your explanations amaze me, I did not mean it in a complimentary way. However since you are so pleased with yourself, you may come to the wrong conclusion that you 'mesmerize' people. Believe me Charles, it takes much more than your half truths to mesmerize me.”
My pact has been made clear already, when it degenerates to this level I shut up. You may call this a defeatist attitude, I just don’t care. You want to have the last say? No problem with me. I debate issues on their merit and I care very little or none at all about what people think about me as a person.
Patti chiari amicizia lunga.
You defended yourself claiming that you left a little bit of my comment out by stating that ' I use excerpts purely as a point of reference' and that the text was available in its entirety for other readers. Very well, then why did you have to reproduce all but the essential part? Don't tell me that you were running close to 200 words since your reply was 180 words long. You had plenty of space to finish my comment from which you omitted the last eight words. Your intention was to alter the gist of my comment.
But more importantly, why do you not answer to the comments I made regarding the 70s and 80s definitions of: Transparency - Accountability - Arrogance of Ministers and Falling short of expectations? I could have added a few more but I chose to rebut only what you wrote.
Mesmerize us Charles.
" As stated before, I do not think the Maltese public is interested in what Charles , you or I really think of them . However , I am sure that the Maltese public would be very interested in what Joseph Muscat and the PL actual position and what alternatives they have to the Government proposals."
Is that the best you can do ? Passing the bug ? Will you ever stop going round in circles ? Mamma mia ..... !
'Perhaps.With one big difference though. Those that are caught are prosecuted, and not rewarded as was the case in the past."
It would be absurd to accuse Dr.Gonzi for a corrupt act commited by a third person just because the culprits tried to use his name and I am not that stupid to even suggest that. My point is that , in the past, when individuals were charging people money to acquire a colour TV, I , as a then PN supporter used to believe that the Ministers were pocketing the money but now I know better.
A bribe is a two way crime, when I paid my Lm 25.00 to jump the qeue and get my colour TV before others I was also commiting a crime and therefore couldn't very well go to the police.
Now that I publicly confessed my sins why don't you mention a few cases where, during an MLP administration , people were caught and instead of a prosecution they got a reward? Just who do you think you are to expect people to take heed of accusations that you throw in the air without substantiating them ?
“There is no discrepancy at all in the figures I provided you. For your benefit I even posted the link.
If you had bothered and checked you would have easily noticed that the 0.01% is equal to the 172 votes that the Independents Candidates obtained in the last election.”
I did not check the link, I took your word for it and your figures add up to less than hundred but that’s not a problem, the problem is the way you clasp at a small and meaningless item and ignore the rest of the picture. I gave you a loaded argument to chew, is this the best you can do? I answered to your allegations and you had to come out with this? Show us your talents and try to debate the real issues.
" Back to the past?"
Perhaps. With one big difference though. Those that are caught are prosecuted, and not rewarded as was the case in the past.
This is not the first time and knowing human nature it won't be the last time either.
Corruption is no longer an acceptable culture.
There is no discrepancy at all in the figures I provided you. For your benefit I even posted the link.
If you had bothered and checked you would have easily noticed that the 0.01% is equal to the 172 votes that the Independents Candidates obtained in the last election.
Mr. Catania, If you read my post you would have also read that I mentioned first time voters and the youth vote.
“Trust me my friend, I feel so strong in what I believe that I do not need to resort to tricks to mesmerise people, ..........”
You may interpret that I do not need to resort to tricks as my argumentation alone is enough to mesmerise people. HI hi hi. Go ahead hit me hard.
@ J Martinelli.
Since I’m waiting for Joe, your protector and protégée, let’s try to see if we can find a way to amaze you some more. Firstly however you need to help me out a bit, namely- How exactly can I manage to mislead anybody by a misquotation or doctoring your text when the full text of your contribution is already present for all to see? I use excerpts purely as a point of reference for other readers. An excerpt by its very nature is a selection of a passage from a longer work unless Encarta is wrong.
Trust me my friend, I feel so strong in what I believe that I do not need to resort to tricks to mesmerise people, besides it would be fool hardy to do it that way here considering the high IQ of most contributors .
Now Joe it’s your turn to be fair, please tell us exactly where you disagree with my explanations to afford our colleagues a meaningful debate; some I win some you lose.
Couple accused of fraudulently offering Freeport jobs.
A man and a woman have been femanded in custody after pleading not guilty to misappropriating 50,000 Euro from at least six victims.
A woman from Salina , and a man from Siggiewi , allegedly told people that they were friends of the prime minister and claimed they could get them employment at the Freeport. they then requested payments from their victims for medical insurance and specialised training .
Your explanations always amaze me. However if events as you describe them are as doctored as you doctored my text and so far refused to explain why, then your arguments reduce themselves as a heap of ashes!
The Proportional Representation system is engineered to haul a seat representation as close as humanly possible to the cast votes. It was never intended to reflect a perfect national distribution, that was done on a district bases only. In that regard it’s no different than any of the world’s democracies.
We now have a unique system which can only be called a hybrid of the proportional system and in spite of the amendments still gives perverse results.
The only system that would guarantee a perfect reflection of votes against seats would be a national quota system without districts like we have for the MEP election.
If you like to press on with this debate it’s OK by me, I’ll make myself available.
I have no difficulty to admit a mistake, you are almost correct in your arithmetic; your total adds up to 99.9 % which cements the fact that we all make mistakes. The fact remains however that the benchmark for democracy is 50% +1 and the PN didn’t reach that mark.
I do not wish to argue whether Labour gerrymandered in 1981 because that argument would get us nowhere but if you insist that the result of 1981 came about as it did with gerrymandering you should also explain to us how, in 1996 and 2008 when both elections were managed by a PN Administration, both parties got less seats compared to quotas even though the system was amended in 1987. If you want to give some infinitesimal clout to your rush conclusions you would need to admit that your precious and pure PN resorted to gerrymandering when they had the opportunity.
Proportional representation meant only one thing; that is the party that get the most votes should also get the most seat. In 1981 the PN got the absolute majority of the Popular Vote. Proportional representation did not work in 1981 for one good reason - Gerrymandering. The reason the Constitution was amended was to make certain that the gerrymandering played no part in the final outcome of the Election results in the future.
In my humble opinion, the fact the Constitution was amended is admission in itself that gerrymandering can take place.
Charles, also it will give more credibility, if the correct popular vote and percentage thereof is contributed to each Political Party. The PN percentage vote in 2008 amounted to 49.34% and not 48% as you claimed.
The 2008 Popular Vote break down is as follows:
PN 143, 468 49.3%
MLP 141,888 48.79%
AD 3,810 1.31%
AN 1,461 0.50%
Source: http://www.maltadata.com/np-total.htm
May I remind Ripard & Co of yet another pn-styled ‘democratic’ stance… the pre-1971 electoral boundaries! The PN had planned to secure SIX seats for districts believed to be their strongholds, and only FIVE seats where it believed MLP was more popular.
Dementia Mr Ripard, dementia!!! It can play tricks as much as it can serve well those who believe they can re-write history! History is not a simple narration of wishful thinking, it is the crude facts as LIVED by people who won’t easily suffer from dementia!
And, by the way, it was a Labour Government, on it’s own steam and IN SPITE of a completely destructive PN opposition, that moved the Constitutional amendments in the early 80’s of the 50%+1 clause!
Oh! Did I say “destructive PN opposition”? Remember the ‘Malta File’? The bombs? The threats? But again, dementia is not a sickness for some, it is a very comfortable armchair…
During 1981 and 1987 we had a Government which the Constitution gave it a mandate to govern with 49% of the people’s support, in 2008 we elected a Government which is supported by only 48% and is still considered democratically elected. A relative majority is simply an accepted principle to avoid national chaos because someone has to bring the boat to shore. But the hard facts registered that 52 % of those who voted did not want the PN to govern us for the next five years and, although we accept it as a democratic principle no brain power is capable to convince that at least 52% of the people are right chuffed with the presented situation. But we are democratic and force ourselves to accept it. No more no less.
Enlighten us Mr. Ripard- why don’t you consider today’s situation as an unhappy one? Could it be because, deep down, you know the PL will accept a democratic principle and wouldn’t create five years of turmoil and provoking violence?
A Country’s Political Constitution is accepted as the benchmark of democracy until it’s actively challenged, it reflects the will of a national absolute majority. The Independence Constitution, passed through parliament during a PN Administration, provided for a Proportional Representation government system with its strengths and weaknesses. Like the mainstream democracies in the world it provided for a seat majority in parliament, a system which also elected PN Governments and was never opposed before 1981 when it didn’t work in favour of the PN. After five years of rebellious behaviour by the PN the Labour Administration succumbed to the PN’s pressures. The undeniable fact is that a Labour Government amended a Constitution that was drafted, enacted, operated with and finally rejected by the same PN. And today people like you still want to deny those facts.
Just to enlighten you a little bit more on what I think with regards to utility rates and what I find justifiable and not.
I do not find any justice in paying for those who waste. Everyone should be accountable for what one uses.
Society should take care of those who are less fortunate among us and not after those who have no disregard to others.
The only Poll that counts is the one on Election Day. We all know what those contests have turned out to be.
In regards to the utility rates, just see my previous answer to you; or even better to my post addressed to Carmen Attard which I just posted.
I previously gave the answer to your question to Charles J. Buttigieg. For your benefit here is my answer once again.
As stated before, I do not think the Maltese public is interested in what Charles, you or I really think of them. However, I am sure that the Maltese public would be very interested in what Joseph Muscat and the PL actual position and what alternatives they have to the Government proposals.
It is very sad that it was the Social partners in this regard ,and not the PL, that really took the Government to task and provident alternatives to the Government proposals.
This can also be said in regards to the Government's White Paper on Rental Reform. It has been the Social Partners and the NGOS' that have provided the leadership and responded with proposals to the Government in response to the White Paper. Earlier in the week The Times reported that only now the PL is ready to internally discussed Rent Reform
Also, the Maltese Public would like to know also where Joseph Muscat and the PL stands on Pension Reform, Educational Reform, Public Transit Reform and a host of other issues.
It is widely acknowledge that the victory by Obama is contributed to the overwhelming support he got from the African American community and the youth/first time voters and not by traditional republicans voters.
Perhaps there were as many Democrats that voted Republican as there was Republicans that voted Democrat.
"... see how a government proposal scores with the public opinion, then jump off the fence to the side” You should have continued to the end of the sentence - "which seems to be the more favoured".
It is not what I was thinking, it is more about what you left out in order to change the meaning of the text.
Unfortunately, the younger generation does not have the benchmarks to make comparisons with.
I remember when ' transparency' meant 'open discrimination, unashamed beatings, and arson'
I remember when ' accountability' was the disposal of the assets of two banks put into receivership by the state in spite of their liquidity.
I remember 'arrogance of ministers' when 'under the table deals' including literally giving away land to friends of friends at the whim of a minister.
I remember when 'falling short of expectations' meant 'depriving the public of goods and services through bulk buying and restricted trading practices'.
Where was the consultation with the public (and the Opposition) then?
You are old enough to remember those days, Charles. Of course, I just remembered that the likes of Mintoff, KMB et al are still cherished persona in your mind.
Compare your life then to life today!
Your remark “Leave it to you to generalise. So you come to your conclusions based on this one letter?” proves that you never attack the messenger but the message. Well done, and, incidentally, you are also correct that the letter I quoted is an isolated case. I also agree with you that, “The difference is that the PN welcome such criticism because it makes the PN stronger. On the other hand the PL cannot stand criticism from any quarters.”
Now that we are in agreement I do not think that you would find much difficulty to agree with me also that Laurence Gonzi is, in a tangible manner, living up to his electoral promises and as a result the people’s support for his new way of doing politics had conservatively doubled.
I’m not so convinced about how to handle the current bread and butter issue, the utilities rates; perhaps you would share with us your wise opinion on the matter.
Keep up the good work as you are a great asset to our cause.
Have a good day, it’s wet and dull but the sun will eventually shine big time.
Will you ever stop going round in circles ? Mamma mia....! Never mind the reason why Sant lost his government in 1998, never mind who I vote for, never mind what Sant wanted to do,just answer my direct question will you - do you or do you not find a justifiable reason for the exorbitant increases in the utility rates ? Please please do not answer with another question , leave your questions for later.
There are Republicans for Obama as much as their are Nationalists for Joseph Muscat.
Leave it to you to generalise. So you come to your conclusions based on this one letter.?
The difference is that the PN welcome such criticism because it makes the PN stronger. On the other hand the PL cannot stand criticism from any quarters.
What were you thinking?
“First of all, there is nothing new about the way the LP (formerly MLP) does business because the LP was always after being popular before thinking beyond the tip of its nose. It is much easier to sit back, see how a government proposal scores with the public opinion, then jump off the fence to the side”
The Billion Euro Question.
“Dr Gonzi has always been regarded as an honest and caring man. So as a long-standing PN voter, may I ask him why are we not getting the transparency and accountability he continues to promise us? Why are certain ministers who keep falling short of expectations still muddling along? I, for one, am fast losing patience with the arrogance of ministers who believe they are untouchable.”
You wrote, "Joe would you believe that there are PN parliamentarians that, if it weren’t for their future survival in politics, they would cross the floor?"
Charles, I expect better from you!
Two things. 1. If you were right, the first thing they would do, until they decide, is to sit as 'Independents' and vote whichever way they deem right.
2. "if it weren’t for their future survival in politics...,". They must be smart, recognizing the fact that crossing over to the LP would diminish their political survival. By any chance, would the LP be enticing (against all rules) 'prospects' by promising them plum positions? Wishful thinking, Charles.
I would imagine that if there are any who are thinking on the same lines as you, Charles, they would be led by JPO, Austin Gatt, John Dalli, Mario deMarco, Giovanna Debono,.....
You would have to re-name your party, one more time!
It would make a nice movie script.
Charles, you wrote: "there are occasions when the Opposition agrees with the Government. If the solution proposed by the Government has wide support, and is soundly based, then it's only natural for the Opposition to agree". That is your point of view which on surface you regard as the LP's 'new way of doing business'.
First of all, there is nothing new about the way the LP (formerly MLP) does business because the LP was always after being popular before thinking beyond the tip of its nose. It is much easier to sit back, see how a government proposal scores with the public opinion, then jump off the fence to the side which seems to be the more favoured! Alfred or Joseph - it does not make one iota of a difference.
With regard to 'ex PN supporters who now support Joseph Muscat ' I can tell you that you may be correct, although not as many as you may fancy. I would also like to remind you that there are also many who were ticked off when George Abela was systematically barred from a serious fling at leadership.
Continued...
We all remember Jason Micallef's remarks about Dr. Abela on Xarabank! But that was not enough since the delegates turned down an amendment to the statute which would have given George a fair chance - only to be adopted a few weeks ago by the same delegates! Had I belonged to a party which operates this way, I would be totally embarrassed.
And, remember Charles that notwithstanding a scathing report about the last election loss, attributed to a substantial degree to Jason Micallef, he was re-appointed Secretary General by an even greater majority than before. So, I ask - quo vadis LP ?
Your party supporters frequently accuse the NP for breaking promises, irrespective of global change in circumstances, however they conveniently forget Joseph's promises of 'new ways of doing business' and of 'earthquakes' and then, what does he do? He reaches far back and readmits a bunch of discarded old hands the likes of A Sciberras Trigona an anti-EU protagonist, if there ever was one, and appoints him International Secretary!
Would that not be reason enough to many who leaned towards the LP to reassess their thinking and shifting them away from the LP ?
@ Joe Vella
Quote.”So what, in the rush I wrote "are". Instead I should have wrote "have not been". Most likely I wrote something slightly different initially and was not careful when I made the changes. SO What?” Unquote. In that case your sentence would have read thus- ‘As of today you have not been paying any drainage tax at all either every time you flush the toilet.’
I’m sorry to tell you that that would have also been incomprehensible. The term’ as of today’ denotes ‘with effect from today ‘. What you wanted to say was ‘up until today..... ’ which is the opposite.
Joe when we are on blog-webs we come across all kinds of items being discussed and the use and misuse of a language is not excluded. There’s nothing personal about the other person volunteering their own interpretation of slang or a term, on the contrary that is one type of intellectual debating. Nobody under the sun is infallible and even when we correct others we may be incorrect ourselves, that’s when debating comes into play. It’s wrong when one tries to find other mistakes in other people to justify one’s own mistake.
Read carefully what I have written
I did not take any shots at you personally. All I said was that I doubted if you have ever voted PN. I disagreed with you. I did not bother if you crossed the T's or not.
Secondly, you stated "thanks for admitting that Alfred Sant had to be defeated as one of the reasons was his intended introduction of that tax, shows your inconsistency, so now it's OK for you because the messenger has changed even though the message is the same"
I never stated that the Alfred Sant Government was defeated because of the drainage tax issue.
What I stated was that if the Sant Government was not defeated the drainage tax would be a reality today as it was introduced in the budget. We all know on what issue the Sant Government was defeated on, and it had nothing today with a a money bill .
In a recent comment you criticised Mr.Buttigieg that he shoots at messengers. Truly you are full of contradictions. Do you think I care about your doubts of my political sympathies? You leave no doubt of your loyalities, as a PN supporter do you applaud the government for the sinful increases? As to your remark about the drainage tax-is it OK with you that you are not paying any today and would start paying tomorrow?
Thanks for admitting that Alfred Sant had to be defeated as one of the reasons was his intended introduction of that tax, shows your inconsistency, so now it's OK for you because the messenger has changed even though the message is the same.
For your reference, when Alfred Sant was criticised by the PN he threw it back at them by proving that that tax was a condition accepted previously by them to get the required loans from the EU and the PN accepted the condition without considering its long term implications. The man we loved to hate was proved right .
This was your testimonial: -
“Yesterday in the Times there was a spelling mistake in the lead article. The Times spelled the word "Court" as "Curt". Just to show you no one is perfect”
This is the cut from the lead article of The Sunday Times you referred to: -
“In a curt letter sent to The Sunday Times responding to an article published last November, police said they had investigated the case and found no "breaches of the law".
And this is my reply: - The Sunday Times did not make a spelling mistake; ‘curt’ means ‘brief’. .... “In a brief letter sent to The Sunday Times.......
If the Opposition role is not only to be critical and to hold the Government accountable, but also to offer alternative policies and demonstrate that it is a Government in waiting, then why is it to date the PL have abrogated its' responsibility?
On the Electricity/Water tariff it was the Social Partners that not only lead the way but also provided alternatives to the Government on the issues. Where was the PL?
On the issue of Rental Reform, it has been the Social partners and the NGO"s that have lead and provided feedback on the Government's White Paper. We only heard yesterday in the Times that the PL is only now going to discuss the Rent Reform White Paper.
Opposition tal Gallerija. That is not leadership.
You lost me completely with your last post. You have problems to accept corrections but none to criticise The Times to justify yours. You’re OK Joe; the problem is mine for giving you the courtesy of an occasional response.
@ Joe Martinelli & Denis Catania.
It is true that literary speaking “ PN supporter for Joseph “ is a misnomer but do you deny the fact that plenty are abandoning support for the PN and are becoming ex PN supporters and now support Joseph Muscat ? My friend there are contributors whose names are not ethical to mention, that used to support your pro PN arguments and had now, voice ferociously, declared their admiration and support for the man I love and admire so much, and you do know who these people are.
I have personal friends who voted PN because of the EU issue and their disagreement with Dr. Sant, You would have no problem to accept that sadly however you fail to see the return of these people to the PL’s folds and the haemorrhage of PN supporters that are now supporting the PL - If that weren’t so why would you ask Denis Catania to remove his mask?
Finally Joe would you believe that there are PN parliamentarians that, if it weren’t for their future survival in politics, they would cross the floor?
Furthermore opposition parties don’t have the same resources as the Government and the Executive, so it has to work twice as hard to get the same results. The Government has access to government departments and advisers to form their policies, where the Opposition often has to go down different avenues to source the same information many a time when it can’t afford the cost.
The PN usually criticize the opposition and says it suffers its own crisis as if using the term “crisis” by the opposition to voice issues it wants to discuss is a curse requiring an ugly reply. The government is supposed to use some of its time to correct mistakes it has committed, as well as address people’s issues instead of attacking the opposition and ignoring its mistakes. It is illogical for the PN to repeat the same expression against the opposition saying it is suffering an internal crisis; however, it is natural for political parties and alliances to be exposed to fragmentations, splits and crises from time to time under the multiparty system. Otherwise, public freedoms and political pluralism will be meaningless.
The Opposition’s main role is to question the government and hold it accountable to us; it also represents an alternative government, and is responsible for challenging the policies of the government and producing different policies where appropriate.
One of the most important jobs of the Opposition is to constantly question the Government- any Government has to remain answerable to the public at all times, and the PL are putting the spotlight on serious issues all the time but you have difficulties to accept this big time.
A PL Opposition is not just about opposing the Government; there are occasions when the Opposition agrees with the Government. If the solution proposed by the Government has wide support, and is soundly based, then it’s only natural for the Opposition to agree.
As to alternatives, some erroneous measures come about due to a bad general policy or policies that require a general overhaul or a radical change to amend the potential danger and an alternative to that particular threat may not work when you look at the overall picture. Fiscal legislations are more prone to these difficulties.
If it was up to Alfred Sant, Leo Brincat and the MLP it would be correct.
So what, in the rush I wrote "are". Instead I should have wrote "have not been". Most likely I wrote something slightly different initially and was not careful when I made the changes. SO What?
Yesterday in the Times there was a spelling mistake in the lead article. The Times spelled the word "Court" as "Curt". Just to show you no one is perfect.
Once again, It speaks volume of the individual that attack the messenger and not the message. Need to say no more to you.
You wrote “As of today you are NOT paying any drainage tax at all either every time you flush the toilet.” That means that up till yesterday we were paying the drainage tax or maybe my English is not so hot.
There is no such thing like "PN supporter for Joseph Muscat".
Tear off that mask of yours!
You are right on your assessment.
The Social Partners lead the way on the Electricity/Water Tariffs debate. The Social Partners were not only critical of the Government but put forward proposals to the Government.
The Social Partners once again have provided the leadership on the Rent Reform proposal.
The white paper on rent reform have been out for sometime now. The Social Partners together with various NGO have responded to it and offered their feedback. Yesterday, we read in the Sunday Times that the PL only now are going to discuss the rent reform.
If this is not clear indication from the PL that they are abrogating their responsibilities, then I do not know what it is.
I doubt very much if you ever voted PN.
As of today you are NOT paying any drainage tax at all either every time you flush the toilet. Perhaps that what Super ONE reported, but once again YOU ARE NOT>
The facts on the drainage tax is that if the Alfred Sant MLP Government was not defeated in Parliament you by now would have been paying the drainage tax for the last 10 years. The drainage tax was introduces in the Budget presented by Leo Brincat and the MLP.
Most of the blame in a country's bad politics is, in my opinion, the lack of a strong opposition to whip the Government. A good opposition is constructive and helps the country polish its decisions, as well as providing a good alternative to the voter and a good weighing scale for the politics of the Government.
However, I believe we do lack some of this in our country. It is not beneficial to have a black vs white attitude politics.
When the market price of crude turned bullish the world airlines introduced a surcharge on fares to cover for the increase,Air Malta was amongst them. Our Government as well as other countries also introduced a surcharge on the utilities bills which kept going up or down according to the cost of fuel.
The price of crude is now bearish and still dropping, airlines had removed the surcharge and all European Governments had brought back the old rates of utilities.
Our man, the one who promised us a new way of doing politics also removed the surcharge but went a step further precisely to live up to his motto, he found a new way to make good for the lost revenue by outrageously increasing the old rates to a sinful level.
And to add further insults to our injuries each time we flush the toilets we have to pay tax, the infamous drainage tax.
You guys can debate the dual citizenship issue until election time but in the end you will not stop me from voting against the party which until the last election I always voted for. What was I thinking ?
Your assessment of Alfred Sant is spot on and I agree with most of what you wrote. I beg to differ in the use of 'vicious attacks' and 'some people hate him' and other pejorative terms supposedly attributed to Nationalist and other supporters of other political parties.
I can categorically vouch for myself and many others that very few, if any 'hate' Dr. Sant ! As a matter of fact, I suspect that there are fewer outside the LP who dislike Dr. Sant (the person) than there are within the party.
While it is true that Dr. Sant restrained the thugs, he fell short of a full purge which is why Joseph will find it tough to implement moderate policies since he too will have to start looking over his shoulders.
Dr. Sant's biggest mistake was to get into the habit of automatically damn everything the NP government proposed especially regarding the EU, the Euro, the devaluation of the Lira etc. So, if there is any 'hate' it is not necessarily aimed at Dr. Sant but rather his short sighted policies.
As an economist, his calculations were often off the mark. People expected much better.
Labour was expected to oust the PN in 2008, but the PN with its Gonzipn tramp card was unexpectedly returned to power. Labour blamed vicious attacks on Dr. Sant in the press; others said that the dilettante’s campaign also played a big part. Essentially, however, Sant’s leadership ended in failure. If I were in his shoes I’ll still be quietly seething at the way he was treated by the press. The "Not to be trusted” label and the PN demonising campaigns stuck.
Although he resigned as party leader soon after the election, I sincerely hope that he knows very well that there is always a case for attacking evil and he actually still has the time to be an activist, drawing attention to injustice in Malta and abroad.
Like Sir Paul Boffa, Dom. Mintoff, KMB and Joseph Muscat, Alfred Sant will remain in our hearts forever. Don’t ever forget that Mr. Martinelli.
Since you prefer an easy way out by asking the people to respond to my pertinent question I will also allow the people to judge the quality of your response.
@ Joe Martinelli.
Alfred Sant will always have a place in Labour history for the crucial role he played in transforming the party. He is also one good person, some hate him, and others, me included give him great credit, and say the PL owes him an enormous debt of gratitude for beginning the party's long road to changes.
Soon after becoming leader, he began what became one of the defining battles of his leadership - the long and bitter tussle with the hard left and the anti reform element. A series of expulsions followed as he tried to take Labour to the centre left but that was the price we had to pay. That happens all the time and the 1996 results proved the point.
Indeed, during and after the disastrous 1998 election campaign he was seen as one of Labour's shackles to inspire people’s confidence and he should have stepped down at that juncture.
The protest in front of the Malta Misssion to the United Nations was a classic exercise in futility. Actually had Dr. Gonzi been there, he would have probably joined you! If you wanted to protest against illegal immigration, you sure went to the wrong spot! A better place for such a demonstration would have been in front of the Libyan Embassy, or the Somalian or the Eritrean.... Dr. Gonzi, like yourself and most Maltese would rather not have the illegal immigrants land at our shores.
You are absolutely right - Dr. Gonzi is nice but you forgot to add - smart and experienced. So far, Joseph is nice.
With regard to visiting him in Toronto, whenever that happens, I would doubt whether I will receive any invitation to go and meet him, however, since I follow news on Super 1, NET and PBS, I can assure you that I already have made an assessment of the man and I agree, he is nice. In the meantime, I am waiting for some substance, but then, time is on his side.
If there is someone that profess to be bright star and have ulterior debating skill, that individual has certainly been you. You should be reminded though, that when one attack the messenger and not the message, it speaks volume of the that individual.
In regards to the utilities rates, I do not think the Maltese public is interested in what you or I really think of them. However, I am sure that the Maltese public would be very interested in what Joseph Muscat and the PL actual position and what alternatives they have to the Government.
It is very sad that it was the Social partners in this regard ,and not the PL, that really took the Government to task and provident alternatives to the Government proposals.
The PL should be ashamed for having abrogated it's responsibilities.
Meeting PM Gonzi, I seen him as being a nice guy. But my dad is a nice guy too, I wouldn't want him to be PM. At least for the nations sake.If I was a selfish man, than I would loved to see my dad as PM. In 2018 we shall see do I become a PN supporter again or do I remain PN supporter for JOSEPH. I hope I wasn't confusing.
At the Maltese club, we chose not to protest even though we had permits in hand to protest. We agreed with our non-partisan president of the Maltese club that this was a personal visit and not an official visit. The official visit was at the General Assembly.
Me and my brother asked him in regards to my brothers situation after he asked my nephew if he was a Maltese citizen. When my nephew answered no. The PM took his time and told hin the advantages of having dual citizenship. That's when i jumped in and said his Maltese born father isn't even a citizen.(I felt like pissing my brother off) Like I do to you. Than the PM told him he can apply for his dual citizenship and get his Maltese citizenship back. It was a nice conversation. He seems like a nice man.
So we both missed the dates. I should have checked the date on the invitation I received, but I did not. That's not the point at all. You still have not answered any of the questions I asked. Now I add another one. What was your reason for picketing the hotel and the Astoria Club? What were you trying to achieve?
@ Charles J Buttigieg
Your opinion about Joseph Muscat is well known and that is quite fine. He is your man of the hour and a definite improvement over past leaders. A year ago Dr. Sant could not do anything wrong according to you and your party. That is how political parties operate. They glorify their present leaders even if some don't always agree with his/her methods.
What matters more is that Dr. Muscat does the job of a leader of the Opposition at which his immediate predecessor failed miserably . Only then, true democracy will rule. Nobody is expecting Dr. Muscat to do any more than what is expected from a leader who is capable of putting himself in the Prime Minister's shoes before he mouths off.
Your mention of the US Marines reminded me of their motto, Semper Fidelis (Always Faithfull). Joseph Muscat is precisely that, always faithful to his Social Democratic belief. He was my favourite choice because from the outset I saw in him Leadership material, enthusiasm, foresight, tolerance, an ability to deal with opponents without creating animosity, a good sense of humour, a spirit of tolerance, an impressive IQ, a unifying factor, media savvy, suaveness, charisma...... but above all he has a progressive outlook which is attracting the young generation coming from all walks of life and from different political background. In short, the former absence of the missing ingredient to make the PL electable has now been rectified with his presence at its helm.
But Dennis I’m preaching to the converted, you are one of many that are seeing the light. Other former PN strong supporters, who until no so long ago used to be militant against the PL, are now contributing in The Times and other news paper criticising Dr. Gonzi and lauding Joseph, our man is their man too now.
“Now that you have lost your point of view” ??? People don’t lose their point of view. When people are beaten on good grounds they lose their argument not the point of view. And, if you think that you won the argument why do you keep repeating yourself?
I gave you another opportunity to show us what a bright star you are and to show us your talent and brain power to win debates, go ahead convince us that the new utility rates are justified.
I’m waiting.
@J.Martinelli: On THURSDAY Sept 25th 2008 PN Gonzi was in New York attending the General Assembly and FRIDAY Sept 26th 2008 he visited our beautiful Maltese club in New York. We had permission from the NYC police dept to picket his hotel and the Maltese club. At the urging of our great non-partisan President of the Maltese club, we did not picket his hotel and or the club. PM Gonzi did not come to Toronto until Sept 27th 2008. the outcome is you missed by two days and I missed by one day. I WIN.
@Joe Vella: As for you Mr.Vella I became a Maltese citizen in Sept 1961 after the nurse held me upset down, smacked me and I screamed.
MMMMAAAALLLLTTTTAAAA. MMMMAAAALLLLTTTTAAAA. MMMMAAAALLLLTTTTAAAA.
Sorry Charles I just had to go in for the kill. Like the U.S Marines.
Charles now can you explain what a great job Joseph Muscat is doing on revamping the PL and why a lot of people like me a lifelong PN supporter is throwing their support towards this bright young politician. Bridging the gaps and uniting the YOUTHS.
Same old thing.
" refrained from posting more than one comment on your debate and was hoping that that comment would close your argument, but you had to persist. Your categorical denial “Big fat no” is incorrect, a big fat erroneous conclusion."
Ye sure. Charles you posted more then the above post. Now that you have lost your point of view, you are asking Denis Catania, Joe Martinelli and I to move on and in the process you bring up the Water Electricity Corporation.
Frankly, no one invited you in this debate, and if you do not like it move on.
OK, you are on. The very frst time I voted in Malta was this past election.
Now, haw many citizenship do you hold, when did you obtain them, and how?
I quote you: "When me and my brother asked PM Gonzi in person on Sept 25th 2008 about my brother citizenship. PM Gonzi quoted he should re-apply"
And I quote you again: "This was not an issue that me or my brother brought up. this was something the PM Gonzi asked my nephew".
Which quote should I believe? The one with you asking or the one with PM Gonzi asking you !!?
Has anyone ever stopped you from taking space on this blog or elsewhere? If the subject at hand bothers you, just skip it.
@ Denis Catania
Are you calling me a liar? Do you doubt that I was in Toronto on September 25th? You are inconsistent, ill informed and pretend to have the answers when you obviously don't. You never answer direct questions undermining your credibility.
Where did I condone the burning of flags? Tell me where, I dare you. I just pointed at the fact that burning American flags is commonplace these days, and I gave you reasons why. But you continue to bury your head in the sand.
Are you comparing WW II to the war in Iraq?
With regards to voting in Malta, I can assure you that neither I nor you or your brother can since there is a residency requirement prior to being able to vote.
Sharpen up Denis. You just don't cut it!
Water Services Corporation, in Malta, just gave us the shocking news that the annual rent for our Electricity meter, with effect from yesterday, went up from Euro 28 per year to E 195 per year, an increase of 697%. The consumption new rates are too complex to be quoted while the extent of the new tax on drainage is still to be advised. It hurts more when one considers the fact that the price of fuel had, prior to the utilities sinful increases, taken a nose dive. And you guys are taking about the 1964 dual citizenship? Denis you should have realised what their real agenda is.
@J Martinelli: If you're the Journalist i think you are, you don't condone burning of any national flag do you?? When should someone burn a flag of another nation??
You ask me why 911 Why Iraq. Maybe because we protect the World??? Did you condone the U.S entering WW2???
What minister told you that you never lost your citizenship?? Maybe you got special treatment.
I just got off the phone with the Maltese consulate in New York and he told me for anyone who gave up his Maltese citizenship has to apply for dual citizenship in Malta to regain his Maltese citizenship. It's not a hard process, but it is a process. My brother born in Malta cannot vote in Malta, no matter how long he lives there. Unless he applies for dual citizenship or re/denounce his American citizenship and meets residence requirements.
Now I ask again: Pre Feb 2000 have you voted in Malta for any political party, while holding a Canadian passport???? It's a simple question(multiple choice)( A) Yes(B) No or (C) Mind your own business.
Denis answer my direct question and do not beat around the bush.
What citizenship(s) do you hold and how and when did you obtain them?
I never had to "reapply" for Maltese citizenship. That letter from the Ministry assured me that my citizenship was never lost.
I did, however, reapply for a Maltese Passport which I picked up from the Passport Office, in Malta a week after I had applied for it.
The short visit by PM Gonzi in Toronto on September 25, 2008 which I also had the privilege of attending was certainly no place for you to make such inquiries. After a short speech by the PM everyone pounced on him to shake hands and have a quick photo and I doubt whether he actually heard what you had to say. But that is besides the point.
This discussion about citizenship was initially raised by you in an effort to defend your country of adoption which I had criticized for its behaviour towards its own neighbours, particularly Canada and other countries around the world. Denis, we are receiving soldiers in pine boxes from Afghanistan. Canada was implicated a few years ago by a Liberal government, just to appease America in the pretext that it is our duty to eradicate 'terrorism'.
Continued...
Your country, you said in a previous posting, that with its defense network, also protects Canada. You however forgot that Canada gives continued permission to America to occupy Canadian land for NORAD and other operations. Please don't forget that Canada needs no defending. Canada has no enemies other than, by implication through American involvement! The Cold War is over Denis, in case you need reminding. The only reason why Canada gave permission for America to have NORAD operations here is because it was feared that any Soviet missiles aimed at your country would fly over Canadian airspace and any mishaps would have had dire consequences to Canadian cities. Also, I suspect (and it would probably be denied) that America, as it is known to do from time to time, intimidated Canadian politicians as it did in the 50s when Canada designed and built a jet fighter plane, superior in speed and performance to any American fighter at the time, called the 'AVRO', and demanded that it be destroyed including all parts and blueprints!!! Unfortunately PM Diefenbaker succumbed to American threats and destroyed every bit of this plane except those stolen and protected by workers.
Continued...
More recently, Denis, in spite of NAFTA, your country arbitrarily imposed import tariffs on softwood lumber, destroying sawmills and thousands of jobs Canada wide. After more than 14 rulings against America by world courts including the WTO, the practice continued until the present Canadian government worked out a compromise and accepted a fraction of the illegal tariffs imposed by your government.
Canada is like the proverbial 'mouse' living side by side with the 'elephant' and your snide remark about America's military strength being " endorsed by your leader LawrencePN" is of no consequence to the Maltese.
America is a great country no doubt, due to its size, resources and imported international expertise (what would NASA be without German rocket scientists of long ago?). When this 'benign' dictating country exceeds the limits of decency, then it stands to be criticized.
I don't see Canadian flags being burned anywhere but what about American flags? Why are so many nations mad at the US ? Why 9/11 ? Why Iraq?
Let's hope that Obama will bring back sanity and more importantly, peace without imposition.
My question to you Mr.Vella is: Pre Feb 2000 did you ever come to Malta and voted for any political party?? J Martinelli can answer the question too.
Renouncing and losing something are two different acts altogether; and as such, cannot be looked at as being the same.
I never argued the fact that one by obtaining Canadian Citizenship didn't know that he/she in law was going to loose his Maltese Citizenship. The fact is that the Maltese Government didn't know who these Maltese where,.as there was no exchange of information on this matter. For all I know, and most likely, there were still many Maltese making use of the Maltese passport even after they obtained Canadian Citizenship.
If one had to renounce his/her Maltese Citizenship, he/she had to make a formal request to the Maltese Government in order to so. In this case there is an actual " Action" that had to take place.
This is precisely the point, your bone of contention, (a reason for quarrels, the subject of a fight; a point of disagreement) got so gross that translated itself into a pedantic, hair splitting argument which in the end was an academic one.
As to your assertion that I would concur with you that there’s a big difference between losing one's citizenship and renouncing one's citizenship I have to tell you that I do not agree unless one had to be clinical about it. Allow me to explain- One may give up something for the sake of giving it up (renounce), one may give up something because one hasn’t got an option to get to one’s ultimate goal. In the latter case losing and denouncing become interchangeable.
To be clinical –the Canadian Government did not make it conditional for the Maltese to give up their Maltese Nationality to acquire the Canadian Nationality however the Maltese knew that they would automatically lose their Maltese Nationality so they were intrinsically renouncing the Maltese Citizenship. But I wouldn’t even dream of calling that an act of treason as was implied when these individuals were referred to as traitors.
Denis, perhaps for clartiy, you woul like to tell us what citizenship you hold, and how you obtained such citizenship if you hold more than one?
Charles, the point of contention was one between one having to renounce or loosing the Maltese Citizenship upon obtaining the second one. Denis Catania have called Joe Martinelli and others in the past traitors for loosing the Maltese Citizenship.
My argument with him was that those who acquired Canadian Citizenship didn't have to renounce the Maltese citizenship as Canadian laws allowed for dual Citizenship. Maltese citizenship was lost as Maltese laws didn't permit for dual citizenship at the time.
There is a big difference between losing one's citizenship and renouncing one's citizenship. I am sure you do concur with me.
@ Joe Vella
I refrained from posting more than one comment on your debate and was hoping that that comment would close your argument, but you had to persist. Your categorical denial “Big fat no” is incorrect, a big fat erroneous conclusion.
There was a period, between different times of amendments that when one obtains a second citizenship one would lose his Maltese Citezention, and not even you can argue that fact. Before applying for a second citizenship, the Maltese applicant would have known that he shall lose his first citizenship and whatever you call that it’s academic.
I shall not be privy to further comments on this issue and it’s mesmerising content.
The issue that was being discussed was whether those who obtained Canadian Citizenship had to renounce their Maltese Citizenship in the process. And the answer is a BIG FAT NO.
On the question of re-new or re-apply, technically you are wrong once again. The way the legislation was passed by the Maltese Parliament was in such a way that Those who have lost their Citizenship as a result of obtaining a Citizenship of another Country where deemed as to HAVE NEVER LOST THEIR MALTESE CITIZENSHIP.
It was not a question of re-applying for your Maltese citizenship, the process was there to verify that the individual met the criteria of the legislation. Once it was confirmed he/she were deemed as never lost their Maltese Citizenship.
I am glad that finally Joe Martinelli and I got through your head, and agreed with our position that none of those who obtained Canadian Citizenship had to renounce the Maltese Citizenship.
From 1 August 1989 Maltese law was amended to allow certain emigrants from Malta to retain Maltese citizenship. It was necessary to have been born in Malta and meet certain residential criteria in order to benefit from this provision.
Those covered by this limited exception were deemed never to have lost Maltese citizenship. In other words, the change in the law was retrospective to 21 September 1964.
From 10 February 2000, it was no longer possible to involuntarily lose Maltese citizenship based on possession or acquisition of a foreign citizenship.
A former Maltese citizen by birth or descent who had resided outside Malta for 6 years was automatically conferred with Maltese citizenship retrospective to the date on which they lost it. In other words, they are deemed never to have lost Maltese citizenship.
With effect from 10 February 2000, there are no restrictions under Maltese law on its citizens holding other citizenships. Dual citizens are entitled to hold a Maltese passport.
Hope this would settle your long arguments and move on.
Dual citizenship was severely restricted in1964 until 10 February 2000, when all restrictions were removed.
Any person born in Malta between 21 September 1964 and 31 July 1989 automatically acquired Maltese citizenship at birth. From 1 August 1989, a person born in Malta only acquires Maltese citizenship at birth if a parent of that person is a Maltese citizen; or born in Malta.
.In 1964, Malta adopted strict rules to prevent dual citizenship in adulthood.
• an adult citizen of Malta acquiring a foreign citizenship automatically lost Maltese citizenship
• a Maltese citizen who had acquired another citizenship at birth or during childhood was obliged to renounce that other citizenship before age 19. Otherwise, Maltese citizenship was lost.
@J Martinelli: I do live in Jersey "Jersey Devils"
If you don't bring up America with Maltese issues.Only when America has nothing to do with an issue. I'll stop revealing the truth on the citizenship issue. DEAL OR NO DEAL..
You are a little devil, aren't you? A scheming one too!
You defined 'denounced' in its broadest sense, yet ignored what your dictionary gave as the primary meaning of the word, i.e. "To attack or condemn openly and vehemently..." Your definition is listed last and no surprise that you would automatically renounce citizenship if you had vehemently attacked it yourself!
The definition of 'renounce' is: "To give up by formal statement, to disown...." So, I consider the word "renounce" as the preferable and more correct one in the context of your diatribe.
However, more importantly, when I inquired the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Malta about dual citizenship, I was told (and repeated in written form) that 'since you were born in Malta of Maltese parentage, you are deemed not to have lost Maltese citizenship'. If you are not satisfied with this statement which I recite from memory, I will take the time to dig the correspondence and quote verbatim what the Ministry had written.
So, please put the 'denouncement' argument to rest.. In any case, mighty America would not have revoked your Maltese citizenship, only the Maltese government has the power to do so.
Perhaps if one obtains American citizenship because it might not permit for dual citienship like Malta did. Canadian Citezenship laws always allowed for dual Citizenship, and as such, no one had to renounce their Maltese Citizenship. Maltese Citizenship was lost then due to fact that Maltese laws did not permit for a Maltese Nationals to hold dual Citizenshp. When Dual Citezenship was permitted by Malta, the legislation was written in a way that recognizeed those who had lost thier citezenship as if they never did.
Put in in your head that does who acquired Canadian Citizen where not required to renounce the citizenship of their mother land being Maltese, Italian or from Tim Buk Tu for that matter.
First of all, I don't know where you get the idea that I am against Americans, but do I have to agree with whatever they do and dictate to others simply based on their (former) economic and military strength? Are you such a 'yes man' that you bow your head irrespective of what your government does? Are you not allowed to express your opinion without fear of reprisal?
Every time you disagree with me you bring up the 'denounced his Maltese citizenship', bit. By the way, the word is 'renounced'. I have no idea what your point is but let me remind you that until January 2009, all Maltese citizens required a VISA to enter the United States. Almost feels that we Maltese were regarded 'security risk' travelers by the united States?
What are you implying regarding EU funds? If you knew your stuff: 1. The EU does not pay until the project is complete as per agreement, 2. Proof has to be provided as to actual expenditures and 3. Regular audits are made to verify all reporting.
When you imply irregularities such as you did proves to me that you are still living in the 70s.
I wish a new year full of Health and Joy to all sinners which means that I am not excluding anybody .
Since you are now an American citizen, shall we rely on your version of Malta's history?
The Maltese government may not know what to do with the immigrants which according to you amount to 12,000, as much as the American government does not know what to do with MILLIONS of illegal Mexicans and other Latinos who possess false documents, violate American borders and end up working at menial jobs with half or less than half pay and employed by thousands of exploiting employers. At least, in Malta we know who they are, where they are and legislation prohibits paying those working immigrants who have been given freedom of movement any less than the minimum wage.
The government receives assistance from the EU and the government would rather not get any new immigrants than receiving 'assistance' from the EU. International law prohibits a nation from letting refugees of any sort die at sea when within territorial waters.
When you talk about political history in Malta. Don't use facts from a Maltese writer. As only half will be the truth. How about the 4,000 humans living in tents and pre WW2 detention centers isn't that human right abuse. We have 12,000 illegals and the government don't know what to do with them. So instead of fighting for their freedom of movement within the EU. They keep them locked up in pre WW2 detention and tents so they can collect EU funds. THAT'S HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. These are facts.
Mintoff’s men attempted to murder three foreign Socialist leaders and Kalcidon Agius at Wied iz-Zurrieq, on two separate occasions Mintoff hired two Labour supporters to kill him. Mintoff tried to bribe Anglu Camilleri and Kelinu Galea to topple a legitimate government. Mintoff exiled thousands of PN supporters to Australia. Mintoff and his notorious gangs applauded the church while infants were deprived of babtism,Nationalists Supporters were being deprived of the holy sacraments and buried in the Mizbla. While Armies in battle fields give a dignified burial to their dead enemy. Mintoff and his gangs of shaven headed Catholics disrupted meetings while the churches bells tolled . When celebrating the election victory of 1987, Mintoff and his mobsters burnt down all the PN’s electoral billboards and ransacked a sizeable number of PN clubs....... And the list is endless.
Din kienet ‘Grajja ta’ Poplu’ O kemm kien mahmug u vjolenti il passat tal- Lejber u mimmli memorji sbieh u trankwilli bla ebda forma ta vjolenza dak tan-Nazzijonalisti Kristjani bojod u puri.
I’ll take you up for a public debate on past atrocities and present corruption any time and at a venue of your choice Sur De Martino.
In reply- the PN never burnt down labour's kazini, disrupted their political activities, tortured and imprisoned the innocent citizen, MURDERED innocent person, attacked the curia, law courts, printing presses, union's head quarters, and private residences, transferred 2000 teachers en bloc. Locked out so many workers...The PN is Lily-white.
On the other hand, the distasteful PL promoted the violent police officers to higher ranks, they transferred 20,000 workers on voluntary bases, they ransacked the home of Joe Debono-Grech and that of Tarciseo Mifsud, they murdered Karen Grech, Raymond Caruana, Wilfred Cardona, Nardu Debono. They planted bombs at police stations, at the residence of Laurence Pullicino, Bertu Mizzi, Major Sunny Grech and others. They sent letter bombs to Prof. Edwin Grech and Dr. Paul Chetcuti-Caruana. They used mental torture on Prof. JJ Cremona. They gave presidential pardons to Quiroz and Zeppi l-Hafi, Mintoff had clandestine nocturnal meetings under bridges with known criminals, Mintoff’s body-guard was accused of conspiracy to murder RCC and Mintoff declared the culprit as a man with good qualities.
“The government deficit soared to €271 this November, €71 million more than the Finance Minister has projected for the end of the year.
Originally, the government planned to end the year with a deficit of €68.4 million or 1.2 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. However, in his November budget speech, Finance Minister Tonio Fenech revised the figure upwards to €200 million.
Last month, when reacting to October's official figures, which showed that the government's plans had already been derailed when compared to the revised target by €43 million, Mr Fenech said he expected to reduce the gap by the end of the year.
He had blamed the derailment on unforeseen extraordinary expenditure on fuel costs and the Malta Shipyards' early retirement schemes.
However, the latest figures released by the National Statistics Office show that the gap widened further when compared to October.
Still, when this point was brought to the attention of the minister, a spokesman said the government would stick to its targets, pointing out that it is expecting substantial income tax revenues in December.”
And yet in 2008 the Maltese Public intrusted Gonzi and the PN with another mandate.
Perhaps you should support your opinion with some tangible facts that may mar the integrity of the people you named which may disqualify them from being a part of the revamped PL. Facts not cheap unsubstantiated vague mudslinging.
1. Anglu Farrugia
2. Toni Abela
3. Alex Sciberras Trigona
4. Manwel Cuschieri
5. Charlon Gouder
6. Jason Micallef
7. Joseph Cuschieri
8. Karmenu Vella
.
Excerpt from your comment: -
"New Labour, new politics", "Bidu ta stagun ta Politika Gdida";
What all this talk about new beginings if the past was so glorious”.
This is one act of your party’s past glory, facts not parole fil vojt :-
2005: A new way of ‘doing’ politics! Dr. Laurence Gonzi.
. The one new thing your party leader did in 2005 was to ground your party to unprecedented levels of disenchantment among your friends.
If in 2004 his decision to appoint his predecessor and anointer as President was taken in bad taste, with the Gonzi and Fenech Adami dynasties making it so obvious this was an exclusive family affair and fuelling much criticism from the ever loyal Nationalist pundits, the decision to chicken out of the Zejtun and Marsa elections in 2005 just antagonised everyone, from the remotely pale blue voters to the hard-line PN partisans.
Indeed, a new way of doing politics: Gonzi’s is possibly the only mainstream political party in the world to withdraw its candidates in an election so that it does not fare badly.
I’ll give you much more if you like,....just ask. I’ll give you documented facts.
1. Anglu Farrugia
2. Toni Abela
3. Alex Sciberras Trigona
4. Manwel Cuschieri
5. Charlon Gouder
6. Jason Micallef
7. Joseph Cuschieri
8. Karmenu Vella
Changing your name and emblem is a cosmetic change ! No change in content or substance at all!
"New Labour, new politics", "Bidu ta stagun ta Politika Gdida"; and many more slogans along these lines.
What all this talk about new beginings if the past was so glorious. With all honesty, I hope you get my point now.
The piece above is about the general conference of the PL and the changes to the party statute. If you look further down in the comments section you will find who started arguing about the past. As a moderate labour supporter I admit that the Labour party in the 1980s may have hurt many people but you cannot judge Joseph Muscat's party in 2008/09 on what happened in 1981-87!! In 4 years time we will have a change of administration in Malta, let's start seeing the positive things the opposition has to offer instead of harping about the past.
My name is Attard,Ms.Carmen Attard, please do not get too familiar with me,jien qatt ma kilt kirxa meghek.
'Nitlobkom taghdruni' was the phrase used by the former leader of the PN not by present leader of the PL Sur De Martino but at least you agreed that that is not an apology.Joseph Muscat made an unconditional apology for the PLs past mistakes like decent people do when they realise mistakes.I hope that you are not so biased to believe that there is no call for the PN to apologise for its past and present mistakes?
Mr.DeMartino the whole Nation will intone the Deo Gratias only when we take stock of the situation and all parties admit their past mistakes and start leading by examples. Your line of thought that what you believe in is sacrosanct and righteous and the other side is in the wrong all the time , would never ever bring National reconciliation. It does however do a lot of self inflicted harm to your own party's credentials and credibility.
Those who are mentioning the past are none others then the PL and individuals the likes of the Author of this piece.
Mind you, I do not think that they themselves realise all of this. Just look at all the slogans that the MLP and now the PL have come up with in recent menory. While you are at it and perhaps to help you out in your thinking, just look above and tell me what the headlines of this blog is.
Get it my friend?
I do not see any semblance to myself in the phantomatic version invented by you. I criticise when criticism is due but I do not insult anybody. Of course some people protest that they are being "insulted" simply because I expose the falsity of their "arguments". That is their way of chickening out and being "evasive".
Without realising it you have given yet another proof of your tendency to pose irrelevant and hypothetical questions instead of reasoned arguments - you will spot it in the last paragraph of your comment. It is full of idle and speculative suppositions. The fact is that in the Mqabba PN club shoot up one and only one person has been accused of multiple attempted murder and a host of other crimes.
You are up to the usual trick of attributing to me things that I have not done and then attacking the "monster" that is a figment of your imagination. I have never expressed any opinion about any need for the PN to beg forgiveness (for what?)
I did not listen to the obligatory Christmas messages from any of our leaders and therefore I am confused by your abridged version. With one side of your mouth you say that Joseph Muscat asked for forgiveness - a mere formality during the Christmas season. With the other side of your mouth you say that an apology would be a humiliation for the PL.
Make up your mind, will you!
The ecxerpt fom the DOI release is incidental, indirect and much too vague. The Dissett quotation "Wherever we have hurt people we have to apologize" is a carefully worded conditional statement that implies that the MLP/PL would apologize but not that it has already done so! I suspect that that is as far as Dr Joseph Muscat has been allowed to go by a powerful faction surviving from that evil period and nowadays receiving praise and recognition in the "new" PL.
If that is the best you can do then it is legitimate to wait for the cessation of the on-going campaign to deny, minimize and find excuses for the the MLP orgy of violence in the 70s and 80s, to wait for a clear apology in unabiguous terms and to reassure the electorate that there will not be a return to those methods if and when it is returned to power.
If one cannot face the past, how he can with all honesty face the present and the future for all that matter?
as to your direct and impertinent question, I last voted PN at that time when I considered them a credible party and I do agree that Malta gained a lot from a PN Government but, unlike you , I know that Malta gained a great deal even with an MLP Administration. Just look back to pre Independence and compare it with today. Did it all happen just under a PN government or just inder an MLP Government?
My reaction to your suggestion- "If i were you however, I would not be so sure that the PN's days are over " is an obvious one; you are not me because I am a reasonably pragmatic person and you would support a political at all cost. Malta has thousands like you, however it is thanks to the relatively few like me that guarantteea change in government when a change is called for, and we need that change now.
And you try to present me as a fake, do you think I care ?
Allegation of corruption: John Dalli had already told you who had falsely accused him of corruption and it wasn't the PL. Micheal Frendo was never investigated by the police and 'so on so forth" is not a plausible question.Lost files? When and which files were lost? Do you mean the Louise Galea and the Auxillary Corps Files? Can you actually tell us who killed Raymond Caruana? EFA publicly accused three people by name, why did he not process them when he gained power? There were no frame-ups, there was a frame up, and what did the police get for it when the PN was elected a few months after it happened?
My last Para was a straight question and a yes or no would have sufficed for an answer. Would the moderator object to that? What a naive excuse!With regards to the distasteful characters don't be so rush as none of the former leaders of MLP had to face the embarrassment of seeing one of their body-guards involved in a conspiracy to murder and jailed for traffickin drugs.
you have substantiated nothing .
I do not support any political party was my candid statement, not apolitical, there is a difference.
I wouldn't have been pleased to see some of the former MLP ministers in today's PL but there again that also applies to the PN.
I consider Vince Moran,Guze Cassar,Guze Abela,Alex Sciberras Trigona,Karmenu Vella,George Borg Olivier,Guido DeMarco,Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, Censu Tabone,Alex Cachia Zammit and a few others as stalwarts of our past and present political composition,Labour and Nationalists supporters would only half agree with me because of there bias.
Naturally you would find it difficult to understand my political assessments cause you belong to one school of thought and I assess different situations and different times objectively for what they are worth.I voted Labour when Mintoff was leader of MLP but I had no problem to vote PN when EFA was practically on a war path with Mintoff. Are you strong enough to vote against the PN when you feel that their days are over? I have no problems to do that but you would say that their days are not over because you belong to them .
Department of Information - Malta, Press Commentaries
http://www.doi.gov.mt/en/commentaries/2008/10/tim18.asp
"Other than the formal apology he made for his party's past wrongs, most of what Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat said in his maiden speech........."
Joseph Muscat on Dissett, TVM:
"...the MLP, besides the good it accomplished, also did the bad things in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Wherever we’ve hurt people, we have to apologise."
' Joseph Muscat,says D Ellul, has made a public apology . What for ? As far as we all know it was the PN supporters who acted violently and then tried to ut the blame on the MLP.'
At long last , we are now in agreement . Glad to see that you've seen the light too . Deo Gratias .
You base your arguments on hypotheses but when somebody beats yours you either respond with insults,be evasive and/or claim that the other person's argumentation is hypothetical. You are inconsistent and there is nothing hypothetical about my questions.
People had actually been shot at by other Christians in churches. Tal festa ta Santa Maria actually fight with the supporters of il-festa ta San Guzepp. Paedophilia within the Catholic Church in Malta has happened and is still happening and is sadly rampart in parts of the USA, this is not hypothetical - do you blame the Catholic institution for this?
When two or more people are directly responsible for a crime, they would all be charged for that crime.The test to distinguish a joint crime from a one person's action is whether the assailant independently contributed to causing the illegal act or had been given general or limited help and encouragement by others. I ask you -are you putting the Mqabba shoot out in the latter category? If you are you would need to prove it and have the courage to say it clearly.
Apology? You do not want an apology you want to humiliate the PL ? did you see our President's christmas message on TV ? As all humans do he admitted his past mistakes, but did he offer an apolodgy? He asked the Nation to be tollerant, To be reasonable with him, his verbatim phrase was 'nixtiqkom taghdruni',. Joseph Muscat did not mince his word "Nitlobkom tahfrulna" We ask your forgiveness.
But you would insist that the pn does not need our forgiveness.
JUSTIFY: Allegations of corruption - John Dalli, Michael Frendo and so on and so forth - result? False allegations, police inquiries proved their innocence.
JUSTIFY: Lost files, tampered with evidence - Raymond Caruana murder. - Did I forget frame-ups?
With regard to your last paragraph, I am afraid that if I were to respond, the Moderator will immediately remove my posting, however, may I say that the preponderance of past evidence, the harbouring of some distasteful characters, clearly points to one particular party.
There is no need for me to answer your hypothetical question about your imaginary PN "cowboy", or some disgruntled renegade PN supporter.
I would be losing my reason as well as my "sense of proportion" if I were to embark on a discussion on this, or your other fable of a non-existent shoot up of a church and its possible relation with the Pope.
No, I do not know that Dr Joseph Muscat has ever apologised for the violent past of the Mintoff and KMB era. I do know that Muscat did mention en passant and very obliquely that the MLP made some "mistakes" in the past. By no stretch of the imagination could this be accepted as some sort of apology for a horrendous violence that MLP apologists, ad nauseam, beg us to forget and to sweep under the carpet. Those admitted "mistakes" could very well have been the MLP's proven failure to produce a winning formula for winning elections.
If you can, please quote exactly, verbatim, where and when Dr Muscat made his apology! I would be most happy for any proof of that "apology" because I believe that it is a "sine qua non" before the electorate will be reassured. Until I see that apology I will continue to fear that Dr Muscat is still trying to effect a compromise between the faction that glories in the MLP's triumphant but violent past and the other faction hankering for an "earthquake" that would truly bury that horrific past.
As someone who does not 'not support any particular political party', why were you so prompt in justifying Alex Sciberras Trigona's appointment as the PL's International Secretary, describing him as an 'intrinsic part of the foundations which the PL is built on'? And furthermore, ' ...yes they are correct to be proud to have these political stalwarts on board'?
It is precisely these 'stalwarts' who destroyed trust in the MLP a few decades ago, so why resurrect them now?
You are right to say that the PL's hope is around Joseph, because that is who the PL have as leader at the moment and hopefully, sometime, he will form a government.
If I were you however, I would not be so sure 'that the PNs days are over'. You reminded me of a TV commercial about a brand of batteries which describes them as "...they keep on going and going and going" - just as the NP have been winning and winning and winning elections and a referendum.
Don't be so sorry for having voted PN - Malta has gained a lot from Nationalist governments, however, may I ask when you voted PN last?
Nice try Arthur!
Maybe you don't know, or else pretend that you forgot, that Joseph Muscat made a public apology about what was done during those years. No other leader had the guts to do it.
'He should give his advice to his party which after jumping too quickly to conclusions and making false allegations, always found out that they were proven wrong and their mud slinging was nothing more than an attempt of pulling wool over our eyes!' JUSTIFY
' Yes, we will wait for the Police report (?) and also the testimony of some 20 witnesses. This time, no files will be misplaced or evidence tampered with!' . The police report is already public domain. Sweeping statements are cheap, be factual and tell us when files were misplaced and evidence tempered with. If you know of any make them public and we will treat for their worth .
Now be straight....if a very prominent PL activist walks in a PN club and without any provocation from anyone starts shooting and slay 20 men, would you find any convincing argument to blame the PL for that? If it were a PL covert operation what good would it do to the party? Maybe you are trying to tell us that all Maltese criminals vote PL. Where is the beef ?
Apparently Bocca likes you Sur Vella or perhaps he is ignoring you. For your party's sake, please mind your language as they have a reputation to maintain. This is what you wrote.
'You daydream once in a while and write down something that cannot be substainted. As Dr.Francis Saliba stated, no one here is blaming Joseph Muscat for what took place in the '70's. However, one have to question Joseph Muscat judgement for bringing the likes of Alex Schiberras Trigona back, as International Secretary of the Party. One also have to question Joseph Muscat judgement on many issues that he diamatically opposed and now he has endorsed.The issue that Joseph Muscat and the PL have to tackle is that of credibility and trustiness.'
Substainted= Substantiated
One have = One has
Bringing = Returning
Schiberras = Sciberras
Diamatically = Diametrically or possibly dramatically
Now he has endorsed = Now he is endorsing
Joseph Muscat judgement = Joseph Muscat's judgement
Happy holidays
No truce for you ? Go out man and look for some solace.
Its Xmas .
'As for your comment about the Mqabba incident, again you're rushing too quickly to conclusions about what happened. Let's wait for the police investigations before starting to accuse a Labourites about violenece and ghosts from the past.'
You sound apologetic or at least defensive. What police investigations do you need to tell you that the shoot-out had nothing to do with politics? The whole sad story is about a scuffle between two men and one of them lost his sense of proportion and started shooting at will. It's only Dr.Saliba who is twisting the story to make it look political and we all know what his agenda is.
Walk tall man as you have nothing to be defensive about.
'The very recent shootup of the Mqabba PN club is undeniable proof that the ghost of the past violence has not yet been laid to rest and still finds those who would make excuses for it under the pretext of being democratic.'
Undeniable proof?What proof?Because you say so? If this cowboy were a Nationalist supporter or ex Nationalist supporter would you still put his alleged horrendous act at the PN's doorsteps? Are you, in your wildest stretch of so sad an imagination trying to vaguely imply that the PL should be held responsible or answerable for each criminal act that a member of half of the Maltese population commit? Had the incident started in church would you have blamed the Pope for it ?
Have we now lost all sense of proportion ?
' Wait , don't rush anyone. Must be still day dreaming. I am quite curious to see what our friend have dreamt off now . Let see what he recall on hearing and seeing at the time and at which end of the Island history unfolded at the time .' ( Maaaa!!!)
Instead of echoing the sweeping accusations of Dr.Saliba, the man from your home town, you ought to speak your mind and tell us why, in your opinion; Dr. Sciberras Trigona should not be part of Joseph Muscat's PL. When you do that I hope that somebody would give you something tangible to remind you why JPO, GBO and a few others should not be in your precious PN, because I don't have time to waste with people like you .
This is a challenge, now you must substantiate or deny.
Just in case you haven't noticed the former PL Foreign Minister , Dr.Sciberras Trigona is an intrinsic part of the foundations which the PL is built on and considered a great asset like all the former Ministers and MPs that are still active in the PL and yes they are correct to be proud to have these political stalwarts on board.
I do not support any particular political party like you do but each day I realise that I was wrong when I voted PN when I did. Instead of attacking the messengers people like you need to realise that the PNs days are over and Malta now needs Joseph Muscat and his new and formidable formation.
He should give his advice to his party which after jumping too quickly to conclusions and making false allegations, always found out that they were proven wrong and their mud slinging was nothing more than an attempt of pulling wool over our eyes!
Yes, we will wait for the Police report (?) and also the testimony of some 20 witnesses. This time, no files will be misplaced or evidence tampered with!
I agree with you completely that every political party has its diehard, traditional, old school wing and there is nothing wrong with that on principle. The trouble in this particular case is that this unrepentant old school wing is tainted with a horrible record so violent that LP apologists trip up in their own feet simultaneously trying to make excuses for what is inherently indefensible, begging everyone to ignore or to forget it ,that it never happened at all or that it was the PN supporters who did it! Dr Joseph Muscat has promised an earthquake but so far the only tangible result is that the tainted old guard are re-emerging and creeping up the ladder of power! It is not possible to chase with the hounds and run with the fox at the same time. Time will tell if it is the dog that is wagging its tail or if the dirty old stump of a tail is wagging the LP dog.
You daydream once in a while and write down something that cannot be substainted. As Dr. Francis Saliba stated, no one here is blaming Joseph Muscat for what took place in the '70's.
However, one have to question Joseph Muscat judgement for bringing the likes of Alex Schiberras Trigona back, as International Secretary of the Party. One also have to question Joseph Muscat judgement on many issues that he diamatically opposed and now he has endorsed.
The issue that Joseph Muscat and the PL have to tackle is that of credibility and trustiness.
You have your doubts about the success of Joseph Muscat? 4 years is a very long time in politics to begin making sweeping statements like that. And as for the diehards, every political party in the world has various ideologies and people coming from different backgrounds in it, and every political party has its old school/diehard/traditional wing. I don't see this as a hindrance to success. Joseph Muscat is an inclusive leader and he won't be making the mistake of deserting the veterans but will be including EVERYONE in his new movement. Perhaps, the PN supporters see this as a threat because they know that against a united Labour party will be difficult to compete.
As for your comments about the Mqabba incident, again you're rushing too quickly to conclusions about what happened. Let's wait for the police investigations before starting to accuse Labourites about violence and ghosts from the past.
Check out your allegations because, speaking for myself, they are absolutely untrue. I deny that I have ever "smeared Joseph Muscat on (for) the mistakes done in the 70s". I have always wished him well in his endeavours to bring out a much needed earthquake in the LP so that it could project itself as a loyal effective opposition with the potential of a credible good alternative to the PN. I have my doubts about his chance of success because of resistance from old MLP diehards rooted in that distant violent past but who are being promoted in the "new" LP set up.
The very recent shootup of the Mqabba PN club is undeniable proof that the ghost of past violence has not yet been laid to rest and it still finds those who would make excuses for it under the pretext of being democratic.
@ Giov De Martino . Tal - Labour don't change but ta' Gonzipn do . I know I did .
@ All . The man you are trying hard to insult is rubber and you are glue ; your insults bounce off him and stick to you .
The PN are in a state of panic I think because they know that with Joseph Muscat the PL is stronger than ever, especially among youths, which has been a PN stronghold from 1987. The veterans/old labour who shied away from the party after the 1998 debacle have now returned to the fold as well. The moderates and floaters are seeing in the PL a viable alternative to the more-than-two-decade-old PN. The movement promised by Joseph Muscat is taking shape and is reaching out to every Maltese citizen that is fed up of the present administration but to this day had to vote PN in absence of a better option.
@Giov DeMartino: I'm one of those people that D Ellul is talking about. I have been a PN supporter all my life. If the general election is tomorrow. I would have to support Joseph Muscat. I hope you respect my democratic views.
Wait, don't rush anyone. Must be still day dreaming. I am quite curious to see what our friend have dreamt off now. Let see what he recall on hearing and seeig at the time and at which end of the Island history unfolded at the time.
La verita offende! Risposta esatta cento per cento.
In 1971 after years of Independence our economy was still partly dependent on defence spending and to avoid an economical fiasco there were no other options than to extend the agreement however at a much higher price to the British Government. Furthermore, our Government negotiated with Italy, Libya and China for different financial protocols and we are still benefitting today from the Italo-Maltese agreement.
In 1974, 48 other MP out of a total of 55, wholeheartedly supported Mintoff’s claim that Malta needed a new Constitution and to become a Republic. The PN executive was also in agreement but the parliamentary group was divided as its minority insisted for a national referendum. GBO was so adamant to the end that when he swore the oath of office he added...... ‘Salve legitimate’
Joe, I rest my case here as I have a Christmas to celebrate and enjoy.
Wishing you and all a very happy Christmas and a healthy new year. God bless all of us.
Thank you for a courteous reply, I only agree with you in part but I respect your opinion where we disagree. I’m giving you the courtesy of my response because this time you respected my persona. I will respect you for that and will ignore those that don’t.
Your first and second paragraphs contain your opinions and that of some other GBO supporters. I differ and I had made my point on many different occasions and therefore I consider it a futile endeavour to repeat the same arguments.
I would however share my opinion re your last question- Mr. Mintoff's primary aim had always been that of securing peace and stability in Europe and the Mediterranean. On assuming office in 1971, he immediately asked for renegotiations with the British Government for the military base in Malta to be dismantled. Final agreement was reached following hard negotiations between September 1971 and March 1972 on a 7-year defence base agreement with Britain and NATO on condition that this will not be used against Arab states.
One would renegotiate when one feels disadvantaged otherwise one would opt for a status quo.
I never knew that you had opened a cat and dog sanctuary!
(With apologies to the four-legged cats and dogs, that is!!)
You should not need a long comment, divided in two parts, just to agree with me and to admit that the Constitution negotiated by GBO was not "shackled by an unacceptable number of reserved matters" as previously claimed by you.
Regarding the Financial & Defence Agreements, these were neither "reserved matters" nor were they imposed "conditions". They were mutually beneficial agreements so necessary to the Maltese defence and economical requirements that they were extended, not terminated, by Mintoff.
I would wish that the misunderstanding could be attributed to simple "faulty syntax" on your part . Much more likely it was a disingenuous attempt to perpetuate the MLP fostered delusion that Malta did not really become a sovereign and independent state when Dr George Borg Olivier achieved full independence for Malta in 1964. Hence the allusion to Goebbels and his propaganda methods.
With regard to the Defence agreement, the British may have had the intuition which proved them right six years later that if GBO was defeated in an election, they would have had to negotiate with an unpredictable politician as Mintoff was. Their fears were allayed when GBO won the 1966 election, but by 1970, their interest in maintaining direct ties with Malta as a defence base, having much less strategic value by then, waned, and made the request (almost unanimous) by the Maltese Parliament for Republic status in 1979, an easier concession to make.
If the Defence Agreement was such a 'shackle', why did Mintoff try to renegotiate it for a larger 'shackle'?
Firstly, In the first instance it is clear that I did not state that the ‘reserved matters’ were contained in the constitution but I admit that when, in the second instant, I stated that “the Independence Constitution was constrained with shackles” , it could have been misunderstood due to nobody’s fault but to my syntax which needed to be better.
The shackles which I called ‘reserved matters’ were in the Financial and Defence Agreements that GBO had to accept before we were given Independence.
If we need to be so technical the term ‘reserved matters’ was only used pre Independence day however the Financial & Defence agreements also presented us with shackles although the correct terminology is ‘conditions’.
I am human and subject to making mistakes but I do not think that I am a liar, when you disagree with me correct me by all means – but don’t you think that the resemblance with Goebbels was uncalled for? I may have stepped the limit a bit in my debates with you and I’ll have no problem to apologise but really-do I deserve that remark?
My reference to ‘reserved matters was thus “When the Colonial Office regaled Independence to GBO on a silver platter it was shackled with an unacceptable number of reserved matters” and “The former Giants of the PN are on record to have endorsed that statement even GBO and his five acolytes, who voted against the Republican Constitution had no serious difficulties to admit that the Independence Constitution was constrained with shackles”. I should have said ‘The Independence was constrained with shackles’.
Rest assured that I am nobody's mouthpiece and that I do not know Mr Xuereb at all.
Stop being evasive and admit that you are unable to substantiate your wild allegation that the Independence Constitution document obtained by Dr George Borg Olivier was "shackled by an unacceptable number of reserved matters". That is not true at all. It reminds me of a certain Josef Goebbels, the Nazi Minister for Propaganda, who maintained that the bigger the lie the easier it was to be believed.
I cannot rely on you to quote faithfully an official public Independence Constitution document. Still less can you expect anyone to rely on you when you put words in the mouths of "former PN giants". My guess is that you are mixing up "reserved matters" that the colonial power would impose in an independence document to protect its own interests, with personal "reservations" that some individual PN ministers may have had about some paragraph in the Constitution. By no stretch of the imagination could any intelligent person mix up those "personal reservations" with "reserved matters" shackling a written constitutional document!
One of my best friends sent me these greetings and I couldn’t find better words to reciprocate and also like to convey the same sentiments to all of us on this blog. I may be a pain sometimes but I honestly love you all. May our God stay with us forever.
“Yuletide always brings with it deep feelings of happiness and good tidings.
Let us put aside the quibbling and the difference in opinion with others. Let us share this moment of joy with our relatives, friends and acquaintances, especially with those whom we criticise and with whom we disagree. Let us stretch out our hand of friendship, and forgive those whom we opine to have offended us and others throughout the year.
I, for one, wish to practice what I say, and yearn for Christ to mould me in his loving ways. I pray that I'd be able to see Christ in every person, not just during Advent and Christmas, but throughout the year.
A very happy and loving Christmas to you all”.
Scotland is an integrated part of Great Britain, it has its own laws, own currency, own central bank and own Parliament. Malta’s Integration would have allowed us our own parliament as well as a representation in the British House of Commons and the possibility of having Maltese persons in the House of Lords. We would have expanded our autonomy by sharing ours with that of Great Britain. Instead of servants of Great Britain we would have become partners with the rulers of the remaining British Empire. Only Mintoff had the courage to make such a huge proposal and if it weren’t for Sir Michael Gonzi we would have got there.
By joining the EU we had also shared our autonomy with our European Partners although we had to give a little to conform to EU regulations, nothing wrong with that is there?
In years to come the EU will eventually become a Federation with a federal government and Malta would become totally integrated like California is part of the USA, like England,Scotland,Wales and Ireland are integrated together and like Gozo, Comino and filfla are integrated now. What would you do then?
Just stop beating around the bush and list the "unacceptable number of reserved matters" that you mention as appearing in the Independence Constitution achieved by Dr George Borg Olivier.
Until you do so you no one will believe you that there were any!
Re your remark addressed to me through Dr. F. Saliba.
Perhaps one good advice one should give you is to use proper phrases when you are trying to take the Mickey out of others as ‘writhing’ has a different meaning than ‘writing’, but there again you may have meant ‘writhing’ even though I have no severe pain to make me twist and roll violently.
And if you want to give some credibility to your comments try debating the issue with dignified terms as evasiveness wouldn’t suffice. Suffice.
The PN’s battle-cry was for a quasi-Dominion Status and the MLP’s full Independence. When the Colonial Office regaled Independence to GBO on a silver platter it was shackled with an unacceptable number of reserved matters. Malta gained its total sovereignty on the day it was declared a Republic not a day before.
You would probably dispute all this and therefore I would suggest getting your hands on a recent live interview on a DVD with Dr. Alex Cachia Zammit, Prof Guido De Marco, Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, President Fenech Adami and other PN former Parliamentarians who all agree that Malta became really autonomous when we became a Republic. Alex Cachia- Zammit, although he agreed in principle voted against it in parliament.
These are the historic facts now also endorsed by the above mentioned PN Giants.
Part One.
The term ‘Dominion Status’ has different interpretations and Britain made different conditions to different colonies when granting Independence. Cyprus is a Republic yet a part of it is still considered as an autonomous part of Britain. The Irish Free State was a British Dominion between 1922 and 1937. In the 1930s the Irish stopped participating at Commonwealth conferences and events. In 1937 the Irish people established a new state, Ireland under a new constitution. However, the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth continued to regard Ireland as being a dominion owing to the unusual role accorded to the British Monarch under the Irish External Relations Act. Ultimately, however, Ireland passed the Republic of Ireland Act which came into force in 1949 and unequivocally ended Ireland's links with the British Monarch and the Commonwealth.
Prove what? Do you really need proof? The former Giants of the PN are on record to have endorsed that statement even GBO and his five acolytes, who voted against the Republican Constitution had no serious difficulties to admit that the Independence Constitution was constrained with shackles. And do you also need proof that Independence was offered to GBO on a silver platter?
The early 1960s saw the ‘Colonial wind of change’ and after 1959 when Mintoff started the demand for Independence and GBO had pursued the old PN’s demand for a Dominion Status, and Britain had started the forces round-down, the Colonial Office became aware that Independence for Malta was only a question of time.
1962 saw the MLP in its weakest political position due to the problems with the church, Malta had its weakest coalition government in our history with Mabel Strickland and Herbert Ganado against Independence- what better conditions could Whitehall hope for to give us the so called Independence?
If you look up the Commons debate of that period they would give you MUCH more documented facts than a 200 worded comment.
Perhaps the best advice one can give to Charles J. Buttigieg is take up writhing fictional stories.
You wrote:
"When the Colonial Office regaled Independence to GBO on a silver platter it was shackled with an unacceptable number of reserved matters"
Just try to prove it!
For all I care you can give what ever interpretation to what Dominion Status means. The fact remains that without the Independence of 1964 the Maltese Parliament couldn't not have unilaterally pass the legislation to declare Malta as a Republic.
The passing of such declaration only confirmes that the Maltese Parlaiment was Soverign; and we the Maltese, through our Representatives in an elected Soverign Parlaiment, could decide without asking our previos Political Masters to Govern ourselves as pleased.
By your argument you are only supporting my POINT and not yours. All I have to say to drive my point home is that with Malta's Accession into the EU, Malta's Parliament is still Soverign.
If Malta was to be integrated with Britian then, Malta House of Represented would have been history then in exchange for 5 or 6 MP sitting in Westminster. The Political Masters would have continued to sit in London and we as Maltese would have continued to be the whimps of our British Masters.
i see you did not deny, bcoz you just could't, that ports and airport were still in the hands of britian after independence and yes to me it matters that the head of my country is a fellow maltese!! and you're supposed to be the nationalist mr xuereb !!
The PN’s battle-cry was for a quasi-Dominion Status and the MLP’s full Independence. When the Colonial Office regaled Independence to GBO on a silver platter it was shackled with an unacceptable number of reserved matters. Malta gained its total sovereignty on the day it was declared a Republic not a day before.
You would probably dispute all this and therefore I would suggest getting your hands on a recent live interview on a DVD with Dr. Alex Cachia Zammit, Prof Guido De Marco, Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, President Fenech Adami and other PN former Parliamentarians who all agree that Malta became really autonomous when we became a Republic. Alex Cachia- Zammit, although he agreed in principle voted against it in parliament.
These are the historic facts now also endorsed by the above mentioned PN Giants.
Part One.
The term ‘Dominion Status’ has different interpretations and Britain made different conditions to different colonies when granting Independence. Cyprus is a Republic yet a part of it is still considered as an autonomous part of Britain. The Irish Free State was a British Dominion between 1922 and 1937. In the 1930s the Irish stopped participating at Commonwealth conferences and events. In 1937 the Irish people established a new state, Ireland under a new constitution. However, the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth continued to regard Ireland as being a dominion owing to the unusual role accorded to the British Monarch under the Irish External Relations Act. Ultimately, however, Ireland passed the Republic of Ireland Act which came into force in 1949 and unequivocally ended Ireland's links with the British Monarch and the Commonwealth.
Canada has had Dominion status since 1867. Are you to tell me that Canada is not an Independent Country? I suggest to you to look into what Dominion Status means.
"Equal rights and opportunities" What exactly do you mean by that.
It only means one thing. Do away with the dream of Malta ever becoming a Soverign Country at the cost of sending 5 or 6 MP, am I being generous here, to Westminster.
Don't you and others like you have no shame in trying to justify the Integration issue over Independence.
"with that independence (ha ha) the brits still controlled the airport and seaports and we had no say at all." Once again you are talking out of ignorance. It was that Independce that gave Mintoff the powers to procede the way he did. Perhaps if it wasn't for Independence, Malta would have found itself back under Colonial Rule as was the case previously.
Frankyly, who cares if we have the Queen or a President as head of State, as long as, the role is only sympolic.
You
In 1974 the PN members of parliament and the executive committee were unanimous with the MLP in that Malta needed a new Constitution and to declare ourselves as a Republic. GBO and five other PN MPs opposed the notion and voted against the mandate of their own party. GB0 excuse was that Malta still depended on British funds and a total withdrawal would break the spine of our economy. Good old Dom negotiated a five year extension of the defence agreement; quadrupled the size of the financial agreement to sustain our economy and at the same time declared Malta a Republic.
After Mintoff’s magnificent show which vivified GBO’s weakness the PN conspired to overthrow GBO but finally compromised to let him stay on until the 1976 election after which defeat he got the sack and EFA became the new leader.
Bertie you are correct on one score-“someone has his history wrong”- you.
it suited the brit govt to negotiate the terms for independence with the PN which had only garnered 42% of the votes in the elections than with labour.
with that independence (ha ha) the brits still controlled the airport and seaports and we had no say at all.
and who was to say that, had the PN won the 1971 elections, they would not renegotiated a new agreement??
As usual it was the PN under GBO that had the foresight (12years in advance) that Malta would have to go to the process. Like in all other issues the PN looked beyond the tip of their noses.
As a young man living in Birzebbugia I remember the late Carmelo Caruana, a Nationalist Cabinet Minister scaring people by telling them that if Mintoff is elected all the furnished flats at B’Bugia would be empty within a week as Mintoff will get us Independence. Dr. Caruana wasn’t the only prominent Nationalists who were against Independence. When we were fighting for Independence the PN were in a solid alliance with the church and the church was against Independence. We walked the road and GBO got the honours and that was a hybrid of Independence like Joe Vella’s “infutile” when he meant futile.
Prior to Independence Mintoff wanted us to become partners with the rulers of the greatest Empire where the sun never set. Was that a bad idea? Prior to Mintoff’s time Pappa Nerik proposed to Britain to give Malta to the Italians in exchange for one of Italy’s N. African colonies.
And they still call themselves nationalists. Kif ma jisthux?
Malta achieved it's true Independence and became our own Masters on September 21st, 1964. Freedom Day 1979 only confirms what I have just stated.
You write; "if it was for Dr Borg Olivier we'd still be an English colony."
You shall be remembed that it was Mintoff and theMLP that Malta fell once againg under Colonial Rule. It was GBO and the PN, without Mintoff and the MLP, that in short two years gained Malta's Independence from the Colonial Masteres, the same Colonial Masteres that the MLP wanted to Integrate Malta with.
If it wasan't for independence, Malta becoming a Republic would have been just a dream.
Malta took it rightful place at the UN thanks to Malta gaining Independence on that memobarable day of 2, September 1964.
Any attempt to write history is infutile.
Of course you’re not ashamed of Labour’s past, why should we be? Labour’s tenure of office was the most patriotic epoch in our history and we are proud of it. Of course it had its share of unpleasant moments but which part of any history was a bed of roses at all times. Forget all those bitter remarks that the other person makes about the PL Even if he says our party smells like rotten pumpkin, he’s just an attention-seeker and he wants to annoy us. Ignore him and his type.
In 1981 Labour had the right to govern according to the constitution. Past Labour governments helped build the foundations of this country and elevated the poor to become middle class citizens who now enjoy a much better quality of life. Also, Labour spearheaded the movement for Malta to become a republic - if it was for Dr Borg Olivier we'd still be an English colony. No, I am not ashamed of Labour's past.
You are conveniently being evasive, personal and insulting. You are not even contemplating to have a civil debate and your argumentation has no substance. Look somewhere else for that kind of quarrel.
Have it your way, I have no time to waste.
Yes Mr.Demartino the result of 1971 and 1987 were almost identical. It would have been completely identical was it not for five votes that gave Labour the extra seat. The excessive number of recounts that were demanded by the PN is a fact that you can’t deny that they were prepared to govern in spite of Labour obtaining 51% of the people’s votes.
Let me also remind you that those elections were so grossly manifested with gerrymandering that, contrary to the logic of the proportional representation system, your precious PN manoeuvred the system to elect six members in certain districts to weaken the Labour strongholds.
Best joke of the century?
1987- 2008 Perfect world, total and complete serenity.
In 1996 Labour won 8000 votes more than the PN, the PN won one more seat than Labour and through the constitutional amendment Labour got an extra seat for its extra 8000 votes. In 2008 Labour pulled 1400 less votes than the PN and yet managed one seat more, does this mean that the PN gerrymandered the system to give Labour an advantage?
The proportional representation system cannot always give the desired result of an equitable equation between votes and seats and after the constitutional amendments it has been rendered to a hybrid system. Can you deny this?
Our local councils are still elected through an un-amended system and gave us results like we had at Mellieha- Labour candidates winning by popular votes and losing by seats. Do you consider that democratic because it’s to your advantage?
The 1981 election result gave a legitimate constitutional right to Labour to govern. The independence constitution which was passed through parliament by a Nationalist Government provided for a seat majority not for a vote majority.
When in 1971 Labour garnered 51% of the popular vote and just skimmed through getting a few votes to elect an extra candidate, PN asked for an incurable number of recounts even though Labour had 51% of the votes.
Instead of sweeping statements you should underscore a clear statement to show us where Labour was undemocratic in 1981? You will no doubt imply gerrymandering even though we had the same situation in 1971(or almost).
@ Joe Xuereb
Well before "Il-Kumitati tal-Girien. The PN gave us ‘The Street Leaders’ and ‘Tal Gakketta Blue’ a reminder of La Camisa Negra"
But now with PBO and his strategy plan who needs street leaders, computers and personal data make the job more efficient. Pity Paul had to spoil it all.
For you to change means that the PL have to agree with everything the PN says? The opposition's duty is to criticise the government (constructively), and with Muscat at the helm, it is also proposing alternatives. How can you blame the PL for the W&E tariffs? Was it not the PN in government who tried to impose the tariffs on the social partners, then he went to discuss everything from scratch only after a series of street protests? How can you justify an increase in the bills when the price of fuel is going down?
@Giov deMartino
I won't bother replying to your shallow and destructive comments about the PL. I will tell you one thing though, the labour party had the courage to change and renew itself because it took heed of the people's verdict of last March. The PN, although elected by a few hundred votes is still arrogant, and thinks that it can steamroll on everyone. Time will tell whether the changes in the PL were fruitful or not. One thing's for sure, the PN have no divine right to govern.
Joe you have such a good sense of humour- I really appreciated your last joke, namely:-
“The Cloths dosen't make the man. But rather the way he/she act and behave that makes the man. From what we can see so far, nothg have changed to demonstrate that the PL and Joe Muscat have changed at all.
The recent debate on the water and electricity tariffs is a case in point.”(sic)
My friend its ‘The Cowl Doesn’t Make the Monk” furthermore he\she can’t be made a man unless she goes in for a sexual transformation. And your smartest is the way you write your name with three Ls.and the word ‘doesn’t’
What exactly is the case in point on the utilities debate? You left us all baffled.
You have a Government Party that gave you the Data Protection Act and Local Councils; and not "Il-Kumitati tal-Girien.
You have been playing the same old track over and over again and frankly you have become predictable. Everyone knows what your agenda is .
I invite you to wake up to the reality we are living in to find a Party-Government which you blindly support which is stubborn, heartless by taxing ALL Maltese left, right and center and most of all a Government-Party which is immersed in one scandal after the other. To top everything up we have a Government- Party which is continuously spying on us !!!
The recent debate on the water and electricity tariffs is a case in point.
And the student never learns..............