Shame he doesn't wear skirts – they're great when you're flouncing out
Sewwa ghamilt, Joseph! Hekk, urihom! Issa ha naghzlu ingravata ghal ghada
While watching the results come in through the night for the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal-Democrats, I’m trying to control my impatience at what’s going on in our own parliament.
Switching between the inability of Mario Galea and Justyne Caruana to distinguish between an opposition motion and a government bill (hence their confusion between No and Yes), the opposition’s storming out and the very real high tension drama in Britain just makes the scenes and temper tantrums in our own parliament seem even more parochial.
I sometimes feel I’m living beneath one of those Victorian glass domes which contain a miniature world, and this is just one such moment.
What exactly did Joseph Muscat have in mind – holding Mario Galea to his stupid Yes? Pretending that Justyne Caruana hadn’t said No?
Perhaps in flinging himself out of parliament (shame he doesn’t wear skirts, plural) with his MPs, Muscat sought to create the earthquake that has eluded him thus far.
He only looked ridiculous, temperamental, unstable and childish. Irrespective of their feelings (and I mean feelings, not opinions) about the power station contract, this is not how people want to see things done.
If Muscat imagines that he is somehow recreating an early 1980s scenario in his mind, and casting himself in the role of Eddie Fenech Adami (he has cribbed a few of his stock phrases already), then he is far, far off the mark.
There isn’t the situation today that there was then – but he wouldn’t know that because he wasn’t around and his rabid Mintoffjana nanna would have given him an entirely different version of events. So, Muscat, all things are not equal.
Let them storm out. Maybe this is how they plan to behave when they’re running the show in three years’ time – flouncing about and screaming each time there’s a problem.
15 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Joseph Muscat and his party do not care about the environment, the people’s health and the power station. They are only after being in power in Castille.
Labour: never say never. Ridiculous behaviour.
What astounds me is that they are questioning the Speaker’s decision, the same person the LP agreed on and voted for last week. What arrogance.
He actually seemed to be in tears as he walked out LOL
Melodramatic behaviour. They had it all planned. One television had a special programme with Charlon Gouder and Glenn Bedingfield ready with interviews and direct links etc. What did they think was going to happen yesterday?
And since they are so correct, why did they want a motion in parliament to pass as a result of a mistake and not of a conviction?
What’s all the fuss about? An MP can make a human mistake and should be allowed to clarify his intentions and restate his/her vote. This is Parliament for God’s sake not a bunch of kids in the playground. When are we going to grow up?
agree, but i heard the part of the debate in question and it was clear that justyne said yes and mario no. mistake or not, i thought it sounded very clear. maybe the issue here is not what they voted but the hearing capabilities of our parliament and speaker :)
dear Daphne and friends , this deal stinks like a dead, run-over rat and you sorry lot have to have some serious cheek to say otherwise. Don’t you pay any taxes? Well, I know that most of you don’t but to the few that do: wouldn’t life be better if our money is being used in the best possible way? Buying a power station is some serious shit which will affect the livelihood of our children, their children and their children’s children. Haven’t you got anything else to say in this respect besides ridiculing the opposition who, together with many independent brains in this country, are clearly against this deal and are trying everything possible and within the boundaries of democracy and law to stop it from going through????
[Daphne – Do you know how much the Dry Docks cost the Maltese tax-payer since the British left in 1979? The cost of the power station is chicken-feed next to that, but I never heard anyone in the Labour Party complain. And might I remind you that the power station is an investment in the country’s infrastructure. The Dry Docks was just throwing good money after bad. Malta never got anything in return. And do you know why the Dry Docks – intended for the captive market of the Royal Navy and never as a purely commercial venture – were not shut down when Malta ceased to be a British military base, as they should have been? Because Mintoff didn’t want there to be any negative consequences to his ‘kicking out the British’. He knew that the single greatest worry his electors had was the closure of the docks and the yards. So to save Mintoff’s ugly little face, this country and its taxpayers had to carry the crippling burden of the dry docks for another 30 years. Think of all the power stations we could have bought with that kind of money.]
http://docs.justice.gov.mt/lom/legislation/maltese/leg/vol_3/kap113.pdf
Read 113, number 5e
It seems that Muscat was right about Charlo Bonnici.
[Daphne – He wasn’t right, and there’s no 5e. And you’re beginning to annoy me, thinking you’re being ‘sly and subtle’ by pretending to be anti-Labour and then popping in to post links which you clearly believe back Labour up – or links to stories in L-orizzont which you think should get a wider readership, while making out that you’re shocked at what’s been written. I’ve humoured you thus far but there’s only so much irritation I can take. Do you honestly believe I’m that stupid? Far better to be straightforward, use your real name, and say whatever it is you have to say, like a couple of other Labour supporters on this blog. God forbid we should reach the stage where MPs are barred from participating in a vote because they are employees of a company whose directors are directors of another company which provides services to the company that got the tender. So what are we to say about Charles Mangion, taking notarial fees on the contract for the land deal at Pender Place, then criticising it in parliament and voting against?]
Tal-Muzew is both right and wrong. The 5(e) in Chap. 113 he’s referring to exists and is to be found in the schdule to the act. This is the code of ethics that regulates the behaviour of members of the House. 5(e) warrants the MP to declare his conflict of interest prior to a vote in the House. However, this mandatory requirement applies only to a vote to be taken at the second reading of a bill – not a motion. Furthermore, it is also understood, by virtue of the way the clause that has been drafted, that it is not simply any Bill that is being debated before Parliament, but one where the conflict of interest to be declared is relevant to the Bill in question.
[Daphne – That presupposes a conflict of interest, and there was no such conflict of interest. Please distinguish between the existence of a conflict of interest and declaring it. The two are different. You cannot declare a conflict of interest that simply is not there. The speaker of the house did not rule that Charlo Bonnici could vote despite his conflict of interest. He ruled that a conflict of interest did not exist.]
It presupposes nothing. I was merely commenting on the existence or otherwise of 5(e) Chap. 113. Whether or not there was a conflict of interest or an interest that had or did not require to be declared is not my concern.
Conflict of interest? How about Roderick Galdes being a Mepa employee and voting in parliament on issues directly involving his employer?
@ Tal Muzew; You messed around and Daphne caught you out, HOWZAT.
Joseph has now caught up with the party, they are now working hand in hand at running Labour into the ground.
Chippy, ghalinqas dal-gvern nefaq il-miljuni biex jixtri power station gdida mhux ghamel bhalma ghamel Mintoff – xtara l-imbarazz li kellhom Palermo biex jehilsu minnu u imbaghad nefaq miljuni ohra biex irranghom.
L-istess bhalma ghamel fuq l-iSpinning and Weaving Ta’ Qali – nehha minn fuq l-istonku imbarazz Ciniz biex gabu hawn Malta biex imbaghad kullhadd jaf meta hadet in-nar.
Jekk forsi ghadek zghir u dawn ma tiftakarhomx ahjar isaqsi lill-ommok u l-missierek biex jghidulek x`gara.