Joseph Muscat idur ma' kull rih
The arguments are on as to whether the new Labour leader Joseph Muscat is pro-EU membership or not. He describes himself as pro-EU, which is not the same thing. Some commentators on this blog are saying that he is anti-EU, by which I take it they mean anti-EU membership for Malta.
Somebody who seems to know him weighed in to say that he is ‘definitely not anti-EU’, and that he adopted the anti-EU position only to survive politically within the Labour Party.
My response was that this damns him by confirming him as a Class A opportunist, who fought against a cause he believed in, if he really believed in it, purely to achieve his own narrow political ambitions. What this ‘friend’ of Joseph Muscat is saying, in effect, is that though he believed Malta should join the EU, he fought in Sant’s fervently anti-EU trenches because there he could climb to the top.
If he was pro-membership, then he’s one hell of a good liar and actor. As just one example, read this article which he wrote for L-orizzont in the week that we voted in the referendum. He tells his readers that the referendum result isn’t binding, and gives them a little graphical explanation of how to tick the No box.
Well, as long as he has charm and charisma (he says, though I have yet to find them), we shouldn’t bother that we’re going to get ourselves a Poodle (capital P, remember now) Weathervane as prime minister.
As an older relative of mine likes to say about others of a similar type: ghandhu wiccu u x’imkien iehor l-istess.
Responsabbiltà
minn Joseph Muscat
Nhar is-Sibt huwa jum importanti ghal pajjizna. Huwa jum li fih se jsir referendum konsultattiv. Dan huwa referendum li ma jorbotx u li l-mod zbilancjat li bih in-nahat differenti kellhom ic-cans li jwasslu l-messagg taghhom jaghmlu fazull aktar milli wiehed qatt kien jistenna. Madankollu dan huwa jum importanti u fih kulhadd ghandu jerfa’ r-responsabbiltà ghal dak li se jaghmel. Jien kburi li nahdem fi hdan il-Partit Laburista. Jiena kburi li qieghed fi hdan partit li qed jghid lin-nies li ghandhom jivvotaw ‘le’, jastjenu milli jivvutaw jew jinvalidaw il-vot fir-referendum konsultattiv.
Il-Partit Laburista qed jerfa’ r-responsabbiltà kollha ta’ din id-decizjoni. Jerfa’ r-responsabbiltà li jkun ikkonvinca lill-poplu biex jichad il-pakkett innegozjat mill-gvern u aktar ’il quddiem ikollu r-responsabbiltà akbar li jwassal pakkett ahjar permezz ta’ partnership.
Min-naha l-ohra, dawk in-nies u ghaqdiet li qeghdin jghidu “iva, iva, iva, iva…” ghandhom ikunu wkoll lesti li jgorru r-responsabbiltà li tefghu il-piz taghhom wara din l-ghazla. Jekk il-poplu jemminhom u mbaghad wara jigi l-ghawg, allura jridu jkunu huma li jirrispondu ghal ghemilhom.
Min qed iweghdek l-angli jizfnu ghandu jiftakar li jista’ jsib dalwaqt ix-xjaten ihabbtu wara biebu.
No turning back
Jien ma ghandi l-ebda problema ma’ min se jivvota “iva”. Ghandhom kull dritt jaghmlu hekk. Jiddispjacini, izda, li mhux kulhadd fil-kamp ta’ l-“iva” ghandu l-istess rispett lejn min se jaghmel ghazla differenti minn taghhom.
Hemm haga, izda li kull min se jiehu decizjoni nhar is-Sibt ghandu jzomm quddiem ghajnejh. Din hija li jekk Malta tissieheb fl-Unjoni Ewropea, imbaghad wiehed mhux se jkollu c-cans jerga’ lura.
Dan mhux jekk m’ghogbokx xi hadd fil-Gvern u tiddeciedi li taqleb il-vot fl-elezzjoni ta’ wara.
Jekk nidhlu fl-Unjoni Ewropea fl-1 ta’ Mejju, 2004, imbaghad m’hemmx possibbiltà li terga’ lura.
Min-naha l-ohra, jekk ma taghmilx din l-ghazla, ikollok ic-cans li jerga’ jibdielek.
Ikun hemm min jghidlek li issa li wasalna sa hawn lanqas haqq tieqaf. Bhallikieku jekk tasal f’ tarf ta’ rdum ma taghmilx pass lura biex ma taqax ghal isfel!
U hemm haga ohra li hafna nahseb li qeghdin jinsew, jigifieri li din hija Unjoni Ewropea li ghadha qieghda tizviluppa. Gejja kostituzzjoni li ma nafux x’inhi u nkunu naghmlu parti mhux minn blokk ta’ 15 izda minn wiehed ta’ madwar 30.
U hawnhekk ikun hemm min jghidlek li la diehel kulhadd ghandna nidhlu ahna wkoll. Jien nirraguna bil-maqlub u nghid li tajjeb li pajjizna ikun differenti kemm jista’ jkun halli jattira lejh l-interess u investiment li ghandna bzonn.
Regoli u rizorsi
Il-qaghda tar-rizorsi f’din il-kampanja referendarja kienet tad-dahk. Fuq naha kellek lill-Gvern bi flus il-poplu, lill-Partit Nazzjonalista bi flus hafna negozjanti, lill-Kummissjoni Ewropea bi flus it-taxxi tal-poplu ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea li kollha ppumpjaw favur vot “iva”. Fuq in-naha l-ohra kien hemm biss ic-centezmi tal-Partit Laburista migbura minn fost il-poplu.
Kampanja referendarja bis-sens ghandu jkollha regoli cari ta’ finanzjament u ta’ kif jistghu jigu wzati flus il-poplu. Fl-Ingilterra kien hareg in-Neill Report li fih intqal li ghandu jkun hemm limitu ta’ nefqa u li kulhadd jghid minn fejn qed igib il-flus. Il-flus tal-poplu jinqasmu bejn iz-zewg nahat f’ammont limitat filwaqt li l-Gvern u d-dipartimenti tieghu jzommu pass lura.
Dawn ir-regoli se jigu adottati ghar-referendum dwar l-Euro fl-Ingilterra.
Hekk tkun kampanja serja.
Mhux l-ghazla facli
Kburi li ninsab fil-Partit Laburista li jemmen bis-shih li l-politika ta’ partnership hija l-ahjar ghazla ghall-pajjiz.
Mhux facli li tiehu pozizzjoni bhal din.
Mhux facli li ghax temmen f’xi haga tehodha kontra l-qawwiet ta’ l-‘establishment’ u tal-flus mhux biss f’Malta, izda anki barra.
Kemm kien ikun aktar facli kieku ghidna “iva”!
Kburi li naghmel parti minn dawk li ma jaghzlux it-triq facli ghax jibzghu mit-taqbida.
64 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“My response was that this damns him by confirming him as a Class A opportunist, who fought against a cause he believed in, if he really believed in it, purely to achieve his own narrow political ambitions. What this ‘friend’ of Joseph Muscat is saying, in effect, is that though he believed Malta should join the EU, he fought in Sant’s fervently anti-EU trenches because there he could climb to the top”.
This kind of thing is absolutely maddening, no doubt about it Daphne. But unfortunately, it’s the way the game works. I’ll only be convinced that the same dynamic isn’t played out in the other camp when a Nationalist MP or apparatchik comes out with a black and white position in favour of divorce. Principles have little to do with this. It’s clearly a crude question of survival – all blue and red soldiers play the game to perfection. JM can hardly be singled out for his opportunism.
A nation of pragmatists, that’s what we are.
“Kemm kien ikun aktar facli kieku ghidna “iva”!
May I ask why he made it that difficult for the MLP supporters to say “IVA”.
Does he think that they are going to change their opinion about the EU like weathervanes revolve with every breeze?
AS seems that he had a plan (he never ran out of plans) for an acceptable way out for the MLP’s anti-EU stance , ie: re-negotiating the package.
If he was elected PM he would have done like Mintoff did in 1971 for the MLP supporters to forget integration and accept Independence by another name; “Helsien”.
Joe Muscat can write that Freudian slip again today , and reflect on it.
“Kemm kien ikun aktar facli kieku ghidna “iva”!
@ Daphne , for the Maltese expression” ghandhu wiccu u x’imkien iehor l-istess”, I like to use an updated version : “Does he have a picture of his backside on his ID card?”
Too bad we humble mortals cannot vote for him as a Lab. Leader (with dreams).
From what you all say he is a far cry from being (d)electable!
David Friggieri: I wouldn’t quite put divorce legislation and EU membership quite on the same level. Nor do I see a parallel between Joseph Muscat’s original position on EU membership and that of any politician who falsely professes a belief that divorce legislation should not be introduced.
Joseph Muscat says he believed in partnership
If he really believed and believes in EU membership, he not only lied about his stated position, he also misled half the country about a fictitious, unrealisable idea cynically branded “partnership” by his master.
If the MLP had had its way – Joseph Muscat included – it would have kept Malta out of the EU and then run the country into the ground.
Pragmatism is too kind a word for reckless and irresponsible behaviour.
@David Friggieri: surely you aren’t comparing divorce with EU membership, for heaven’s sake?
Mr. Friggieri – it’s not a crude question of survival as if it’s matter of life and death. It’s a matter of whether one has the galls (for want of a better word)to make a stand for what he truly believes in, whether one is man enough, whether one is prepared to walk out (like several others in the labour camp did).
Anything short of that is sheer opportunism in my books.
To my mind, prior to 2003 Joseph Muscat was neither pro- nor anti-EU. That’s not how he functions. The truth is actually simple: he was pro-“partnership” because that was his party line.
Since Labour did not officially campaign for a No vote in the Referendum (the actual campaigning was done by CNI and its offshoot No2EU, the latter taking an independent line and strategy), it was easier for “centrists” like Joseph Muscat to simply flow with the current without having to paddle much. After all, it was easier to say Yes to Partnership, than No to membership.
Then, on Referendum day, like Sant and many others Joseph Muscat abstained from voting. Alfred Sant’s directive to abstain (“vote No, abstain, or write ‘Viva Malta'”) was obeyed by as many as 15,000 (my estimate). There wasn’t a 97% turnout that day (but only 91%) NOT because less interest was generated, but because of Sant’s directive; otherwise, many who usually don’t vote voted Yes.
After the 2003 general elections there was no question in Muscat’s mind as to which side his bread was buttered. That’s when he became pro-EU, together with the whole leadership. And when early, internal, European-election polls suggested he was lagging far behind JAM and SEB, he proceeded to his war room and switched into turbo mode…
To cut it short, those who say that Labour is still “eurosceptic” only show how little they are informed. Labour belongs to the PES, the most europhile of all groups (aiming for a soviet-structured “United States of Europe”, which is what the Lisbon Treaty eventually establishes; note that the word “federal” was once intended on the continent as a euphemism, but it is not generally used because of its sinister meaning to the Brits).
It is true that a majority of Labour voters still have an ear to the “eurosceptic” rhetoric, but most of these remain loyal within the Red flock, their political vision being solely to declare victory over ‘the Blues’ (and yet, given the 2008 result, the number of “eurosceptic” Labourites who left the flock was sufficient to tip the scales against a Labour victory).
So there, Labour switched from eurosceptic to europhile. It lost in 2003 because it was against membership (or so they say) and again in 2008 because it had turned too europhile (other singular reasons exist, of course). And yet, between these two extremes, which after joining the Union changed to ‘withdrawalists’ vs ‘europhiles’, there is a middle ground: EU-critical.
The EU-critical spectrum is wide. But generally speaking, being EU-critical means being aware of the drawbacks and potential pitfalls, for only the naive think all is rosy. All withdrawalists and eurosceptics are EU-critical, but not the other way around.
Labour missed an opportunity. It could have, like the europhile Liberal Party in Denmark, tolerated an EU-critical faction within it (the Danish Liberals go as far as FUNDING the eurosceptic faction, which includes many withdrawalists). Yet by simply playing the right games, both the PES and PN managed not to allow Labour to follow this beneficial path. And Labour has neither the capability to play these games, nor even the awareness that they exist. Labour plays different, mostly petty games.
Which is why I wholeheartedly support Joseph Muscat for Party Leader. Labour and Malta deserve Joseph Muscat.
Wednesday 16 April 2003 – L-Orizzont
Siehbi, Alfred Sant
minn Joseph Muscat
Qed nikteb dan l-artiklu hekk kif Dr Alfred Sant habbar ufficjalment li mhux se jerga’ jikkontesta ghal kariga ta’ Mexxej tal-Partit Laburista. Kull min jaf imqar ftit lil Dr Sant ma kellux dubju li se jiehu dan il-pass wara r-rizultat elettorali ta’ nhar is-Sibt. Ghalija dan huwa punt importanti. Kien fl-1992 li jien ersaqt ghall-ewwel darba lejn il-Partit Laburista, wara l-hatra ta’ Dr Sant bhala mexxej.
F’wiehed mill-ewwel diskorsi tieghu, Alfred Sant kien beda jappella lil kull min ghandu sehem x’jaghti lill-Partit Laburista biex jersaq lejn il-partit ghax hemm spazju ghal kulhadd. Dan il-kliem appellali, u flimkien ma’ xi hbieb tieghi ersaqna lejn il-Partit Laburista. U kif imwieghed, sibna l-ispazju biex nahdmu.
Id-dehxa tar-Rialto
Sentejn wara sirt delegat tal-partit u nahseb li hemm ghaddejt minn wahda mill-aktar avvenimenti trawmatici ghal zaghzugh ta’ 20 sena. Kienet wahda mill-ahhar konferenzi generali Laburista fir-Rialto ta’ Bormla u kont id-decidejt li nitla’ nitkellem dwar il-mod kif il-Partit Laburista jwassal il-messagg tieghu u l-bzonn li jigu mmodernizzati l-mezzi ta’ kif jitwassal dan il-messagg. Issa jew kont xieref izzejjed jew kien hemm min fehmni hazin, ghax wara li tkellimt jien hargu l-irwiefen kollha jikkritikaw dak li kont ghidt. Dik kienet l-ewwel konferenza generali tieghi u hsibt li daqshekk ghamilt fil-Partit Laburista u li kienu se jaqbdu u jitfghuni ’l barra mill-ewwel!
Ma kienx hekk. Indunajt li dak kien l-ispirtu miftuh li fih issir id-diskussjoni fi hdan il-Partit Laburista. Izda l-aktar haga li skantatni kien li jumejn wara, fi tmiem il-konferenza, Dr Sant kien irrefera ghal zewg interventi. L-ewwel wiehed kien dak ta’ siehbi Joe Debono Grech. L-iehor kien tieghi. Huwa qal li dawn kienu z-zewg ilhna, li jesprimu ruhhom forsi b’mod differenti, izda li huma parti mill-istess ruh tal-Partit Laburista.
Tbikkimt li dan ir-ragel, il-bniedem li sa dak in-nhar l-aktar li kont rajt kien fuq it-television, kien veru ta kas x’qal bicca tifel ma jafu hadd minn Burmarrad.
Ragel li jisma’
Fis-snin ta’ wara kelli l-unur li nahdem mill-vicin ta’ Alfred Sant. Gieli ma konniex naqblu u kuntrarju ta’ dak li jahsbu x’uhud, ir-ragel jisma’ u jkun lest li jcaqlaq il-pozizzjoni tieghu wara li jisma’ lil haddiehor. Izda mhux se jaccetta dak li tghidlu sempliciment ghax tkun ghidtulu. Se jisfida l-argumenti tieghek biex jara kemm tkun konvint minn dak li qed tghid.
Gieli kien ikollna diskursati fejn nohrog b’xi suggeriment jew nghidlu fejn ma naqbilx. Iggib miljun argument kontrih u jistenna xi tkun ir-reazzjoni tieghek. Tahseb li ma rnexxilekx tikkonvincih izda xi gurnata wara tara kitba tieghu jew tisma’ diskors li fih ikun qed jirrifletti dak li tkun ghidtlu. Konvint li din hija esperjenza ta’ bosta li hadmu mieghu.
Alfred Sant li naf jien huwa bniedem li jhobb u lest li jaqbez ghall-batut.
Huwa bniedem li jinnota. Niftakar li meta ghamilt operazzjoni zghira xi zmien ilu lanqas kont ghidtlu. B’xi mod jew iehor sar jaf u cempilli d-dar biex jara kif jien u “jghajjat mieghi” li ma kontx ghidtlu.
Kien hemm min jghid li hu supperv. Ejja nammettu li d-dehra tieghu minn barra hija pjuttost supperva, izda hafna drabi din hija sforz tal-fatt li huwa bniedem misthi. Meta ssir tafu sewwa tinduna li huwa bniedem dixxiplinat u iebes fejn hemm bzonn, izda supperv zgur li le.
U huwa bniedem li ma jiflahx l-attakki personali. Jien bniedem li ma nemminx f’dawn l-attakki, izda min jaf kemm-il darba qalli biex ma jfettillix nikkunsidra biss li nattakka lil Fenech Adami jew lil xi haddiehor personalment.
Inharsu ’l quddiem
Hemm min tan-naha l-ohra li lili jghajruni ghax lil dan ir-ragel jien inhobbu.
Jistghu jghajruni kemm iridu ghax jien lil Alfred Sant kont, ghadni u nibqa’ nhobbu b’qalbi kollha.
Huwa l-bniedem li ressaqni lejn il-Partit Laburista. Huwa l-bniedem li mexxa lill-Partit Laburista ’l quddiem. Ftakru fis-Super One Television u c-Centru Nazzjonali Laburista fost l-ohrajn. Huwa l-bniedem li fil-ftit zmien li mexxa l-pajjiz ipprova veru jaghmel minn dan il-pajjiz wiehed modern u Ewropew.
L-affarijiet ma mxewx kif kellhom jimxu. Sant ghamel l-izbalji tieghu. Min ma jaghmilx?
Il-verità hija li l-Partit Laburista u l-pajjiz tilfu mexxej kbir tal-kalibru ta’ Duminku Mintoff. Fuq nota pozittiva, izda forsi fl-ahhar il-familja ta’ Alfred Sant, l-aktar ommu u bintu, isibu ftit tas-serhan minn dawk in-nies kattivi li haqruhom psikologikament sempliciment ghax jigu minnu.
Fiz-zmien li gej il-Partit Laburista se jkun qed jahseb u jiddeciedi fuq mexxej il-gdid. Ma hemmx dubju li l-Laburisti kollha se ninghaqdu wara l-mexxej il-gdid, ikun min ikun, biex immexxu lill-Partit Laburista u lill-pajjiz ’il quddiem.
Izda lil Alfred Sant, bhal hafna ohra, nghidlu grazzi kbira ta’ dak li ghamel ghalina lkoll u nittama li l-imhabba li ahna t-48% ta’ l-elettorat urejnih ikun tajjeb biex ipatti ftit ghal mibgheda li ntweriet kontrih u li zgur ma jisthoqqlux.
Inhobbuk Fred.
Elect Joseph Muscat as new Mlp leader and you get a younger Alfred Sant……. ma tal-biza! Kelli holma kera!
@Europarl – Malta deserves Joseph Muscat no more than it deserved Dom Mintoff, KMB and Alfred Sant. How come the Labour Party never gets to have a Fenech Adami or a Gonzi? Well, we won’t go into that here.
And please don’t say that the Labour Party didn’t campaign for the No vote!
A, NO, ABSTAIN or INVALIDATE the vote campaign is in fact a campaign to beat the YES vote for EU membership. We were not voting for EU Partnership then; so Joseph Muscat WAS anti EU. Nobody should think that all labourites are fools. These weren’t fools THEN and surely aren’t fools NOW.
Consequently not just these labourites ,but all the Yes voters are due an apology from MLP and all in view of the MLP’s U turn (la x-xitan ried hekk) considering especially the benefits we are now reaping because of the winning YES vote.
“Tweggawhomx iktar ‘il-laburisti” Anna Maliia.
Corinne, Daphne –
I’m not equating EU membership and the introduction of divorce legislation in terms of their respective importance for the country. To put it bluntly, I’d gladly accept a 100 more years of divorceless Malta as long as we got into the EU.
But I am equating them in the sense that they are issues which have undeniably brought out the opportunist streak in our army of red and blue soldiers.
It was very galling back then in the pre-referendum era to hear of reds who were ‘privately in favour of EU membership’ when their party was engaged in an all-out battle to keep us out of the Union. And it’s very galling now to hear of supposedly ‘liberal’ blues who are ‘secretly in favour of divorce’ when the word is literally TABOO for the PN’s top dogs.
But as I said, pragmatists abound. Guzi Muscat is just another pragmatist.
And guess what? I wouldn’t be too surprised if Guzi Muscat takes the plunge by kicking off the divorce debate. He clearly sees himself as a bit of a progressive after his stint in the EP.
Europarl / Kevin Ellul Bonici: The argument that the MLP did not campaign for a ‘no’vote is in the grand tradition made famous by Pontius Pilate. All that rubbish about voting for ‘partnership’ rather than ‘no’ to EU membership was just fancy packaging of the MLP’s message.
If we’re to believe what you say, Joseph Muscat apes the MLP in being neither here nor there on EU membership. That would explain why the MLP doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going.
The MLP needs to sort out its sense of direction before getting into government and not try to learn on the job. Malta doesn’t deserve any less. Judging by the tone of your last comment, it seems we agree on this much.
Daphne,
Veru kaz li ghandu wiccu u s…. l-istess! Kif ma stahax johrog ghall-elezzjoni tal-MEP wara dak li kien kiteb u qal qabel ir-referendum?
@ Eve
Ghalhekk Opportunist first class.
Daphne,
Why not (briefly) go there?
Up till at least the last quarter of the last century, Malta was socially split into two broad parts: the lower-end of the social class living below or slightly above the poverty line, and the higher-end social class, the well-educated, who had more access to higher education. The Labour Party always appealed to the former, whilst the Nationalist Party appealed mostly to the latter.
Malta progressed and social classes’ division became more and more blurred. Whilst ‘tifel tal-haddiema’ didn’t have access to higher education, during the latter part of the century, this was becoming more common. (The fact that higher education was slow to become accessible to all is also due to wrong Labour Party policies, but that’s another story)
While the Nationalist party adapted itself and became appealing to all strata of society; Labour still identified itself as the sole ‘Partit tal-Haddiema’.
It is stuck in this time warp to this day.
While Eddie Fenech Adami and now Lawrence Gonzi always start their mass meetings with ‘Huti Maltin u Ghawdxin’, Labour guys still talk about ‘benniena socjalista’, ‘haddiema’, ‘iljuni’ ‘glied’ and all these old adages. Most of the politically moderate Maltese will never feel at ease being part of such a party.
Until Labour leaders learn to keep up with the times and stop talking as if social divides still exist in Malta, they will not make any inroads in certain sections of Maltese society.
My sincere hope is that this time around, we will have such a Labour leader who will be as courageous.
Daphne/Corinne: that was not a campaign but a day-to-day reaction to the PN/IVA campaign.
Labour had no billboards, no events, no campaign plans – just the daily media routine in full gear. It looked like they were campaigning though.
(Most of the billoards, for example, were separately put up by No2EU and GWU.)
Europarl.
It seems to me that media ,especially TV is more dynamic and far reaching than a bill board, or is it that the MLP run a hidden agenda on their media? Wasn’t there a tint of pragmatism in the MlP media then? You must be joking.
David Friggieri: That equation is flawed. The consequences of the “pragmatists'” positions differ greatly. You yourself recognise that when you said “I’d gladly accept a 100 more years of divorceless Malta as long as we got into the EU.”
The “no” vote could have prevailed in the EU membership referendum simply because of a motley crew of political opportunists seeking to protect their position. The same cannot be said in the case of the “yes” vote.
Corinne,
very well explained.
lino,
I’m not going into the effectiveness of billboards as compared to other forms of media. My point is that OFFICIALLY Labour did not campaign for a No vote. That is a fact. Officially, it was “vote No, abstain, or invalidate your vote.”
And when the vote came, MLP did not mobilise at all – nada.
Europarl,
official or not official campaign, the fact is that the options suggested to voters by the MLP were directed into beating the YES vote. And that was an anti-EU membership stance.
Europarl / Kevin Ellul Bonici: The MLP backed up its anti-EU membership position soley with a slipshod, let’s-make-it-up-as-we-go-along campaign. It was messy and unprofessional, but it amounts to a campaign nonetheless.
Europarl
“And when the vote came, MLP did not mobilise at all – nada.”
Yes, and to prove that MLP did not mobilize at all, it held an impromtu
gathering at it’s media centre just to ‘analyze’ the referendum result!!
@lino
I think that europarl is correct. In that referendum, MLP had no need to get its company stretchers out to transport the sick, as both parties do in every election, since it craftily decided to amass all non-YES votes together.
Don’t tell me you forgot Nanna Olga!
amrio,
Nanna Olga could have opted to one of MLP,s suggestions – Abstaining- and you don’t need to be carried in a stretcher to the the polls to do that.
No Corinne, the equation isn’t flawed at all.
We’re talking of political opportunism here, i.e. the process of following the party line come what may even if it means compromising your true beliefs on a given subject, knowing full well that not towing the party line would seriously compromise your political career. The divorce question is relevant because, for obvious ideological reasons, Gonzi has virtually turned it into a ‘red line’ issue, a matter of principle.
We both agree that the consequences of supporting the ‘partnership option’ in 2003 were more far-reaching than keeping schtum on divorce in 2008, but that isn’t the point here.
The point is political opportunism to further your own career vs. integrity of belief and action. And it’s good that this is being brought up because it undelies much of what is wrong with our political culture of Yes men.
If one were to follow your logic, every single person militating in Sant’s anti-membership party should be termed a Class A opportunist and deemed unfit for leadership. That would leave them with precious little choice. Remember that even Saint George Abela and Lino Spiteri stood on Sant’s anti-EU bandwagon prior to 1996.
David Friggieri:
I agree wholeheartedly with your last opinion especially the last paragraph. The question that comes naturally is: What should the MLP do? Try its best to be pro-EU and being called an party of opportunists or continue with its anti-EU propaganda for the sake of being coherent?
I opt for the former.
David Friggieri: Let’s agree to disagree, shall we?
SB: The MLP could start by sorting out what it stands for, then it could develop coherence between its beliefs, action and communication.
@ David Friggieri :As far as I can remember Lino & George were not ” on Sant’s anti-EU bandwagon prior to 1996″.Lino Spiteri in his book regrets the mistake he made when he ‘supported’ the VAT removal , he was totally against it.
AS announced its removal without consulting his finance minister (Lino) because he knew about Lino’s stand against this harebrained scheme.
@ Europarl : are you trying to imply that MLP was actually in favour of our EU accession?
In the EU referendum when someone intentionally did not vote it simply meant that as far as he was concerned he left the decision to be taken by the other voters.Abstaining meant “I am not able to decide” , Dr Sant was one of them.
We even had a young woman on Xarabank weeping about our soldiers being brought in body bags if we entered the EU.
As a relative rightly points out “Bikja ta’ mara , be*la ta’ kelb!”
@David Friggieri – George Abela has something that Joseph Muscat hasn’t got: he voted Yes in the referendum. Joseph Muscat, on the other hand, abstained. Hence, he did nothing to help Malta get into the EU, and on the contrary, he hindered the process.
@Lino – we can do without misogynistic statements here, if you don’t mind.
Laqatni hafna l-artiklu hawn fuq “Siehbi, Alfred Sant,minn Joseph Muscat”, u ma niddejjak xejn nistqarr maghkom li jien u naqra, kemm kemm ma qabzitlix demgha.
“Meta ssir tafu sewwa tinduna li huwa bniedem dixxiplinat u iebes fejn hemm bzonn, izda supperv zgur li le” – ghal konferma, saqsu lill Dr.Abela u lis-Sur Spiteri!
David Figgieri: Perswas li Dr. Abela mhux qaddis, daqs kemm jien perswas li la int u lanqas jien m’ahna. Pero’ ma tistghax tibda thallat il-hass (George Abela u Lino Spiteri) mal-bass (Joseph Muscat). No comparison, mate!
Lino, I don’t really get the point you’re trying to make in relation to what I wrote.
If you want to say Labour campaigned for a No vote, fine. They did in a way, sure. But my point was simply a historical fact: officially and practically, it was a lame, knee-jerk “campaign”.
And btw, you say “A, NO, ABSTAIN or INVALIDATE the vote campaign is in fact a campaign to beat the YES vote for EU membership.”
I would think twice about this assertion. Had Sant been a sly europhile acting the part of a No campaigner he wouldn’t have come up with a better idea than to split the No vote the way he did. Are you not realizing that Sant’s ridiculous directive split the No vote in a way that made it practically impossible for it to win???
Actually Daphne, you are wrong. By abstaining both the wigged one and Joseph Muscat voted in FAVOUR of the EU. Not intentionally ofcourse. Abstaining is voting for the majority by default. It is simple maths. That is democracy. I KNOW that was not the remotest of their intentions but that’s exactly what they did.
Europarl, the MLP had this invention called Partnership that even they did not have any clue about. When the result came out the wigged one, despite the humiliating defeat that he himself helped bring about by abstaining, said that PARTNERXIP REBAH.
And you say they were not campaigning against membership? Hallina trid!
Daphne,
in my last post ‘Nanna Olga’ was a reference to anybody, male or female. Perhaps I should have put it in brackets.
@Lino and all,
I started the Nanna Olga thing, so apologies if you got told off.
Just to clarify, for those who forgot or don’t know the story, Nanna Olga was Lou Bondi’s grandmother who, for the 1st time in her life, could not go to vote in the referendum. Lou asked Sant how to spill the news to Nanna that she voted for partnership (he was being mildly sarcastic of course).
Sant’s reply? ‘Nilqghu lin-Nanna Olga fil-familja Laburista’
Obviously Sant was joking too – he is renowned worldwide for his sharp wit….
… continued from previous comment…
tried to find the YouTube video of this but couldn’t.. can anyone find it?
Europarl.
Yes and also practically possible for the YES vote to lose. Like David Buttigieg posted earlier ‘Abstaining is voting for the majority’ with the important difference that one cannot tell what that majority would be. That is why it is very irresponsible.
John Schembri, No, I am not trying to imply “that MLP was actually in favour of our EU accession?”.
What I wrote is clear enough. If not, refer to the prologue to this at: http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/?p=207#comment-4276
@David Buttigieg – I don’t know where you went to school, but my maths teacher would have said that if you leave yourself out of the equation, you leave yourself out of the equation. You just don’t figure, full stop. That’s why it’s called an abstention. You’re using the same sort of reasoning that Sant used to claim that he won.
@Lino – when I said misogynistic, I was referring to your quotation of the maxim about ‘bikja ta’ mara’ and what it’s worth.
Daphne,
it was not me who posted that.
Daphne,
I beg to differ, let me give you an example.
Let us say there are 10 votes, 5 yes, 5 No.
Nobody has an advantage. Nobody has a majority.
Now let us say 1 NO decides not to vote instead.
The number of votes counted is 9 not 10. The Yes have 5 votes out of 9. An absolute majority. By not voting the No voter automatically lowered the threshold the Yes votes need to reach for an absolute majority, in effect “voting Yes”.
With all due respect Sant claimed that all those who didn’t vote INTENDED voting no. In effect these votes in practice proved to be Yes votes. (If for example No had won, the non voters would have been no votes by default)
By the way, St Edward’s College
David Buttigieg.
“I beg to differ, let me give you an example.
Let us say there are 10 votes, 5 yes, 5 No.”
Well David let us say the voted were not as you say…… who could ever tell. Besides that a NO-saying non-voter is an abstainer.
David
to add … iggudikawna b’dak li naghmlu mhux b’dak li nghidu
Lino, for heaven’s sake I gave those figures as an easy example but the same holds out for any amount of votes, whichever way they voted.
By abstaining your vote is not counted in an election. Therefore by abstaining you are automatically voting in favour of whoever gets the majority.
What you meant to do does not count for the end result.
David,
your hypothesis holds true for any amount of votes but only if they are assumed to be divided
50/50
David Buttigieg: By abstaining you are not voting at all. That is why it is called an abstention.
Lino, I can see your Maths is not too good so for the hell of it let me explain and take the Referendum as an example.
The electorate was 297,881. 31,159 people did not vote in one way or another (a few were dead).
YES – 143,094 – 53.65%
No – 123,628 – 46.35%
Diff- 19,466
with me so far?
The total votes cast was 266,722 so to reach 50% 133,361 votes were needed, down from 148,940 had everyone voted. By not voting those 31,159 lowered the 50% threshold to 133,361, giving the Yes votes a LEGAL and ACTUAL 53.65% majority.
Now Sant claimed those 31,159 were NO votes but that was his usual special reasoning. In PRACTICE not voting is AUTOMATICALLY voting for whoever has the majority PRECISELY because the vote is not taken into account when counting the total.
If you can’t understand this I suggest you ask your maths teacher again.
Corinne Vella,
Yes, you call it abstaining but the fact remains that by doing so in an election you get the winner one vote closer to the majority.
The only difference is that you do not have a choice as to who your ‘non-vote’ is actually a vote in favour of!
David Buttigieg: Why do you keep harping on about this? By abstaining you are not voting at all. That is why it is called an abstention.
Daphne, Lino and Corinne
You may call it what you like. In practice by not voting you are voting for WHOEVER gets the majority. You may tell yourself that you “abstained”, but even though you you removed your own choice you still voted.
Still, I can see you will never understand it!
David Buttigieg is right. No one doubted Lawrence Gonzi when saying that an abstention (or a vote for AD) means a vote for MLP! So why all this fuss against David’s comments?
[Moderator – Because as you imply, it depends on the context. Abstaining is a mutually exclusive event, even when both parties are tied down to the last vote, because the winner is calculated on the number of valid votes cast, and not the total number of voters. Abstaining is more a case of losing the potential to enhance the position of a party over that of another.]
David Buttigieg: You are confusing understanding with agreement.
Corinne Vella, Trust me I know exactly what I’m saying. If you can’t understand it that’s another matter.
Moderator, it is precisely because the winner is calculated on the number of valid votes cast that MATHEMATICALLY by abstaining you are giving the majority a vote advantage. You have no choice who is that majority however and it is here that it differs from actually voting.
By the way, don’t take my word for it, ask any statistician.
Quite frankly if you don’t understand it I can’t really explain much more.
[Moderator – By abstaining you lose the ability to prevent or create an advantage, you are not ‘giving’ an advantage because it is already there. When the parties are tied, you lose the ability to break the tie.]
Actually Moderator I’ll grant you that by abstaining you have no effect IF THE VOTES ARE EXACTLY 50/50.
In reality that never happens.
Otherwise, a rose by any other name …..
@David Buttigieg – I never thought St Edward’s was a particularly good school. Here’s where your mistake is: you are starting from a total number of registered voters, rather than a total number of people who voted. If, in your example of 10, only nine people vote, then the total is 9, and not 10.
St Dorothy’s Convent, Mdina
@Lino – my apologies
It’s OK Daphne: I can understand it’s very easy to make a slip going through all the posting.
Daphne,
You are proving my point. With one person not voting the number of votes goes down to 9 which gives an automatic majority to the party with 5 votes, a majority that would not exist if that person had voted, even for a third party.
Really, this is getting ridiculous, this is not something I made up but a simple maths sum.
P.S.
I never thought much of St Dorothy’s either!
David Buttigieg: At last we agree. This is getting ridiculous. You’re still banging on about numbers while everyone’s moved on elsewhere.
David,
the original argument is whether the MLP was campaigning against EU membership or not. Here is a resume with my comments
1)Europarl to Lino
AS had made it practically impossible for the NO vote to win because he suggested 3 options to the electorate and for those suggestions he can hypothetically be assumed an undeclared (my logical assumption), sly, NO campaigning Europhile.
Comment – the origin of the argument
2)David to Daphne
Both AS and JM, by abstaining, voted unintentionally in favour of EU membership, and abstaining is voting for the majority by default, and that is simple maths and democracy.
Comment – I disagree. By abstaining they intentionally decreased the votes in favour of EU membership if they were Europhiles and intentionally decreased the votes against EU membership if they were Euro sceptics. But factually (not intentionally or otherwise), they decreased the votes cast. And yours is not simple maths. Its sheer illogic. Yet democracy allows you to say that.
3)David to Europarl
“And you say they were not campaigning against membership?
Hallina trid!”
Comment – That’s taking my side on the original argument.
4)Lino to Europarl
“Yes and also practically possible for the YES vote to lose. Like
David Buttigieg posted earlier ‘Abstaining is voting for the majority’ with the important difference that one cannot tell what that majority would be. That is why it is very irresponsible.”
Comment – I add ‘Abstaining is like voting for the majority with the important difference that one cannot tell what that majority would be when. That is why it is very irresponsible.’ And again, abstaining does not equate to voting.
5)Daphne to David
If you leave yourself out of the equation, you just don’t figure.
Comment – Ding dong (with the kind permission of Meerkat)
6)David to Daphne
If there are 5 yes votes and 5 No votes,thus nobody having a majority and 1 NO vote decides not to vote, the Yes have an absolute majority. By not voting the NO voter automatically lowered the threshold the YES votes need for an absolute majority, in effect “voting Yes”. If for example NO had won, the non voters would have been NO votes by default.
Comment – If there are 5 YES votes and 5 NO votes, the polling is done, and the 1 NO vote cannot decide not to vote once he has voted. By not buying a lottery ticket, you are not increasing the winning chances for others who do. Just as much as by buying a lottery ticket you are not decreasing the losing (or winning) chances for others who don’t. And now if there were 6 NO intending voters and 5 YES intending voters and 1 NO intending voter abstains while all the others do vote as they intend, which majority would he have helped to win?
7)Lino to David
Well David let us say the votes were not as you say…… who could ever tell. Besides that a NO-saying non-voter is an abstainer. To add … iggudikawna b’dak li naghmlu mhux b’dak li nghidu.
Comment – Vide comment in 6)
8)David to Lino
Lino, those figures are an easy example but the same holds true for any amount of votes, whichever way they voted.
By abstaining, your vote is not counted in an election. Therefore by abstaining you are automatically voting in favour of whoever gets the majority.
What you meant to do does not count for the end result.
Comment – I disagree. By abstaining you are automatically not voting; you are just reducing the amount of votes cast. Again see
comment in 6). ‘What you meant to do does not count for the end result.’ True, but it counts a lot in view of the original argument. You see, the whole argument is about principles and pragmatism.
9)Lino to David
Your hypothesis holds true for any amount of votes but only if they are assumed to be divided 50/50.
Comment – To add, even if the number of YES/NO intending eligible voters is 50/50, the NO intending abstainers must be more in number than the YES intending abstainers for a YES victory, and the reason why should YES intending voters abstain, is the same as for the NO intending abstainers. Irresponsibility.
10)David to Lino
Lino, I can see your Maths is not too good so for the hell of it let me explain and take the Referendum as an example.
Non voters – 27248
Invalid votes – 3911 – 31159
YES votes – 143094
NO votes – 123628 – 266722 divided by 2 = 133361
Eligible votes – 297881 – divided by 2 = 148940
with me so far?
By not voting those 31,159 lowered the 50% threshold to 133,361,
giving the Yes votes a LEGAL and ACTUAL 53.65% majority.
Now Sant claimed those 31,159 were NO votes .
In PRACTICE not voting is AUTOMATICALLY voting for whoever has the majority PRECISELY because the vote is not taken into account when counting the total.
If you can’t understand this I suggest you ask your maths teacher again.
Comment – As to the first part, adding up the numbers, I agree except that 148940 should read 148940.5 ( you see I’m not that bad at Maths after all).
As to the first sentence you are stating the obvious, NOW. Sant wasn’t THEN, was he?. He tried to play the tossing game with a two ‘heads’ penny (or a two ‘tails’ penny if you want), or a ‘heads you lose tails I win’ game rules. Sant claimed that abstaining voters were factually voters, exactly like your’e doing. Wrong.
As to the second sentence, perhaps it should read ‘…. for whoever GETS the majority…’ But again how can, not voting be voting, and how can a vote not be taken into account, or better an uncast vote be taken into account, when counting the totals.
If you can’t understand this I suggest you ask your logics teacher.
11)SB to all
David Buttigieg is right. No one doubted Lawrence Gonzi when saying that an abstention (or a vote for AD) means a vote for MLP! So why all this fuss against David’s comments?
Comment – Wrong. I did. I thought that abstaining was reducing
PN’s chances so I voted PN. I could also have thought that another abstainer might be reducing MLP’s chances, but I didn’t take the ‘pairing’ risk. Not that I wanted to abstain, anyway.
12)David to Corinne
Trust me I know exactly what I’m saying. If you can’t understand it that’s another matter.
Comment – I wish I were Corinne….Grrrrrrrrr.
13)David to moderator
it is precisely because the winner is calculated on the number of valid votes cast that MATHEMATICALLY by abstaining you are giving the majority a vote advantage. You have no choice who is that majority however and it is here that it differs from actually voting. By the way, don’t take my word for it, ask any statistician. Quite frankly if you don’t understand it I can’t really explain much more.
Comment – Again I wish I were the moderator….Grrrrrr. With your permission Mod: David, read last part of comment 6).
14)Moderator to David
By abstaining you lose the ability to prevent or create an advantage, you are not ‘giving’ an advantage because it is already there. When the parties are tied, you lose the ability to break the tie.
Comment – Ding dong (again please Meerkat don’t sue me for rights)
David to Mod
Actually Moderator I’ll grant you that by abstaining you have no effect IF THE VOTES ARE EXACTLY 50/50.
In reality that never happens.
Comment – Discrimination! You didn’t grant me that in my posting
9). In reality though it can happen
David,
statistics cram a time-periodic event into timeless set of data; the reverse of this is not possible. In Maltese we say ‘meta Kolombu pogga ‘l-bajda wieqfa kulhadd qal ‘iss x’gherf.’ We also say ‘li kieku waqa w kiser siequ’. You remember ‘Seven brides for seven brothers’? Each girl stating she was the mother of the same baby?
One can extrapolate from given data, but it will always be a guess albeit scientific, no matter how small the margin of error is. That is why statistics is a tool which is very aptly used by politicians. Yet the original argument was about principles vs pragmatism.