Sunday, 23rd March 2008
Starting on the wrong foot
Now that the dust of the general and local elections has settled down, it is time to get back to the grind and hold the Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi to account. That will be the role of the Labour Opposition in Parliament no matter what the outcome of our three months of soul searching for a new leadership will be.
In the meantime, political hacks like me will have to do that. This then is the first issue I will share my thoughts about.
The Prime Minister fought the last General Election on a ticket of inclusiveness. The campaign slogan might have been plagiarised but it is clear that Dr Gonzi and his party really believed in the slogan "Iva, flimkien kollox possibbli". Indeed, after being sworn in afresh as Prime Minister, Dr Gonzi made it a point to appeal to the non-PN voters, and there are more of them in the country, stressing that he wanted his Government to be a Government of the whole nation. He also appealed for the co-operation and the consensus of the Labour Opposition.
Despite this, Dr Gonzi waited for the long Easter weekend to announce that his Government would be reactivating Malta's membership in NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme. The issue here is not PfP itself. The issue is why Dr Gonzi chose Maundy Thursday to make this announcement. He obviously wanted to take the country by surprise when everybody was either worshipping at Church or off for a long weekend break. This is neither the way to be inclusive nor the way to win the co-operation of the Labour Opposition, especially when PfP was not on the political agenda for the last few years and definitely not during the last general election campaign.
So why did Dr Gonzi waste so much political capital on it? I think it is too simplistic to assume that he simply wanted to catch Labour unawares. Rather, I tend to think that bearing in mind that he has just a slender one-seat majority and the rough ride he will be given by those MPs who are bound to create problems for party discipline, the Prime Minister decided that it was better to play safe and get this issue out of the way before Labour and such disgruntled Nationalist MPs could filibuster the issue.
In either case, it is clear that the way the Prime Minister has proceeded with the PfP issue is confirmation that the new legislature is starting off on the wrong foot.
RSS
Comments
I tend to agree with you IF the PfP in any way changed its mission or if this time around the government accepted different terms than before. By the way, the government has applied and not yet agreed to anything. We don't even know whether our application will even be accepted given that last time we were in, some very democratic government pulled us out after sixteen months!
The members of PfP could very well argue that they do not wish to have a partner who pops in and out depending on which government it elects.
Give us a break, Sir!
Are you kiding me, in Malta. Giving the polaraization that exists in Malta; we would be going to the polling booth every other week.
So you see Mr. Martinelli, my point is that a truly wider democratic consultation process would involve the whole people of Malta - it is perfectly and democratically bindng. Do you envisage anything more appropriately perfect than this? This should apply equally in all situations of controversy - in all policies propounded, whether it be a Nationalist or Labour administration.
If any, rejoining was delayed a bit too much but on the other hand the government had a more pressing agenda in the last five years which included the Accession Treaty with the E.U., putting the econony on solid footings, joining the Eurozone, etc.etc.
So, to ally Mr.Mazzilli's fears, the people had already been consulted back in 1995 through their representatives in Parliament.
Moreover why did we need Joe Saliba to tell the electorate that the MLP pays overtime to its workers at a very reduced rate? How's that for transparency on an electoral issue brought to the fore of the campaign by Labour itself.
For the sake of brevity, I did not go into the workings of PfP and its relationship with the EU, however Malta may prefer to discuss certain matters separately with EU members and not include those not in the EU. My translation was word for word so what appeared ubder item 344 was reproduced faithfully and it did include the reference to the e855 million. If you think for a moment that the EU is transferring that kind of money for us to return it, you then are really testing our intelligence while you are still groping to find yours.
Even the translation you gave does not mention any PfP...you are completly out of subject and your interpretation of ' exploting etc etc does not make any sense...because there are countries participating in PfP and are NOT IN EU...some respect please!!!!!
...and whilst on the subject of financial package etc etc.....would you have the courage and quote what was Malta's financial contribution since 2004 or is the EU transfering money into Malta's coffers just for fun???.......and in which year shall we become net contributors and NOT net receivers............
We will continue to exploit to the maximun our membership in the European Union by, through our credibility and respect we enjoy today, ensure that our country continues to earn and enjoy the fruits of our membership in all areas, including the financial package of nearly a billion euros.
(The translation is mine).
Exploiting to the fullest means including membership in PfP which entitles us to vital security information which since Labour's cancellation of the agreement, we were deprived of.
So, Joe Borg, stop being the same old negative spinner and realize that sitting in Oposition, your party is hardly in a position to dictate.
In 1996 Labour did not need to consult PN because PfP pull-out HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN 1996 ELECTION MANIFESTO, whilst Gonzipn never said a word about it...........transparency my foot!!!!
But doesn't this also apply to the MLP who should not oppose all the government does just for the sake of opposing?
There should be consensus on important issues like public health, foreign policy, environment and others.
MLP should stop being the 'LE' party in Parliament.
I recall being in the United States in 1969 and attending Nixon's first inaugural. At the time many were opining that Nixon should rope Democrats in his team. All political journalists and commentators came up with one answer: Do you expect Democrats to subscribe to Nixon's views when the crunch comes around?
Mr Martinelli seems to be unaware that in 1996, withdrawal from the PfP was part of the MLP electoral manifesto.
This time, the PN seems to have made it a point to keep its intentions under wraps. One cannort help wondering why.
http://www.nato.int/issues/pfp/index.html
In fact there are also non EU members participating in the PfP!
- We will continue to exploit to the maximum limit our membership of the EU...
there you have it as clear as daybreak.
The last word in the sentence (ninth from the bottom) should be 'thawed".
Also I cannot help but point out to Genevieve Sammut that the scandals she referred to are, up to now, just unproven allegations.
If she has an example of what she writes about, I would be very much interested.
The Nationalists and others are not wasting any time or energy on the MLP leader race issue. We are laid back watching with interest, yes, because the selection may ultimately be a positive or negative event which affects Malta's future. We are not simply interested in our party's future successes or otherwise, we are very much interested in our nation's well being.
Labour was too busy throwing mud during the electoral campaign and hardly mentioned any of the 353 proposals which will change Malta beyond recognition in the next legislature.
Don't be naive about the timing of the announcement.
As to consultation with the Labour opposition, I'm sure that Lawrence Gonzi is conscious of Labour's outdated interpretation of our neutrality. When in the past the government consulted the opposition, it had to wait for six months (or for ever) to get a response and invariably it was NO.
In any case isn't Labour committed to get the maximum advantages of our EU membership? Joining PfP is part and parcel of taking all the advantages of EU membership.
I can understand Ms Sammut's exhortation to 'many people' to concentrate on 'their party' 5 year stint which is supposedly going to be ridden with problems, but why 'their party'? Is it not an established fact now that there are thousands of floating voters out there? Of cvourse, this is one hopefully sure way to redirect the focus of attention on an issue which is more paramountly important and prominent at the moment for all of us irrespective of our political hues and beliefs - which is the MLP's leader election issue. Please understand that this is not an internal MLP issue any longer, as some would have us think as they preach a hands-off fire and brimstone sermon to "non-believers". It is much grander than that. It affects us all. It will be the basis of our decision in 5 years' time on whether we keep our present Government for yet another 5 years come 2008, or whether we opt for Labour as we deem it better than the PN. Citing past scandals did not work and will not work.
Alfred wants to have Dr. Gonzi held to account!
He expects the government to be 'inclusive' and perhaps seek the Opposition's approval for every project it plans to implement. He stole the word "flimkien" (together) from the Nationalist slogan and song "Flimkien kollox possibbli", spun it to mean that Dr. Gonzi promised to include the MLP in his agenda!
Dr. Gonzi was referring to the whole nation be it comprised of Nationalists, Labourites, Greens, etc. and yes, the MLP as a genuine Opposition to work together for the good of the country and not for the good of any one party. Mr. Grixti still has a great difficulty in distinguishing between Dr. Gonzi as party leader and Dr. Gonzi as Prime Minister of the whole of Malta.
It is no longer acceptable to have an opposition as we had in the past, bent solely on opposing every worthwhile proposal presented by the government.
With regard to the PfP issue, can Mr. Grixti remind me of how much the Labour Government of 1996-1998 consulted with the Nationalist Opposition then, when it decided to pull Malta out of PfP ?
As much as the Nationalist Government did not need the advice let alone permission to unthaw Malta's application to join the European Union, why would it now find it necessary to consult with the MLP just for reinstating that which the MLP chose to pull out of?
Mr. Grixti could be right on one point however, - the timing of the announcement on Maundy Thursday was planned to the minute. It was meant for the believers within the MLP to have a day of reflection on Good Friday followed by a day of celebration on Easter Sunday when all Nationalists, Laburisti, Greens etc. all celebrated flimkien (together) Christianity's greatest remembrance of Christ's resurrection. Reminds me very much of the NP's recovery from some 15,000 vote deficit to a surplus of 1580 on March 8.
It would seem that the Editor (of The Times) is largely of the same conviction (see editorial). One would presume that his opinion is based upon facts that a responsible editor comes across in his normal line of duty.