Endorsement by a foreign politician is not the same as endorsement by a citizen of your own country
Occasionally, things happen that remind me just how backward and undeveloped Maltese society is, and how unsophisticated its thinking. I have followed the attempts at justifying Martin Schulz’s endorsement of Joseph Muscat, and what shocks me most is that many people cannot see it for what it is. Several people have argued that ‘endorsements are the norm’. Yes, they are. But only when those doing the endorsing share the same citizenship as those they are endorsing.
Arguments can be tested by taking them to the extreme. Would Martin Schulz ever consider flying to London to tell a gathering of the British national press, when Gordon Brown finally flunks out, who he thinks is the best choice for Labour Party leader – with that man sitting by his side? Of course not. Just imagine Britain’s reaction if a bloody German flew in to tell the Labour Party who would make the best new leader and, eventually, prime minister. That contender’s campaign would be dead in the water at once. And it would never occur to somebody campaigning for the leadership of a British political party to consider such a stratagem. And if he did, it wouldn’t be just the press that would rip him to shreds all over the front pages and in a zillion commentaries, but the Labour Party itself. Ask yourself why, and there you have your answer as to why Joseph Muscat and Martin Schulz behaved abominably and showed themselves to be unfit for office.
A politician will only fly in to interfere in the leadership election of a political party of a country not his own when (1) the country or organisation he represents (in this case, both) are larger and stronger than the country and organisation in which he is interfering, and (2) the country which he is visiting to interfere is considered inferior in the colonialist manner, allowing him to believe there is nothing wrong with patronising a political party there. Martin Schulz feels comfortable patronising the Labour Party in tin-pot Malta, but he would never for one moment consider patronising the Labour Party in Britain, and if he tried to patronise a political party in Italy, he would find himself with Silvio Berlusconi’s boot up his backside.
Martin Schulz’s gesture was completely ill-advised and unethical, Joseph Muscat demonstrated that he thinks of himself, his party and his country as inferior by inviting such patronising behaviour, and the Labour Party shows itself to have been hijacked by Joseph Muscat and his own personal patron when it fails to censure his action. In the mind of the Labour Party, if it has a mind, it’s all right for a contender to import the opinion of foreign politicians and hold a public circus that draws down opprobrium, but it is not OK for all the contenders to go on a television show together.
Those who make comparisons with the endorsements of politicians in the USA and elsewhere are missing the crucial point that the people making those endorsements are citizens of the same country in which the election is being held, and in the case of a general election, they will be voting. In other words, they share the citizenship of the politician they are endorsing and have a direct interest in how the country or party is run. The same cannot be said of a politician flown in from elsewhere, which causes us to ask: what’s in it for Martin Schulz? And more to the point, who paid his airfare?
88 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The Poodle’s baggage
http://bp0.blogger.com/_vm0mJS4HDbg/R7AwsG82GrI/AAAAAAAAAKE/kcMtv0KnflA/s1600-h/baggage+b.jpg
I lost any respect which I previously had for Joe Muscat and his ‘Generazzjoni Rebbieha’ after this dirty trick. Actually, you should have posted his photo alongside Schulz with that trademark smirk which is becoming unsupportable as time goes by. It’s clear that a split in the MLP is on the cards – who would want to work with this guy who preaches unity and sows discord?
I have just finished watching Joseph Muscat on Dissett. He said that when he asked Alfred Sant for his advice about contesting in the european parliament election he was told not to contest. The reason being that he would not be elected. So Alfred Sant also got this wrong and failed to endorse Joseph Muscat.
Am sorry, I see the photo was posted in another article :)
Strange how Joseph Muscat did not obey his leaders advice. There is some hope for him yet.
Would Daphne be screaming blue murder had Joseph Muscat been a national M.P. and had he been endorsed by the leader of his parliamentary group? I think not. That happens all the time. It is the norm. Such endorsements are sought after by candidates all the time. Margaret Thatcher supported John Major in his bid for the leadership of the British Conservatives. Tony Blair supported Gordon Brown for British Labour Leader. GBO had his favourite candidate for P.N. leader. Dom had his for MLP leader and has already endorsed GA in this contest. No protests by Daphne there. Exasperation at the embarassing endorsement, yes. Protests that it was made at all, no.
The crucial difference here seems to be that Joseph Muscat just happens to be a member of a supranational parliament not a national parliament. He apparently sought and obtained an endorsement from the head of his parliamentary group within that supranational parliament. The head of his parliamentary group in this 27 nation grouping just happens to be a “barrani”. This “barrani” came to Malta and told everyone that Joseph Muscat was a qualified member of his team and had solid European credentials. He thought that he had leadership abilities. All hell has broken loose as a result not of what the “barrani” said but because the person saying it happens to be a “barrani”.
Our little Maltesers, (suprisingly) Daphne included, are incandescent with rage. How dare this “barrani” interfere in local politics they splutter?! They probably are conditioned to subconciously think in terms of foreign interference a la 1970s Mintoff. They are afraid that we the “popolin” are still so colonialist in our mentality that we will be impressed not by the fact that Member of the European Parliament Joseph Muscat got an endorsement from the leader of his Parliamentary group but by the fact that that leader happens to be a “barrani”. Daphne and other little Maltesers believe that we will give undue weight to what this man said because we have such an inferiority complex that we rank a “barrani”‘s endorsement more than we do a Maltese person’s.
Daphne, most Maltese people have more sense than you give them credit for! Get over your “colonialist” conditioning and credit your conationals with some level of maturity.
Obviously No Maltese in his right mind would endorse the poor poodle, so he had to get somebody who knew Jack****, to do so.
Ones a Tool, the other is a sniveling boot licker.
Those 2 sure do make a good loser couple.
@ Uncle Fester (bloody stupid nick, that) – Tony Blair supported Gordon Brown???? What sodding universe are you living in????
@Andrew Borg Cardona. I like the Munsters, have a problem with that? Through clenched teeth and with a gun to his head, Tony went through the motions of supporting Gordon. I’m sure Tony’s rolling about laughing now and telling anyone who will listen that he told them so!
Yes, fine, Uncle Fester, except that Schulz got the bit about “European credentials” completely spectacularly wrong for, you see, Joseph Muscat fought to keep us out of the EU.
And in case I need to spell it out:
No EU membership = No MEP seat
Muscat should have asked for Gunther Verheugen’s endorsement. That was one hell of a switched-on chap, and he’d have seen right through the bullshit.
@Andrew Borg Cardona. I meant the Addams Family! I like the Munsters as well.
@H.P. Baxxter. I don’t necessarily disagree with you. You are questioning the basis for Schulz’s endorsement and not the fact that he had a right to make it, which is what Daphne is doing. Gunther Verheugen was part of the Commission not the Parliament, right?
@uncle fester
If anyone is rendering us colonial it is JM seeking foreign endorsement from idiots who say that JM would be our best choice when they have no idea who the other contestants and their brothers are.
This is not a question of Blair endorsing Brown (Sic!). It is as if Brown would endorse Obama over Clinton.
Unbelievable how thick some people are or choose to be.
@P Portelli. You’re buying into Daphne’s analysis which is flawed. This is not a case of getting an endorsement from a “barrani” because that person is a “barrani” so as to unduly influence us gullible “popolin”. This is a case of getting an endorsement from the leader of one’s parliamentary group who happens to be a “barrani”. So it’s not like Brown endorsing Hillary over Obama or Piccoli endorsing EFA. It’s a unique situation arising out of Malta’s new status as an EU member and the fact that a Euro MP is running for national office.
@ Uncle Fester
You said: “Our little Maltesers, (suprisingly) Daphne included, are incandescent with rage.” Or it may be that the little Maltesers are much more analytical than you.
Let us start from who Muscat was trying to impress. The delegates, seeing their average profile you will immediately understand that they are the kind that are easily impressed. Who did Muscat bring over? THE CHAIRMAN of the united (using delegates language)socialists of Europe. So Schulz is definitely one of the greatest hit, and very few can come as close in impressing the average delegate.
Now if you want to make comparisons, the closest comparison that I can make is this is this. Imagine 3 months ago Barosso came over to Malta, sorry, was brought to Malta by Gonzi to attend a press conference in which Barosso should praise Gonzi on the European success he managed to make and that he would be a very good choice to lead Malta. Yes, it is a very good comparison, you have the Chairman of a group of members endorsing a leader and by doing so influencing the electorate of one of the members he represents on which leader to choose. I would have liked to see how the average delegate would have reacted to that.
Finally, you also have ethics in play, very important for a politician to be perceived ethical especially a leader. Muscat owes his position to the MLP, including three of his competitors, that backed vigour sly campaigned for him to attain his seat, only to use it against at the first opportunity.
I see what you mean, Uncle Fester. However, even though Schulz had a right to endorse whoever he likes in whichever country it should please him, the whole charade was still in very bad taste. And I’m still convinced he’s being fed a pack of lies. I mean when you get “blah blah blah….is a person who always believed in the EU…etc etc” you can’t really put much value in the endorsement.
@Uncle Fester – you obviously didn’t read my post before commenting, nor even the heading, in which I clearly say that you can’t compare an endorsement by a fellow citizen with an endorsement by a foreign politician.
@Oh and by the way, Uncle Fester – you are beginning to read suspiciously like Anthony Licari ABZ DipDUCK MPhil
@Uncle Fester – my analysis is not flawed. If you doubt my judgement, and if you are who I suspect you are, talk to a couple of your colleagues at the University – those who teach International Relations, not those who teach French.
@And Uncle Fester, one more thing: did you read the bit where I explained why Martin Schulz the head of that parliamentary group would never dream of going to London to tell the Labour Party who to elect instead of Gordon Brown? How is that situation different? Oh yes, Britain is an important country; the British Labour Party is an important party; the British prime minister is an important prime minister, and….a British politician would never sit with a German, of all things, politician by his side and listen to him say of him “I’ve tried this product and I like it. You should try it too.”
I’m sure Rasmussen and Schulz are having a good laugh over the Labour mini-saga – and over a fine bottle of champagne, no doubt. They are buddies in arms, and Majkul’s komplejn` to Rasmussen is like a bug’s whisper in the wind.
[Note: Former Danish prime minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, now MEP, is the President of the Party of European Socialists (PES), while Martin Schulz MEP is the President of the Group of the PES in the European Parliament. It’s one monolith with two heads]
So far, Labour’s relationship with the PES Group has been cringingly embarassing (“Think about us, think about us,” said one Labour official as he patted British MEPs on the back just as he does at the kazin. He was canvassing for an MLP post in some parliamentary committee, you see.)
So who are these people, headed by Schulz, who is now assuring us that Muscat is our best option?
The PES Group is the most “federalist” group in the EU Parliament and is intolerant to any criticism of the Union’s planned future. You can watch Schulz in action at 2:30 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVeMBNB0cII
“Federalist” is indeed a euphemism – they are actually EU Statists of the totalitarian type; the sort that call others “fascists”, “racists”, “xenophobes” just because they oppose their supranational Statist ideology. They play goody-goody, milking the WWII cow to its bones, taking credit for everything good they say happened in Europe.
And what do they want? They say they want a “strong Europe”. That’s the latest buzzword. Meaning what exactly? Economically powerful, perhaps? But that’s been achieved through the single market, the ‘four freedoms of movement’, the harmonisation of laws, monetary union, the euro… (and with less EU bureaucracy and more flexibility we would all have prospered more).
It is therefore military and political might that they mean. And the Lisbon Treaty provides ample evidence as to what sort of military power they hope to achieve. You can check Articles 23 – 46 TEU (particularly from 42 on) here:
http://www.euinfo.ie/uploads/file/Consolidated_LISBON_TREATY_3.pdf (TEU not TFEU – know your future Constitution)
These articles clearly show that the Union aims to emulate the US as an interventionist superpower that polices the world against noN-bElieVers, aNti-dEmoCratS and terRr’Sts. In other words, it aims to maintain the peace through the barrel of the gun. The philosophy here is that the world is evil but the Europeans are good and they’ll convert the evil ones (now where have we heard that before?)
Don’t forget that superpower status does not translate into economic well-being, as the Soviet experiment once showed… and as the US dream is bound to show (the free market is what had made the US productive, not the imperial wars that depleted its wealth and productivity.) But more than this, the Union they wish for is by all definitions an empire.
And all empires fail and fall, as history has shown…
(You can also check article 48(6) (TEU) to see what makes this treaty a self-amending treaty – the type that self-amends into a new soviet union because it has no effective democratic checks and balances)
So these are Labour’s mentors in the European Parliament.
And Labour’s output at a European level is under a short leash and a heavy muzzle. So when Joseph Muscat tells you that Labour “fights for Malta” in Brussels, don’t believe him. EU-Statism can never, in any form or manner, be of any beneift to a tiny offshore member state. What we have today (the Nice Treaty) is by far a better deal than what the Lisbon Treaty offers.
(Also note that the sixth seat comes from a Parliamentary Report on the re-allocation of seats for a 750-seat parliament as from June 2009. This report is provided for in an attached protocol (No. 36). So that has already been agreed – we should get the 6th seat even if Ireland votes No. On the other hand, with Lisbon we lose influence in the EU council through “double qualified majority voting”.)
Did you ever hear a whisper about any of the above from our “fighters” in the EU Parliament?
Do you know that on 12 June the Irish electorate will be voting on our future in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, a right that Gonzi in collusion with Sant denied to the Maltese electorate, as did the leaders of the other 25 member states?
Schulz endorsing Muscat is no surprise. What’s in it for Schulz, Daphne asks. How about an obedient lapdog who can secure Labour’s unflinching loyalty for more years to come?
As for airfares, the European taxpayers pick up the bill, and that includes you.
@ Uncle Fester
We happen to like the same programme. However I don’t hail from the same socio-economic background as you do! Heqq I was brought up in a government school during the socialist era…
However I could easily distinguish Schultz comments as being biased and not based on truth. He stated that Joseph Muscat was always a pro EU chap! How’s that for a start?
I think he was fed with stupid lies. I’m sure you recall JM’s articles and comments against the so called “allahares qatt nidhlu fl-Unjoni Ewropeja”, or else his arrogant attitude to the then PM Fenech Adami on TV debates. If you forgot about them , I suggest you to make some research on youtube or google.com.mt. You’ll easily find out how wrong Schultz is.
Have a nice day :)
@Uncle Fetser and all those defending the indefensible
Even Joe Muscat himself realised the mistake in the Shulz stunt. Read this – http://www.timesofmalta.com.mt/articles/view/20080528/local/muscat-cancels-endorsements-by-meps
I am very curious to know who these “high-profile MEPs” are, is it a new trend in the most useless parliament in the world? To me these endorsements are nothing more than an insult to the intelligence of anyone with an average IQ. You prove yourself with the work you have done, no endorsement or certificate will ever replace past performances.
Because Daphne is such a stickler for terminology and to make europarl mad, may I humbly point out that Mr. Schulz and Dr. Muscat actually do share the same citizenship. EU citizenship, that is. Let me put it like this: in some ways Schulz is ‘foreign’ from a Maltese perspective, in other ways he’s not. Which muddies the waters just a teeny weeny bit.
[Moderator – Is there such a thing as an ‘EU citizen’?]
Does anyone remember the frequent “l-inkwiet intern fil-Partit Nazzjonalista” items in the Labour Party media not so long ago? Reminds you of a Maltese proverb about the chemist.
Daphne, many people will hold Mr.Schultz in contempt after his typically ham-handed intervention in the labour contest or after reading your blog entry from today.
As Europeans, they’d have done well to hold him in contempt well before this. I hold him in contempt, firstly, because he is the worst kind of Eurofederalist: the sort who sees the EU as a socialist undertaking which will subtly erode all the freedoms gained by our belief in free markets and our rejection of BIG government.
I hold him in contempt secondly, because he is exactly the kind of snivelly wimp who will take advantage of any political opportunity and twist it as he sees fit – thus the grotesque incident with berlusconi when he intentionally misunderstood the joke to ‘milk the WW2 cow’ as europarl calls it, in the most ungentlemanly way.
But all Labour delegates should hold him in contempt chiefly because this is the sort of man who, if he had been born in malta, would have made an archetypal labour leader: when MEP Hans Peter Martin (also a socialist) in 2004 accused a number of MEPs of signing up for the European parliament’s daily allowances fraudulently (i.e. jiffirmaw u jitilqu)guess how Mr.Schultz reacted? That saga was eloquently recounted by today’s Liberal party (UK) leader, and can be read at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/apr/08/politicalcolumnists.eu
It’s good to judge everyone by their own words and actions – and boy, wouldn’t I love it if a Net news reporter waved a mike under Muscat’s nose and asked him if he ‘endorses’ Schultz’s actions with regards to transparency crusader Mr.Martin…
Moderator asks “Is there such a thing as an ‘EU citizen’?”
Of course there is. And it underpins much of what the Union is about.
Check out Part Two of the EC Treaty on Citizenship of the Union
[Moderator – I mean, in a touchy-feely nations and nationalism way.]
@Alex
Re that times article, I think thats a load of bull – just like that divorce thing.
He’s trying to save face but still look like a endorsed-hero in the mean time, calling “off endorsements by a number of MEPs as a result of the reaction to Mr Schultz’s endorsement”(the article).
How many bald sugardaddies does this guy have?
@ Jason Spiteri Schultz did not misunderstand Berluconi’s WW2 “joke” . It was no joke at all. Schultz had strongly criticised Berluconi and went as far as saying that Berlusconi had mafia links, and this incident happened when Italy took over the EU presidency. Berlusconi replied in kind , and took a jibe at him about a WW2 concentration camp film, and SB said the part of the German Kapo would suit Schultz well !
It seems Schultz yapps quite a bit, and gets what he deserves.
Moderator – By virtue of his EU citizenship, if Martin Schulz resided in, say, Mosta he’d be entitled to stand as a candidate in both the Mosta local council elections and the European Parliament elections held in Malta. Quite impressive from a ‘nations and nationalism’ perspective, no?
[Moderator – Do you feel that you and Schulz are fellow citizens?]
Interesting questions, Moderator. Living in a post-national place as I do probably helps me to ‘feel’ that my Greek, Italian and Polish friends and colleagues are indeed ‘fellow citizens’. But there’s no reason why people living in Malta, Dublin or Bratislava shouldn’t feel the same way about their fellow Europeans.
In this whole Joe Muscat affair, my hunch is that what gets people’s goat is what folks perceive to be Muscat’s cheeky chappy stunt rather than anything particularly amiss in the endorsement. They can’t stand that this guy -whose support to Sant pre-referendum risked keeping us out of the EU – is now flaunting his new pals in a chummy-chummy way. On a first-name basis, to boot!
Hey, let’s have a discussion about EU citizenship.
Yes, Daphne and Moderator, I feel that I am an EU citizen. When you come from a shit-arse country such as mine, you tend to make up for it by believing in some higher, nobler entity.
@Baxxter – and which shit-arse country is that, pray tell?
I refer to comments in today’s Times pronounced by an ex socialist minister while yesterday he was endorsing Dr Coleiro Preca candidature as the future labour leader Deja vu!!!. These comments brought back ugly memories from the past, the days when Censu & Co ruled the roost in the health services and Marie Louse was secretary of the party . God only knows the whole list of vindictive transfers which were implimented with the resultant of hardships that these transfers entailed . I was one of the victims. Of course we still remember Cens the “good” old days. How can we forget what we have been through.WE promise never to forget. How can we trust labour again when prior to the last election certain members of staff in certain Government Depts were already openly discussing the transfers of certain employees once Labour is in Government.
Since the 50’s the Malta Labour Party has been under a self inflicted curse which will perpetuate itself unless the elected future leader is a true gentleman and a man of honour and tries to atone and apologises from the injustices and sufferings inflicted in the past on their fellow citizens.
@Moderator, who asked “Is there such a thing as an ‘EU citizen’?”
EU citizen has been established since Maastricht (currently Art.17 TEC, Nice Treaty). Today EU citizenship “complements” national citizenship and “does not replace it”.
The Lisbon Treaty slightly alters this to EU citizenship being “additional”. Irrelevant nuance? Not if you consider that the Lisbon Treaty holds primacy over national constitutions. This means that EU citizenship is not just “additional”, but can actually REPLACE it.
The principle of primacy as was proposed by Article I-6 of the rejected EU Constitution is not explicitly included in the main articles of the Lisbon treaty, but is recalled in Declaration 17 which is annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon.
Declaration 17, concerning primacy, was concocted in Brussels on 03.12.2007 at the Conference of the Representatives of the Member Sates held on 3 December 2007.
Declarations do not have the same legally binding force as Treaties, but for the first time in EU history this declaration represents an unconditional acceptance of this principle by all the Member States. What’s more, the ECJ has established case law (and the ECJ is more supreme than supremity itself).
Declaration 17, annexed to the Lisbon Treaty, states in full (don’t forget that “community” is eurospeak for “federal”, yet still “federal” is in itself a euphemism because we are dealing here with a suprnational State in formation):
DECLARATION CONCERNING PRIMACY
The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the EU Court of Justice, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law. The Conference has also decided to attach as an Annex to this Final Act the Opinion of the Council Legal Service on the primacy of EC law as set out in 11197/07 (JUR 260): “It results from the case-law of the Court of Justice that primacy of EC law is a cornerstone principle of Community law. According to the Court, this principle is inherent to the specific nature of the European Community. At the time of the first judgment of this established case law (Costa/ENEL, 15 July 1964, Case 6/6411) there was no mention of primacy in the treaty. It is still the case today. The fact that the principle of primacy will not be included in the future treaty shall not in any way change the existence of the principle and the existing case-law of the Court of Justice.”
……………………
As to Moderator’s other comment: “I mean, in a touchy-feely nations and nationalism way.”
You mean as in Euro-nationalism, like Sovietism? I think you need some updating as to how europhiles see the EU. I’m not referring to starry-eyed europhiles who believe the sky is pink. I’m referring to the Schulz types – this feeling is what makes their outlook totalitarian, for a European people as such does not exist (there isn’t even a distinguishable “EU media” but 27 configurations of national media). Yet the political structure that was introduced by Maastricht in 1993 and consolidated through Amsterdam and Nice, come to fruition with Lisbon, which is the treaty that finally gives the Union “legal personality”.
@ Alex and Alexander-the-not-so-great(!!) I am not necessarily agreeing (or for that matter disagreeing) with what Mr. Schulz said about Dr. Muscat. I am simply pointing out that he was within his rights to endorse his fellow Socialist MEP Joseph Muscat. We’re talking apples and oranges, both fruit but different varieties (with apologies to my Big Fat Greek Wedding). And Alexander-the-not-so-great, what makes you think we hail from such different social backgrounds? I was educated at a church school in the socialist era, does that make me from a different social background?
@Daphne. 1. I read your article carefully. Your analysis is flawed. Schulz’s endorsement of Muscat is different from Schulz’s theoretical endorsement of Brown’s successor. If Brown’s theoretical successor is a British Socialist MEP then Schulz would be within his rights to endorse him. Fact is that Brown’s successor when he appears will likely not be an MEP but an M.P. and therefore Schulz would be wrong to endorse him. That would be the sort of interference you condemn. Muscat is an MEP, not an M.P. and that is why Schulz’s endorsement is correct and ethical. It only seems incorrect to you because you have a colonial mindset. Something that you share with a vast majority of our fellow citizens aged 35 and over.
P.S. Who is Anthony Licari? I am a professional person i.e. a working stiff with a diploma. I am not a university lecturer. What is it with people on this blog? First I was accused by Amanda of being “Lejber”, now I’m accused of being someone I don’t even know.
Boris Johnson got the endorsement from Swarzenegger…and the following clip shows how much some endorsers know/keep in high esteem the guy they’re endorsing… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wrSUeDxBhg
[Moderator – Boris Johnson terminated by the Terminator.]
@Daphne. I just looked up Anthony Licari on the University of Malta website. Darn the guy must be smart, I have never seen so many letters after a person’s name in my life. Thanks for the compliment Daphne, if only I was half as qualified as Dr. Licari. Believe me the only thing we have in common is that we both speak French (in my case adequately).
@David S
Dave, unless you grew up watching Hogan’s Heroes, you won’t get the gist of Berlusconi’s comment. Hogan’s Heroes isn;t a film ‘about a WW2 concentration camp’ – it’s teleseries about allied soldiers taking the mickey out of their ‘captors’ on a daily basis. And it’s as tongue-in-cheek as it gets, with Col.Shultz – far from being the evil-hearted ‘kapo’ that the namesake MEP made it out to be after the words left SB’s lips – playing the part of a bumbling-fool type of figure who far from oppressing the allied prisoners, turns to their leader for protection from his own boss.
Mr.Schultz may well have taken umbrage at having his belligerent incompetence likened with that character’s, but the hullabaloo he created about any Nazi undertones were simply a dishonest socialist charade.
@Uncle Fester – are you deliberately missing the point? Schulz wouldn’t ever – regardless of whether it was ‘wrong’ or not – venture an opinion on who was best placed to become leader of the British Labour Party, even if that person was an MEP rather than just an MP. Please try hard to understand the diplomatic nuances that are at work here. Why would he venture an opinion about a Maltese MEP’s suitability for the role of party leader, but never dream of doing something similar for a British MEP? It is Schulz and Muscat who have a colonialist mindset, not me. I would never dream of importing an endorser because I think they are more effective than Godfrey Grima and Anthony Licari, which is about the best he can do from among his own countrymen.
@Uncle Fester
Of course he had the right to do that. But you weren’t simply pointing that, you were trying to morally justify it by bringing up comparisons that do no hold.
There is many rights that people do not consume in order to remain morally and ethicaly correct towards others, most especially when you hold an office, in fact if you read Rasmussen’s reaction to the letter sent to him that is what he saying in between the lines.
@Uncle Fester, imagine the ambitious MEP Richard Corbett making a bid to replace Brown – I cannot imagine Schulz visiting London to endorse his PES mate.
Your point merely stretches the argument to justify Muscat’s and Schulz’s questionable ethics.
And while we’re at it, let us “relive the moment” as EUXtv state on their youtube vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bPqaqGJ5Js – here’s Berlusconi vs Schulz (Round 1).
(Note that EUXtv, being quite europhile, added some Mafia-associated music to underline a gaffe that was not. Also note Schulz’s over-acted reaction, which only signalled what was to come, eventually leading to his coronation as PES chief of chiefs.)
@Daphne. You are restating the question you originally asked. You originally argued that Schulz had no good faith basis for endorsing Muscat because that was foreign interference. I disagree with that. You now restate your argument to be that Schulz would never endorse Brown’s successor if that successor was an MEP. My response to that is – who knows? It hasn’t happened yet but in the unlikely event that a British Socialist MEP ran for Brown’s job we’ll find out. Likelihood is that a British MEP would treat a prospective endorsement by a “hun” with extreme caution. Just so that you realize we are really on the same page here – I agree that Muscat’s handlers intentions were probably to mesmerize the average party delegate by the supreme euro-socialist honcho’s endorsement. Pity for Joseph that the strategy seems to be backfiring and may result in him losing votes now that the issue has been successfully (if wrongfully) recast as indhil barrani. No Maltese socialist brought up on the milk of Dom’s diatribes against this pernicious form of intereference in the 1970s could fail to have an adverse reaction to this.
Sorry that was Round 2.
Round 1 is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyeUl3zEJtU&feature=related
@ Uncle Fester
Thanks for your comments. Re my perception of us having a different background, you convinced me even more that we do have a different educational background.
Whilst you had a good education upbringing, having being brought up in a church school, my education in a government school had a different twist. I happened to be one of those (un)fortunates who experienced the move of good teachers from the our schools to the (in)famous junior lyceums. It was really like the Maltese saying :”Thott knisja biex tibni ohra”! Our best teachers, and all our school equipment were taken from our school and instead taken to the ‘chosen’ junior lyceums which were introduced at the time. Instead, we were so “fortunate” to be regaled with highly ‘intelligent’ persons who taught us tables up to number 6! and read us interesting fables during our English lessons. (And by the way, I was attending Forms 4 and 5). These highly intelligent persons were employed by the then kind socialist government as a reward for coming in to work during the teacher’s strike. That was an appropriate alternative to teach worker’s children!!!
You can imagine the intense level of education I managed to get from this school during the so called socialist era! Need I say more?
@ Daphne
you got it wrong. I am not a fan of Joseph Muscat (since I`m a PN supporter) but the guy was endorsed by well known paediatric surgeon Chris Fearne and gynecologist Mr. Mark Sant, amongst many others. Will you criticize them as well?
I am aware of someone else who was willing to endorse Muscat. Unfortunately when called he was in Sicily staring at mount etna.
Pity
Darren
[Moderator – What on earth is this Mt Etna cliché that I keep reading? Language really is a virus. If Joseph Muscat were contesting a post at St James Clinic and I were in charge of HR, then yes, I would be impressed with a testimonial from a gynaecologist – and he did give his testimonial in his capacity as a gynaecologist, as people who are impressed with dikris keep pointing out. But unfortunately for him, Joseph Muscat wants to be prime minister, not local gynae, so the only people who will be impressed by the testimonial are those who look up to the tabib tar-rahal. Nevermind the irony of an endorsement from a man who studies vaginas and another who studies children.]
At the risk of sounding too vulgar – Maybe being so willing to be endorsed by a gynae is indirectly calling oneself a pastizz :)
You got it all wrong guys. Shulz does not want JM as PM.He likes Malta! So what does he do? Comes to Malta and endorse JM.got it?
@Moderator
LOL!!!
“Issa zgur lil Guzeppi Muscat ha nivvota ghax Profs. XYZ qed jissaportjah, u dak vera jifhem fl-o…..”
LOL!!!!!
@Darren Cassar Gilford – you’re anything but a PN supporter. If you were, you wouldn’t sound so much like a Joseph Muscat elf – sorry, elve – with an obviously false name that is framed around my initials. The Mount Etna innuendo is a dead give-away. The only people making that mysterious allusion in my regard (and my sister’s) work at Maltastar.com, in the Gallarija section of the newspaper I work for, at Norman Hamilton Travel, and in Joseph Muscat’s grotto. Please, demystify me: what is the Mount Etna scandal that you’re brewing? The last time I visited Mount Etna I was 12 years old, and I haven’t thought of it since. Whenever I see the Mount Etna allusion, I think ‘inner circle of the Labour Party/friend of Sant and Muscat/elve in the grotto.
Also, you failed to pick up the point I made (how unsurprising), which is that political endorsements are fine if the endorser and the endorsed are citizens of the same country, because the endorser has a direct interest in how his country is run. An outsider obviously does not have a direct interest, so we have to ask what his indirect interest might possibly be.
Sant and Fearne are free to endorse Joseph Muscat till the cows come home. I don’t know them from Adam and so I’m indifferent to their opinion. The only thing I know about the socialist Mark Sant, who supported the party led by his namesake throughout the worst of its clophopping messes, is that he married a lovely woman from not just a smart background, but an extremely smart background. In this, he follows in the pattern of Dom Mintoff, Alfred Sant and Evarist Bartolo. They preach socialism, but they sure as hell don’t marry factory-girls. Instead, they marry way, way, way above their station, as though they are deliberately trying to prove some point.
@Uncle Fester
You ARE Licari. And no amount of letters behind one’s name makes them smart or intelligent. Your articles are enough to prove that in my opinion!
@Alexander-the-not-so-great. I know what you are talking about. My aunt was one of those teachers who went out on strike and was transferred to a government school in Bormla as punishment and was greeted by a mob on her first day at her new assignment. By the way, I can’t tell a difference in your educational background based on your contributions to this blog so don’t knock yourself! There are plenty of other people who will do it for you.
As for the other issue, it’s all been said. At the end of the day though what effect did this Schulz have on the average delegate? I doubt any other than to confirm what they already knew – Joseph Muscat has been a good MEP, has put his euro-scepticism behind him and become a convinced European. And they needed Schulz to tell them that?!
Miskin! Peppi is sobbing because he has been discriminated against by bad old Labour! They wont come to his programme, how cruel of them! Imbasta they go to all the other programmes but not to his! X’gharukaza!
Chris Fearne has labour leanings as has the whole Fearne family. However they have positioned themselves quite nicely under PN administrations to their own benefit.
@David Buttigieg I hate to tell you this kiddo. I am not, never have been or ever will be this person Licari. I hadn’t even heard of the guy until Daphne mentioned him. Which newspaper does he write in? The only two English language columinists that I read on a regular basis are Daphne in the Independent and Lino Spiteri in the Times.
Chris Fearne and other Maltese, being professors or pastizzara, have a right to endorse whom they want without being exposed to ridicule and insinuations.
Foreign MEP like Schultz have a right to tell us that JM is a fine MEP. They however have no right to tell us that he is our best choice for Labour Leader without knowing the othe contestants and their brothers.
One question Mr Schultz : how many MEP’s have become prime ministers in their home countries?
Generally it works the other way round. Politicians who have nothing further to give to their home politics get an Irish promotion to Brussels.
@ P Portelli
You mean ‘Kicked upstairs’… our dear Poodle needs a kick in his smart arse
This leadership contest has turned so sour that whoever says that the MLP will see light at the end of the tunnel on June 5th is either living on Mars and just landed on planet Earth or is an “incoscente”.
Whatever the outcome, the different allegiancies which have come out in the open will still exist no matter how reassuring the contenders sound. They all tell us that they are ready to work/accept the remaining 4 if they are elected but no one has ever told us what position they will take if they are NOT elected. Obviously they cannot gamble that much. My bet would be that if JM is elected the rest will be weeded out in one way or other in the same was as what happened to those who had to leave the MLP during AS’s reign. This will gurantee further factions and under currents.
And so we hear that JM has changed his version twice in 24 hours about bringing or not planning to bring over a dose of “indhil barrani”. He really learned the lessons well from his mentor but then he tells us that he was in disagreement whether to contest for MEP or not. He said this not to discredit AS but to drive the point home that he has already gained a popular vote from the labour fold and therefore delegates will confirm him on 05/06. In fact, yesterday on NET TV he wanted to imply that his was a good judgement and what a bravu he is.
During TV interviews he is very evasive when dealing with the EU issue and how much he was againt membership. Yesterday he reminded us that he had abstained. Like his mentor, he tells us that 2003 is now history – he does not actually use this word, uttered by AS during the electoral campaign – and that he is now an MEP. Double faced……
Dear Dr. Muscat if you think that you can take first-time voters for a ride, you are very well mistaken…..see you in 2013
Final note. The post mortem has revealed that the party was out of sync with the media. However they have banned the famous five from going to Peppi’s. They just don’t learn !! Light at the end of the tunnel……my foot.
A lot has been said about politics; some of it complimentary, but most of it accurate. – Eric Idle
Need I say more?
In the late seventies and early eighties, Chris Fearne was very active together with Alfred Grixti in the Ghaqda Zghazagh Socjalisti. I remember him contesting the election of the Junior College Student Council but his bid to become president of the council was unsuccessful and he had to content himself with the vice-president post.
He has subsequently disappeared from the local political scene: nasty tongues have it he preferred to concentate on getting himself sorted out financially. He married his girlfriend from sixth form days, Astrid, daughter of Joseph Sammut, ex Ombudsman. In the socialist days of pre-1987, he considered himself among the creme-de-la-creme of the socialist klikka.
Knowing him, the socialist politician in him would be eager to enter the political arena and he must fancy himself as a mentor within the Muscat sphere of influence.
Actually I remember Austrian Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsing George Bush Sr for his election. And this was before Schwarzenegger ran for governor. Also I believe Australian Nicole Kidman endorsed Democratic candidate Kerry 4 years ago.
[Moderator – And neither of them the representatives of supranational organisations.]
@ Daphne Caruana Galizia
What’s wrong with you? Why do you always have to drag into the discussion wives and families of persons we are talking about in this blog? It is not our or your concern who people like Dr Mark Sant marry and if these people marry above their “station” as you so enviously declare, there must be something that they possess which you cannot put a finger on or stomach. In my book this is a case of an undiluted classist/elitist envy. Get a life Daphne
@Ian Zammit – hardly a valid comparison. Schwarzenegger is a US citizen (otherwise, he wouldn’t have been able to run for governor) and is married to a member of the closest thing that the US has to a royal family, the Kennedy clan. And Nicole Kidman is a Hollywood actress, not a politician.
@Ray Borg – it is perfectly relevant, because it says a lot about them. These are people who preach socialism, but who then actively seek partners from the privileged class. It’s a form of sexual ‘storming the bastion’, and you don’t have to be a psychologist to work it out. When assessing a politician’s character, motivation and personality, you have to look at everything, and not justs bits and bobs or what he chooses to make public. Wives are very important. Gonzi drew huge amounts of respect from his own obvious respect for his wife, and George Abela is in the same position. The opposite held true for Sant and for Mintoff before him, and Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici suffered from his ghazeb image.
I find your suggestion of envy hilarious. I come from exactly the same social background as all the wives I mentioned, which is how I know them, with the exception of the late Mrs Mintoff, who was an English aristocrat (trust Mintoff to take it to the max). At the risk of teeing you off – but hell, who cares? – I have to tell you that it would have been very difficult for me to marry above my station in Malta, to use the quaint phrase that you seem to have picked on. And I hate to disappoint you, but I have rather more of a life than most. So don’t pass stupid remarks.
Can’t see why you’re all kicking up a fuss about this Schulz chappie. Muscat is a liar who smirked all the way to Brussels. It’s as simple as that.
@ Daphne
I do not want this comment to be construed as “condescending” but the last patagraph of your last comment is a perfect example of what I had in mind when I mentioned the “shininess of the buttons”.
Your piece would have been that bit more “forceful” without the passionate ending.
@Ray Borg
Although in essence you are right, I think that such an attitude will only strengthen her resolve … if anything just to spite you … or us, for that matter *grinZ*
@Ray Borg
and don´t forget that DCG was a central part of the campaign of a political party claiming to give importance to the “Flimkien” principle! The party which accords value to each person as a human being. But its ok, really, the masks are so quickly being torn off. Its that some of us understood earlier who these people really are!
@Albert Farrugia
Re: your last comment.
“…political party claiming to give importance to the “Flimkien” principle!”
better than a government of labourites for labourites, as was said in the campaign.
“The party which accords value to each person as a human being.”
So with that you finally admit that the nationalist party was the only one to treat people like human beings??
Oh, and what does your comment have to do with anything? You sure do whine alot…nobody likes a whiner.
@Daphne. What a strange yet fascinating person you seem to be. A gifted writer, no doubt about that but not in her own mother tongue. A career woman and clearly a feminist. An anticlerical person who went to Catholic school but is an unofficial spokesperson for the Maltese Catholic Church’s favourite party. Someone who says that she believes in hard work and self advancement yet is an elitist at heart who finds it revealing that Mark Sant married above “his station” (what a quaint Victorian word that is!). Daphne is there no way you can stop yourself from being such an insufferable snob? You would have so much more credibility if you did.
@Daphne about Ray Borg – I’m surprised you missed the mention of yet another “Dr”, as in Ray Borg talking about “Dr Mark Sant”.
What is it with these people who constantly feel the need to parade their qualifications or those of others “of their own station” (or beneath it, for that matter), to quote ‘Ray Borg’? Maybe because they otherwise feel that they’re a nobody? It sounds very much like the “arani, ma, kemm ilhaqt!” mentality to me.
@Daphne Caruana Galizia
Your argument is very bewildering to say the least. How do you know who picks whom in the partner seeking game? A man can blow a woman out of her mind just as much as a woman can seduce a man just with with one look and the bat of an eyelid. Social backgrounds have very little to do here. I think that the most important element in attraction and seduction is primarilly and fundamentally looks. So ot is very likely that a beautiful girl would seduce a handsome man, or vice versa, purely on the basis of his or her looks and sex appeal. Intelligence, culture, manners and behaviour come later after the seduction and the attraction flash. If the couple click they are hooked irrespective of their social backgrounds. Persons who let social backgrounds obfuscate their choice of partner purely to climb up a step or two in the social ladder end up in very unhappy relationships and a life full of frustration and angst.
By the way you did not answer my question about your fixation to draw in the wiveas and families of the persons mentioned in these comments. Perhaps you have no answer
@Ray Borg – I did answer your question. Read above.
The principles of attraction do not work in women in the same way that they work in men. There’s a host of reasons why this is so, and this is not the place to go into them. Suffice it to say that women almost never marry men who are considered their social inferiors (think about it, and you’ll see how true this is), but men often marry women who are somehow ‘less’ than they are: less clever, less rich, and it’s OK for them to marry someone who’s socially nowhere, too. How many men have married rootless immigrants or postal orders brides? How many women have done the same? The reasons are many, but the primary reason is that historically and to the present day, women take on the social status of the man they marry (up, down or the same), while men don’t sink down the social scale no matter who they marry.
These are the stark facts of life, and snobbishness has nothing to do with it. I’m just factual, that’s all, and I have a bit of a background in the subject, too, which is why I find it interesting and notice these things.
@M@
Well its my priviledge not to be liked by liars. Do not repeat the lie that anyone said “government of labourites for labourites”. That was said by the PN “Valuri” (oh sorry, that was ages ago!) Leader who quoted wrongly words said by Jason Micallef, many months BEFORE the campaign. So much so that the PN Leader had to correct himself on TV regarding those comments.
Ironically it is this Jason you malign so much who refused to request that corrections to be done to the electoral register, as is always done, thus giving the PN quite a few bonus votes.
@ Ray Borg
You almost made me cry!
As if it is unheard of that ambitious husbands oush their wives to work for their (the husband’s) boss in order to gain promotions and favours.
@Ray Borg – if looks were women’s no. 1 priority, there wouldn’t be so many women married to men far less physically attractive than they are. You can be as handsome as you like, but if you’ve got nothing between your ears and can’t make her laugh, forget it. Women fall in love with the men who make them laugh. This is a Big Dark Secret that the average man refuses to believe or even try to understand.
In your last reply you told me “that women almost never marry men who are considered their social inferiors” I beg to disagree. Some women do fall for the charms of the socialist male irrespective of their social standing. If this was not the case, how can you explain that socialist men “marry way, way, way above their station”?
This is what sparked off our exchange remember?
Ray Borg – You seem to have a problem with the English language. Either that, or you skim through things instead of reading them properly.
This is at least the second time that you haven’t seen (despite quoting) exactly WHAT has been written: You’ve overlooked the word “almost” next to the “never” when quoting DCG in your post of 2131hrs. Omitting it entirely changes the meaning of her original post.
@Amanda Mallia
OK I expected your intervention in my exchange with Daphne. I am now waiting for Cora to drop in.
Let me assure you that I have no problem with the English language and my reading abilies are sharper than you think. Almost put in front of never does not mean anything. It could be read also as “hardly ever” BIL MALTI: KWAZI QATT if you are familiar with our native lingo. My point is that, contrary to what sister Daphne beleives, “West End girls” do fall for and marry “East End Boys”
And here I exit left -yes the left is my natural poltical habitat- before Cora drops in and I shall find myself caught in a “Sister Act” parody.
@Albert Farrugia
You have a great knack of missing the point and shooting off at a tangent. How on earth do you equate the arguments (!) in here with Jason and the electoral register. Nonetheless….
No 1 – you, and those like you who believe all the spin emanating from Super One, make the gross assumption that any Maltese voter living overseas is a Nationalist. I guess using your criteria Claude Falzon, the campaign manager who left Malta to take up a position in Brussels, is also now considered a Nationalist (sounds a little like all those that did not vote in the referendum must be No voters :) )
No 2 – who is Jason Micallef? We haven’t heard a whisper from the cringe inducing peacock in weeks. Of course, he had nothing to do with the abysmal electoral campaign. The infamous report was manipulated amateurly to shift the blame to one poor soul and exonerate the real Partnerxipp (the Elfred and Jasin show!)
I am looking forward to the 6th or 7th of June when the peacock slaughter commences… oh damn, our man (his own man!) Joseph will be il-Lijder!! Regardless, we will enjoy watching the mud wrestling as the HDURA comes to the fore like never before!
Mr Cutajar says it all:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080530/letters/foreign-intervention
[Moderator – I’m not sure about that last point. I don’t think it was any advantage at all.]
@Daphne etc@2057hrs: absolutely on the spot -;
@ D.Fenech
Mr Cutajar says pretty nothing. What Mr Cutajar brings up are politics from the Mintoffian era. The reality to-day is that from Helsinki to Hamrun we are all citizens of the European Union and Martin Schulz came to endorse a member of his parliamentary group in the European Parliament. This case was a breeze in a tea-cup immediately blown cold by Poul Rassmussen in his short but clear reply to Michael Falzon’s silly protest letter that in all honesty I am surprised how the other three contenders added their name to it.
[Moderator – This is becoming really predictable. If you’re going to post elfin comments under different pseudonyms, the least you could do is to use a different computer each time. That way I wouldn’t have known that you and ‘Ray Borg’ are the same person.]
@Xaghra
Read the report before you begin writing. Jason was the one who decided that rikorsi should not be persued.
“Ray Borg” (whatever your real name is) – You said “… and my reading abilies (sic) are sharper than you think…”. Well, not your spelling, it seems!
As for the original argument, “never” means just that – never. “Almost never” and “hardly ever” DO mean the same thing, but they certainly DO NOT mean “never”, so please don’t try to catch me out.
Read Daphne’s comment once again, and you will see that you are contradicting her for nothing, because you are simply misinterpreting what she said.
Incidentally, you seem to know my sister Corinne well enough to call her “Cora”, so I suggest that you stop using a pseudonym. She doesn’t know of any Ray Borg, as far as I know.
As for this “Sister Act” thing – my comment is no less valid simply because I am Daphne’s sister. (I could use a pseudonym like you have done, but see no point.) Likewise should my sister Corinne choose to comment. Oh, and you haven’t yet discovered our fourth sibling, it seems! (Now do get out your Sherlock Holmes hat and magnifying glass – They’d go really well with your habit!)
@Amanda Mallia
A thousand apologies for my spelling. I just mislaid my glasses for a moment so you have to bear with me if my fingers miss a key or two. Dear, dear, dear, “contradicting her for nothing”?????? Now where did you pick this sort of syntax? You lapsed into a shortcut to the vernacular “Qed tmerijha ghalxejn” and Deph is not amused about this howler of yours I am sure. Let me give it to you one more time. Daphne said that socialist marry above their station. Then she said that “women women almost never (kwazi qatt)marry men who are considered their social inferiors”. Don’t you realise that these two statement contradict each other and normal couples, meet, fall in love, marry, copulate, fornicate and live happy ever after without the class hang ups and social stationsthat Daphne is so obsessed about. Now I am really exiting left and ain’t coming back no more, no more, no more!
@Albert Farrugia
Once again I repeat …..
1. How does your argument re Maltese voters returning to vote equate with the heading…
“Endorsement by a foreign politician is not the same as endorsement by a citizen of your own country”
2. …and again – how do you conclude that the majority of returning voters are Nationalist voters?
@Ray Borg: I never said “socialist men”. I mentioned three or four particularly prominent socialist men, who are the exception and not the rule. The rule is that women almost never marry down. They marry sideways or marry up. This is not me saying that, but established fact. Go and ask a few social anthropologists or sociologists, or just look around you, at your friends, family, acquaintances and wider circle.
@Ray Borg.
Please come back! Amanda, Daphne you should be more empathic with our friend Ray
You hurt his feelings, miskin poor Ray and he s not coming back no more no more.
Hit the road Jack!! Surely he will come back with a different pseudonym. Jack would be appropriate :)