Joseph Muscat respects the will of the minority
Amid his failed attempts at corralling renegade MPs like Marie Louise Coleiro Preca (“I am not standing for election again”) and Adrian Vassallo (“The party can kick me out but I will still vote No”), Joseph Muscat is trying to rework the facts of what happened when the EU accession treaty came up for the vote.
Unfortunately for him, he was a prolific writer of articles for the newspapers, putting about the message of his master Sant and occasionally giving us his own opinion.
——-
Joseph Muscat, The Times, 7 May 2003, P8
This treaty is now up for ratification in the Maltese House of Representatives… a question could arise on what stand should be taken by the opposition… I, for one, think that the Labour opposition should vote against… to honour the political will of 48%… who endorsed the party’s manifesto.
Joseph Muscat, The Times, 26 June3 2003, P8
With its decision to vote against the ratification of the EU Accession Treaty the Labour parliamentary group is being coherent to the mandate given to it by 48 per cent of the electorate. These voters approved Labour’s manifesto which did not choose Malta’s full membership of the European Union… Labour’s decision does not mean the opposition party is not respecting the will of the majority. Far from it. Democracy has its rules and Labour is fully abiding by these rules.
——-
Of course, strictly speaking (beautiful words) Joseph Muscat was correct. After a general election, the Opposition must respect the wishes of those who voted for its electoral programme and, in this case, vote against EU membership.
But that is casuistry and it is insulting because he leaves out the salient fact that this was not a normal general election. It was a general election called for no other purpose than to consolidate the result of a referendum held a few weeks previously, which he and his leader refused to acknowledge or recognise.
All sorts of people voted PN in that general election who would normally rather draw their own blood than do so, like Saviour Balzan and several really die-hard Labour supporters (and anti-Nationalist people) that I know personally. They did so only because Sant refused to abide by the referendum result.
After the referendum, Muscat and Sant divided the Yes vote by the number of registered voters, and came up with a figure of ‘only’ 48% who, they said, were for EU membership – and thus a ‘majority of 52%’ for Partnership.
Then Alfred Sant appeared on Super One Television, flanked by an embarrassed George Vella and a mortified Joe Brincat, and explained that, because of this result ‘nistghu nghidu li mil-llum il-quddiem, pajjizna jista jimxi l-quddien fit-triq tal-Partnership.’
Sad days indeed, but worth remembering.
27 Comments Comment
Reply to Robert Zammit Click here to cancel reply
As I said previously – two weights and two measures – and now that Marie Louise Coleiro Preca (stupid surname) and Adrian Vassallo have put further spokes in the wheels it’s all rather messy and arbitrary. But we will have divorce in Malta.
Now, It looks like you trying to justify the unjustifiable.
When push comes to shove, and Nationalist MPs, including the Prime Minister himself, persist in going for a No or Absent vote in Parliament, will you approve of Lawrence Gonzi doing an Eddie Fenech Adami, going for a general election two years before its due date?
[Daphne – I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean. Why would the prime minister call an election after voting No?]
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
David Beckham
“…Joseph Muscat is trying to rework the facts of what happened when the EU accession treaty came up for the vote…”
It looks like Labour’s revision of history did not stop at 90.
Unlike the previous referenda this divorce referendum has a religious element. A difficult choice indeed especially for the Catholic faithful politicians who believe that divorce goes against their religious belief.
The people spoke and the will of the people is supreme. The divorce law must be enacted as soon as possible. This divisive issue can’t be dragged for the next two years.
Nevertheless, the politicians should be allowed to vote as they wish with no pressure from any one including their party leaders.
I have absolutely no problem if the Prime Minister abstains considering he is against divorce. In two years’ time the constituents can throw them out if they chose to.
Sad days indeed, but worth remembering
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7vooIY8Yxs&feature=channel_video_title
Malta would have a hazy future with Labour in Government.
Unfortunately Malta has a limited political school and the best elements are found only in one party.
This makes the alternation of parties in government a luxury we still cannot afford in Malta and yet this is so essential for a democracy to function well.
Correction . . . as history amply demonstrates, Malta will have a totally buggered future with Labour in Government . . . ! Especially when one considers the acumen of the current crowd inhabiting the glass ‘people’s palace’!
This is just great! Malta is all over the international press and TV for shooting and burying dogs alive and pics on facebook of the hung Maltese dogs of a few years ago.
Now the international press has been led to believe that the Maltese people have voted for divorce. Next they will read that a few bible thumpers who are MPs will derail what the people voted for. A true third world ‘nation’. My overseas friends are bewildered. Ashaming and sick.
Harry, the fact that Malta will introduce divorce – the penultimate country in the world – is newsworthy but I don’t think the international media are going to be interested in how our MPs vote in parliament.
I expect everyone will take it for granted that they’ll vote according to what the electorate has decided.
And tell your friends that Bible (or Koran or Torah or whatever) thumpers exist everywhere, even in the US.
Antoine, I respect your point. However, an overturn of the referendum result by the MPs will be big international news.
I can see the headline ‘MALTESE MP BIBLE THUMPERS GIVE THE MIDDLE FINGER TO THE MALTESE PEOPLE’.
Yes, religious ‘thumpers’ are everywhere.. But they do not dictate or legislate against the will of the people.
And don’t forget the dogs, my friends have not.
Harry, your reading of Malta with all its weaknesses is too cynical.
When I look around me, and take note of the colossal limitations and yet see what this speck of land has achieved it all points towards the traits of a huge success story. As with all other nations we do not have an exclusivity on morons.
Point well taken, Joe. However, the majority of morons here appear to be the elected representatives of the people.
Off Topic
Why did Alfred Sant call an election in 1998?
Not so off topic. There is a parallel.
Alfred Sant (with a +1 seat majority in Parliament) thought he could blackmail Dom Mintoff by making Sant’s concept of a Yacht marina in Cottonera a vote of confidence, where Sant had expected to win the vote. He lost.
Lawrence Gonzi (with a +1 seat majority in Parliament) that he could defend against JPO et al.’s bill proposing divorce by skuttling the issue in a referendum, where Gonzi (with very good odds) had expected to win the NO vote. He lost.
Now what transpires in Parliament regarding the referendum’s post-referendum execution by MPs and Party leaders may lead to the electorate’s vote of “no confidence” in elements or in all of Parliament, come the general election whenever it comes.
If the worst transpires in Parliament, then the no confidence of the electorate may ignite a logical, but unpredictable course, with consequences yet to unfold.
For those MPs already declaring to vote NO in parliament, some of these have already chosen to not stand for re-election. But they certainly would remain as symbols (along with the other MPs who may choose not to confirm the decision of the electorate with their YES) for an angry electorate, if they should attempt to stick around till election time.
So some MPs may be singing their “swan songs,” others may attempt to stay on as “lame ducks,” or if they do stay on they may become the “albatross” around the necks of their respective political Party, of those currently in parliament.
Who in their rational analysis is willing to bet that an angry electorate would stand still until the next election? It’s the PM’s decision.
Is the present PM by his own actions going to be consigned to a similar fate in history as the former MLP PM (because of his own actions)? In both the past and present cases, the electorate decides (unless democracy looses).
And democracy looses when Parliament is in a mess. What political parties yet may win or lose depends upon their actions. I’d say that general confidence in the status quo has left the building.
The status quo seems to represent the hegomony of the political classes, which has fostered a sizeable level of previous popular discontent, which now is even higher. The political alternatives to the status quo are yet to emerge. The changing character of the electorate seems to have produced its most recent electoral victory.
Does any one think there have never been any acts of animal cruelty in other countries? The truly worrying thing is that in this case those involved have a shotgun at their disposal.
“When the missionaries came to our land, they showed us the bible and asked us to pray. We closed our eyes and prayed. When we opened our eyes they had the land and we had the bible.” – Bishop Desmond Tutu
I do see some parallels.
So now even Austin Gatt has thrown down the gauntlet to democracy (or his perverse version of it). I need to call a vet for that dead horse; it’s showing signs of life.
I think you should concentrate all your efforts on the wisdom that is being regaled upon us all by the government MPs. Here is Austin Gatt this morning.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110603/local/austin-gatt-says-he-will-vote-against-divorce-in-parliament-many-mps-still-undecided.368620
Daphne, how could you have always given these guys the benefit of the doubt? They have ultimately shown that they are no different to the guys on the opposite side, merely a mirror image!
[Daphne – Oh come on, how can you say that. Honestly.]
How you ask? Because it is all to easy to govern responsibly when the other side has made a mockery of democracy for so long and when the majority are also on the right side of history. The minute the PN has been faced with the reverse situation it is simply mirroring the opposite side rather than rise to the occasion by claiming that all MPs will vote a resounding YES with bullies like Austin Gatt and mystics like Tonio Fenech accepting to resign. Only that way would they have lived up to their billing!
I say we start a http://www.justgiving.com page for that MP who dares to call a division in the house during the divorce debate. If democratic principles fail to move our sorry excuse for elected representatives, then money probably will.
“Meanwhile, divorce co-sponsor and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo has upped the ante against MPs planning to vote against the will of the majority, suggesting a Maltese version of Egypt’s Tahrir Square occupation.” (The Times, online)www.timesofmalta.com/…/20110603/…/austin-gatt-says-he-will-vote-against- divorce-in-parliament-many-mps-still-undecided.368620
I will not accept lessons on democracy from Varist. We have already had our version of Tahrir Square – when his party was in government. Didn’t he notice?
Mela ghalfejn sar ir-referendum la kollox ghadu jiddependi fuq il-gudizzju tal-membri parlamentari?
Min ma jaccettax l-opinjoni tal-poplu jirrizenja mill-parlament u jekk joghgobha Mrs. Coleiro Preca titlaq minn issa u mhux tistenna sentejn ohra.
Dr. Vassallo mhux jistenna li jkeccieh il-partit imma jirrizenja. Jekk Mrs Coleiro Preca ma tridx tikkontesta l-elezzjoni li gejja affari taghha. Imut Papa u jilhaq iehor jghidu. Hekk turi li kienet fil-parlament ghas-sodisfazzjon taghha personali u mhux veru biex taghti sapport dak li jixtieq il-poplu.
Bi sfortuna ghal dawk li vvutaw LE imma IVA rebah. Huwa dak li l-poplu jrid mela ir-rieda tal-poplu trid tigi accetta.
Mela nonfqu l-miljuni tal-euros f’referendum, il-poplu jesprimi ruhu imma min qieghed fil-parlament irid jiddeciedi. Dan ghalija forma ta’ dittatorjat.
“U l-kotra qamet fdaqqa u ghajtet jien Maltija,
miskin hu min ikasbarni, miskin hu min jidhaq bijha.”
Oh, eff off. I know you mean the quote ironically, but this isn’t William Wallace and Scotland.
You must be too young to remember when this same poem was intoned in the Independence Arena by Dr. Louis Galea when we were gassed and shot at. I was there.
[Daphne – So was I, and I cringed. Even as a teenager, my sense of pathos was too finely tuned for that sort of ‘Oxford Book of Quotations’ drama. Imagine if Churchill had gone at the book of quotes instead of coming up with words of inspiration appropriate to the occasion. Back then, the quotation struck me as wholly inappropriate because it clearly refers to the oppression of the Maltese as a whole by an outside force, and not to a pitched battle between one half of the population and another.]
No, I’m not. There are different types of gassing. Me’s quotation is one of them.