No, that’s where you go to buy votes from Labour party supporters, apparently.

If Tonio Fenech and his cohorts, drag this case (the VAT return on vehicle registration, I mean), for the same duration, which is normally the case with any government handout anyway, then the gallant 18,000 will certainly end up like the charge of the Light Brigade, and government will save itself some Eur58 million, EU or no EU.

Ricky Dalton – 17 July 2009 10:56

I am not a politician as a matter of fact i don’t know sod all about politics in this country, but i can foresee a big win for Mr.Muscat in this coming election, he seems to have his brians and heart in the right place, besides i would put his character down on the same level as Presid. Obama, well liked by the people and a good sence of humour something that is very rare with some Maltese., just my humble foreign opinion. If by chance i get a negative feedback, i say read my lips if one can: FRANKLY MY DEAR I JUST DON’T GIVE A DAMN: from the 1939 fantastic movie ‘Gone with the wind’ with Clark Gable & Vivian Leigh. G’day all. Aussie Boy

[Daphne – Sigh.]

Good one Corinne!

Another one:

“Oh and I thought that the bar was where one goes to get a grokk mal-hbieb tal-hbieb”

What about the “political” decison by Lawrence Gonzi to pay the demoted ex-ministers and parl. secs. 18 months’ salary for nothing? This was absolutely unprecedented and he had absolutely no obligation to do so.

[Daphne – That was wrong, but you appear to think it was acceptable. Either that, or you are under the impression that two wrongs make a right.]

Corinne, the gist of my comment is not categorisation, but precedence. It could be just one test case. If the Court finds in favour of the government, it would be useless to pursue the matter.

It’s so low, they’re limbo dancing.

Dear Jomar,

All politicians play on weak minds, possibly also in your immediate surroundings.

The problems of the supposed ‘class action’ case apply to categorised cases too.

Wrong premise. If the court finds against the plaintiff (the PL) it will not say “the government CANNOT pay out). It can only say “the gov DOES NOT HAVE TO pay out”.

So there would be nothing improper or illegal in a POLITICAL decision to reimburse the money collected.

[Daphne – I’m not working on the basis of a premise. There would be nothing ‘illegal’ but it would certainly be most improper and politically dangerous. The government can’t just decide to give hand-outs to people when there is no legal or moral basis for doing so. With that attitude, what’s to stop Prime Minister Muscat handing out taxpayers’ money to his friends just because he feels like it? I hate to say it, but with your sort of reasoning, no wonder you vote Labour. There’s another point you miss: if Prime Minister Muscat has it in mind to give out the money whatever the court says, why bother taking the case to court at all? To clog up the system, cause further court delays, and waste people’s time? Or maybe it was just an attention-getting stunt.]