The PM in 2011 and a Super One hack in 2003
They tell me that in China people never fail to recognise the will of the government.
As the prime minister twists and turns to reconcile defying the wishes of the people – when he is the one who said that we have to decide because MPs have no ‘right’ to do so – he is beginning to sound too much like a Super One hack, Joseph Muscat, did in 2003.
Worse still, he is allowing Joseph Muscat to take on the mantel of Chief Democrat of Malta when he is anything but and Muscat’s words now are nothing more than opportunistic posturing in an attempt at winning the votes and admiration of people like me (fat chance, in my case, because my memory is too long).
Joseph Muscat, L-Orizzont, 30th April 2003, pg 8 – on the EU accession treaty vote in parliament:
“Jien m’inix Membru Parlamentari u m’għandi l-ebda dritt li nimponi xi linja ta’ ħsieb fuq dawn sħabna. Madankollu, jien votant u naħseb li għandi d-dritt ngħid x’nistenna minn dawk li jirrappreżentawni… Naħseb li t-30 membru eletti bil-voti tagħna l-Laburisti u ta’ dawk li vvotaw Laburista huma fid-dmir li jivvotaw kontra r-ratifikazzjoni.”
In translation: I am not a member of parliament and I have no right to impose any line of thinking on MPs. However, I am an elector and I think that I have the right to say what I expect of those who represent me…I think that the 30 MPs elected with the votes of ‘Laburisti’ and of those who voted Labour are in duty bound to vote against ratification (of the EU accession treaty).”
L-Orizzont, 25th June 2003, pg 8:
“Nistqarr li ħadt pjaċir li l-Grupp Parlamentari Laburista ddeċieda li jivvota kontra t-Trattat tas-Sħubija ta’ Malta fl-Unjoni Ewropea. Kont ilni ġimgħat sħaħ nikteb favur li l-partit jieħdu din il-pożizzjoni, jiġifieri li jivvota kontra… B’din il-pożizzjoni, qegħdin inkunu fidili lejn dawk kollha li vvotaw għall-Partit Laburista. Ħriġna ta’ nies ta’ kelma ma’ dawn il-persuni. Dan ma jfissirx li mhux qegħdin nirrikonoxxu r-riżultat ta’ l-elezzjoni u l-għażla tal-poplu.”
In translation: I declare that I was pleased when the Labour Parliamentary Group decided to vote against the treaty for Malta’s accession to the European Union. For weeks I had written in favour of the Labour Party taking this position, i.e. voting against…By doing so, we are being faithful towards all those who voted for the Labour Party. We have proved ourselves to them to be men (people) of our word. This does not mean that we do not recognise the election result and the people’s decision (choice).
4 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
On 28 May 2011, soon after casting his vote, Joseph Muscat told the media: “…Il-maggoranza trid tigi rispettata u l-minoranza ma tistghax tigi injorata…”
In explaining his position, the PM can draw some consolation from this statement. At least Joseph Muscat cannot ignore him – and I am being serious.
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=15624
Joseph Muscat is neither a chief democrat nor an antidemocrat. He’s an opportunist, the quality (?) which got him to the helm of the Labour party. The same quality which will very likely make him PM in 2013. I don’t know what’s worse though, whether opportunism or downright stubbornness.
Furthermore, I think the PN’s position in this situation is even worse than Labour’s in 2003. I think that PN, with its MPs largely taking a position against divorce, will repel a lot more of its traditional voters than MLP did back in 2003.
[Daphne – Please start calling yourself David II or use an initial. There’s another David posting comments regularly and his views are directly opposed to yours, which creates confusion.]
The PN had and has no choice.
With a one seat majority you cannot dictate anything! Get this into your heads and stop moaning.
Obviously there’s the option of going for an early election to end this farce but how many of you are in favour of that? Unless the PM calls an early election we cannot expect reforms not because he is incapable of doing them (or at least that’s what I’d like to believe) but because he does not have a strong majority to go ahead with them.
You see, Joseph Muscat himself had argued that the MLP MPs who voted NO in the EU referendum had to vote NO again in Parliament. His argument was to respect the will of the minority notwithstanding the fact that the majority voted YES. He is now arguing that even those MPs who voted NO in the Divorce referendum have to vote NO in Parliament. Arguments of convenience and not of conviction.
[Daphne – Joseph Muscat was WRONG THE FIRST TIME.]