If Cuschieri is an MEP, then why doesn't the European Parliament know he exists?
You lookin' at me? Jose Herrera with Joseph Cuschieri: the Minister of Justice with Malta's sixth MEP
At the risk of repeating myself – but who cares, anyway – Joseph Cuschieri is NOT an MEP. So why does The Times persist in making this stupid mistake?
Here it is again, this morning:
Joseph Cuschieri, Malta’s sixth MEP, has called on Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi to bring up the matter of the ratification of the protocol which would give Malta its sixth seat in the European Parliament with the Greek Prime Minister this week.
Confused thinking and poor use of language (the two are linked) undermine credibility.
Malta has five seats in the European Parliament so it cannot have six MEPs. I have begun to suspect that reporters describe him as the ‘sixth MEP’ because the grammar and tenses which describe the true position are beyond the grasp of people who cannot even distinguish between ‘would’ and ‘will’ or ‘shall’.
Something else: seats in the European Parliament are not allocated by numbers. Cuschieri will not sit in Malta’s sixth seat. He will have a seat, full stop.
If Cuschieri’s seat is going to be the sixth, then who exactly is sitting in the first, second, third, fourth and fifth?
Sloppy language reveals sloppy thinking.
53 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/cuschieri-writes-to-gonzi-papandreou-on-ratification-of-sixth-ep-seat
The whiner was had good and proper by Joseph Muscat. All he needs now is Cyrus Engerer as the new Labour boy contesting in the same district as his in a couple of years’ time.
If he wants a seat I suggest he occupies the empty one at the new ceramic monument in Bisazza Street.
With some luck, he’ll never get his seat. Can you imagine him as an MEP? As we are, we seem to have three competent MEPs and two clowns already. Why should we aim for the third clown?
Yeah, the PM should tell the Greek PM how Mr. Cuschieri proposed that Malta should let Greece go bankrupt if Greece did not sign up to give Mr. Cuschieri a seat in the EP. That should make the Greeks procrastinate for at least another 2 years.
‘Cuschieri will not sit in Malta’s sixth seat. He will have a seat, full stop.’
Ok, but will he have a seat? What will Joseph Muscat do now that he did not get a seat? Was there a plan ‘B’ for this guy?
The Greek Consulate is in Zachary Street. Cuschieri should go there and do a couple of spectacular stunts.
On the commentary board of Malta Today, someone suggested he should take the empty seat in the Bisazza Str monument – with the three comedians. It suits him. He is making us laugh. And he too seems to be loosing his head.
The photo caption: “You lookin’ at me? Jose Herrera with Joseph Cuschieri: the Minister of Justice with Malta’s sixth MEP”
May the Good Lord have mercy on us. And I hope he has an infinite supply.
I’m posting this here (Sir Paul Stephenson, ex Met Chief)
Stephenson: “I am going because I am a leader. Leadership is not about popularity, the press or spinning – it is about making decisions that put your organisation, its mission and the people you lead first – it is about doing things that will allow them to be proud of their leaders, and this is much different to mere popularity. It’s about making decisions that may be difficult and personally painful – that’s what leaders do.”
Maybe Dr Austin Gatt and Dr Lawrence Gonzi could possibly understand what leaders do.
Will ‘MEP in waiting’ do? The standard of English at The Times has fallen progressively over the last few years. It wasn’t always that way. What caused this change?
“MEP in waiting”? Are you trying to rub salt into Mr. Cuschieri’s wound?
If God ever decides to divinely appoint someone to rule then it shall be me, I am Malta’s first king.
It’s about as relevant.
Does he have a time-frame by when he can have his seat within the European Parliament? I presume that this is such and hence the urgency.
If it does not happen by the time we have new MEP elections then he would have lost his seat without having the chance to sit on it.
Cuschieri… se jibqa jkaxkar il-purtieri… ad eternum.
‘Sloppy’ is a very good term when applied to The Times’ article.
However, unfortunately it can be widened to describe our beloved ‘rock’.
Sloppy is defined as ‘lack of neatnes or order’. Also, it is defined as ‘lack of care or slipshod’.
Having lived here for over 15 years, I have found that sloppiness is part of our culture. For example, even Arriva has been contaminated.
Airheads comes to mind .
At the same time of calling Joseph Cuschieri, Malta’s sixth MEP they also say, would give Malta it’s sixth seat. Is it the seat only that’s missing then? Sounds like an oxymoron.
Like you, I never learned English grammar at school but because we spoke English most of the time I know what is right and wrong (most of the time :-)) . However, after I started working I found that it is useful to learn the ‘why’ especially when I have to correct mistakes made by fellow Europeans who are not native speakers of English and they demand explanations.
Daphne, pick up an English grammar book – and read it as I’m sure you’ll find the inner workings of the language interesting. I only recommend this to people who already speak the language very well as otherwise trying to learn English from a grammar book would be confusing as it is such an illogical language (unlike let’s say Arabic).
[Daphne – No, that’s not for me. I have an instinctive grasp of the ‘sound’ of languages, but the minute grammar enters the equation, I’m finished. That’s why language lessons were always a nightmare for me at school and why I never learned Italian, where the focus was always on conjugating verbs. Besides, I find that there is usually a simple explanation that I can use in the circumstances you mention, without entering into the merits of grammatical rules which confuse people. For example, when people don’t know whether to use ‘Tom and I’ or ‘Tom and me’, I always tell them to remove ‘Tom’ from the sentence to find out whether they should be using ‘I’ or ‘me’. That’s more straightforward than working out the rules and why. So, ‘Sarah gave Tom and I a present’ is wrong because ‘Sarah gave me a present’ is right and ‘Sarah gave I a present’ is obviously wrong, and that means the correct sentence is ‘Sarah gave Tom and me a present’.]
You mentioned the difference between shall and will for example. We understand where and when to use them. I find for example that many Germans do not understand the difference between ‘I am driving a BMW’ and ‘I drive a BMW’. Because many Germans were taught how to be systematic in thought and writing they demand explanations from me and I find that I can satisfy them if I can quote the names of the tenses etc.
[Daphne – Oh that’s easy too. ‘I am driving a BMW’ is what they would say when they are actually at the wheel, actually driving. That’s all you have to tell them. Shall, will and would are very great problems in Malta. Read any newspaper and ring them, and you’ll see just how bad it is. Explaining their use by virtue of grammatical rules is ultimately pointless, because when you’re speaking, you don’t have time to think about the rules. That’s why developing an ear for the language is essential. Knowing the rules is about as important as knowing how a car engine works so as to drive the car. There’s an added danger when people learn the rules instead of listening to the ‘sound’ of a language: their sentences are robotic and ultra-pedantic.]
Another example is when you have to explain the difference between “I will see a doctor tomorrow” and “I am seeing a doctor tomorrow”.
[Daphne – Both mean the same thing, so there should be no confusion. The difference is only in choice of tense, but not in meaning. I suppose the difficulty then would be in explaining why two different tenses ultimately have the same significance.]
Yet another example of how illogical English can be are the conditionals: “If I won the lottery next week”. (using the past of ‘win’ to talk about an improbable future event)
God, I can be pedantic! :-P
[Daphne – So can I. It really should be ‘If I were to win the lottery next week’. But don’t ask me why, or what the tense is called.]
You can either speak it or you can’t. Instinct as to what rings right is perhaps the most essential component to speaking English.
But no one can ever speak like a native if they are not one themselves. This does not imply that spoken English is correct English. There is a very big difference between the two. But as I said, it’s all about what sounds right.
The variation of accent and dialect and use of local words and expressions is also a factor. The Geordie “Howay” is one such example. It can mean anything from “get lost” to “please”, or “hurry up”.
Use Howay 50 miles south and it means something entirely different. Use it a further 50 miles south and you are looked at as though you’re not quite right.
@dery
‘I drive a BMW’ = ‘Ich fahre einen BMW’
‘I am driving a BMW’ = ‘Ich fahre GERADE einen BMW’
The keyword (or magic word) is ‘gerade’ = ‘just’, ‘at the moment’ or ‘actually (driving)’ as Daphne said.
Dery,
German doesn’t have continuous (progressive) tenses.
German speakers use the adverb ‘gerade’ (= right/just now) instead to show that something is happening ‘now’. Not having a continuous tense in their language makes the concept quite hard for them to understand.
To complicate the issue further, for them, is the fact that we use the present continuous not only for things that are happening ‘now’ but, more correctly, for things that are happening which will come to an end.
We say ‘they are building a tunnel under the Alps..(it might take 30 years, so it’s happening ‘now’ and in 30 years’ time). In German this would be ‘they build a tunnel…’ but a German speaker wouldn’t say ‘they build a tunnel right now…’.
When it comes to future tenses English is far more subtle. In your example ‘I will see a doctor tomorrow’ and ‘I’m seeing a doctor’ tomorrow could actually have a different meaning (Daphne, you’re wrong here). It all depends on the context, which we don’t have here. ‘I will see a doctor tomorrow’ is more likely to express a spontaneous decision to see a doctor and it is not absolutely certain that there’ll be enough time to actually see the doctor tomorrow, whereas ‘I am seeing a doctor’ shows that an appointment has been fixed and – barring something hugely unexpected – the speaker will definitely see the doctor. We use two different tenses because the significance is not ultimately the same.
[Daphne – Yes, I see what you mean. And now that I think about it, that is exactly how I would use them. ‘I’ll see a doctor tomorrow’ (no fixed plans) and ‘I’m seeing a doctor tomorrow’ (at 10am).]
If I ask you ‘What are you doing tomorrow?’ it’s not the same as my asking you ‘What will you do tomorrow?’ The former, even without further context, indicates that you have plans for tomorrow whilst the latter doesn’t.
The former is the present tense, used to indicate certainty. The latter is ‘will’ which has its roots in the Germanic verb ‘wollen’, meaning ‘to want’. Originally, ‘I will’ meant ‘I want’ (and can still be used that way). Nowadays it (usually) denotes the future but it still retains at least an echo of ‘wanting’.
I don’t want to (will not) bore you, so I’ll (want to) stop there. I too didn’t consider these subtleties until I started teaching English.
Deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache!!!
Viele Grüße an Andrea und an Tim Ripard.
One should now perhaps try to compare German Deutsch and Austrian Deutsch.
Tim, I take it that you teach English. Have you ever met the confusing and ultimately hilarious statement by German speakers who tell you “I become a coffee please.”?
The German speakers here will understand why Germans with poor command of English say such a thing.
I gave you half a sentence as my last example. I should have said “If I won the lottery tomorrow I would give you half of the sum.” This is not a ‘tense’ but it is called the second conditional or sometimes the unreal conditional because it speaks of a situation that is highly unlikely.
[Daphne – That’s not how I put it. I would say “If I were to win the lottery then I would give you half my winnings”. I know nothing about grammar, so I don’t have an explanation. I don’t even know why I say ‘ If I were to’ rather than ‘If I was to’, which I have heard used. Maybe Tim can explain.]
This is unlike let’s say “If it rains tomorrow I will take my umbrella” (Imagine it is January). This is called the first conditional or the real conditional because it describes a probable scenario.
Difference between will and present continuous is that will is usually used as a sort of promise while the present continuous for the future shows that you already have made plans.
I think that “If I were to win…..” and ” If I was to win…. ” are nowadays considered both correct but “If I was… ” is a little bit less formal and more colloquial.
The “were” in “If I were..” is part of what is called the subjunctive mood. It is present in many languages but it is really a vestigial structure in English… like the 5 sacral vertebrae at the end of the human spine.
Apologies for my tardy replies. Was otherwise occupied.
Herr Leo, ich wünsche Dir auch viele schöne Grüße aus Wien. To rephrase what Helmut Kohl once said to Maggie Thatcher, I assume I can call you you.
What I can say about the difference between German German and Austrian (Viennese) German is this: before I came over here I went to the German-Maltese Circle to start learning German. It was useful for the written word but when it came to trying to understand what they speak, well, it was more or less a waste of money. Kloa.
Dery, better to become a coffee than a sausage, I say.
Daphne/Dery. Yes, it’s the second conditional. Yes, it shows that the speaker is talking about something extremely unlikely to happen. The crucial thing here is to use the past simple for the ‘if’ clause, not because this demonstrates a past event but precisely to show that this is extremely unlikely to happen. Both ‘If I won’ and ‘If I were to win’ are perfectly correct grammatically. To me ‘If I were to win’ shows a soupcon more consideration of the possibility of winning by the speaker (this would be clear with emphasis on the ‘were’), whilst ‘If I won’ is more of a throwaway and there’s no consideration because the speaker clearly believes it is virtually impossible for him/her to win.
Again, Dery is right to say that both ‘if I was’ and ‘if I were’ are correct, or at least acceptable, nowadays. My grammar reference book (Parrott), on this point says ‘some people consider it incorrect to use ‘was’ after ‘if’.
I sympathise with Mr Cuschieri, but our main priority is saving the Euro.
It would be useless if we have more MEPs and a devalued Euro.
This situation is like having a fire in the kitchen of a restaurant and little Tommy wants the firemen to get him the toy he got with his happy meal, before they put out the fire.
You are being really silly about this. Childish, in fact.
[Daphne – Actually, chavs, it’s the people who talk about ‘the sixth MEP’ who are childish; you know, like people who believe in Father Christmas. Neither exists.]
Yes, dear Daphne. It is not the language which is sloppy. It is the thinking.
The whole point is the guy is jobless after giving up his seat in Maltese parliament for Joseph Muscat.
Some compassion! He has been elected in two parliaments (Malta and the EU) and sits in none of them. Frankly, I feel sorry for him.
The frustration of being elected democratically twice and sitting nowhere must be horrible. I have no particular faith in his abilities but that is beyond the point.
The man seems to me to be very unlucky indeed and at least deserves ‘compassion’.
The guy seems to have a track record of making the wrong choices. Do you really think that luck has anything to do with this?
Cuschieri now knows what it means “Tixtri il-hut fil-bahar.”
A “politician” who makes that sort of mistake is not MEP material.
“He has been elected in two parliaments (Malta and the EU) and sits in none of them. Frankly, I feel sorry for him.”
Maybe I do not understand the situation clearly but as far as I know he has not been elected as an MEP but would be elected if and when Malta gets another seat in the EP.
If you say that he has been elected as an MEP then you have to say the same about the ‘seventh MEP’ and the ‘eighth’ MEP and so on for who knows, maybe Malta will get another three seats.
Can anyone imagine the international markets’, Angela Merkel’s, hedge funds and sovereign investors’, IMF’s, and ECB’s reactions if Malta vetoes the second bailout for Greece, as requested by Cuschieri, for the sake of an insignificant seat in the EP claimed by an insular politician from Malta? Cuschieri will make it to the headlines of the Financial Times. Typical village mentality.
Milli jidher, mil-politika tar-“ricotta” issa ghaddejna ghal politika tar-rikatti.
I have heard “arkotta” used by quite a few; sounds OK too. Should enough people say it then it is here to stay. Have enough people referring to the sixth seat and hey presto it exists in the minds of many. It is always a devil of a job to get rid of misconceptions.
Ma nibdewx, guys.
Ah, can’t wait to see photos of Joseph Cuschieri, doing some “owling” on his seat in the EP, posted on his Facebook.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110718/local/first-it-was-planking-now-its-owling.376150
Daphne, allow to digress from the main topic of the post but some of our MPs are really funny.
The Times reports that “in the committee’s final sitting, Dr Zammit Dimech proposed that any amendment to the criteria for divorce, as set out in the referendum question, should be subject to a new referendum, as the original question was.”
Isn’t it rich coming from someone who only last week chose to ignore the referendum result? And what is this for anyway, when we know that the electorate has proven to be more liberal (at least on marriage) than the house.
Also, isn’t it demoralising that some of our MPs don’t seem to trust the house to decide for what is good for our society. It is as if they need the referendum or the ‘two thirds’ (proposed by Tonio Borg) to tame the house’s dangerous liberal instincts. This issue has really brought out the worst in the PN.
Instead, I would have proposed the following “any amendment to the criteria for divorce, as set out in the referendum question, should not be subject to the conscience of the MPs.”
This would save the PN a lot of trouble when they get re-elected in future. What Francis Zammit Dimech proposes could be used by Labour again in future to cause further divisions within the PN.
A seat,a seat, my kingdom for a seat.
Anthony Farrugia –
Min qallu biex jizzattatt u icedi postu lil Muscat qabel ma kellu garanzija f`idejh li hu ser ikollu il-job lest?
Dak imissu jiehu hsiebu Muscat.
Ghaliex Muscat ma jmurx isib lil shabu is-Socjalisti tal-Ewropa li kienu gew ituh palata biex lahaq leader, u jghidilhom biex ihaffu u juru daqxejn ta’ kommpassjoni ma’ shabhom li hu socjalist wkoll?
There are some who think out of the seat of their pants. In order not to be outdone, this guy thinks out of another seat.
Let us look at some uncontested facts:
– The Lisbon Treaty was signed on the 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 December 2009.
– One of the provisions of this Treaty was that the number of Malta’s MEPs would increase by one (from 5 to 6).
– After lengthy debate, it was decided that this seat would be filled by that person who came sixth in the forthcoming MEP elections.
– Later on in 2009, the Maltese electorate, IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ABOVE, voted in such a way that this sixth person was Joseph Cuschieri.
Those are the plain uncontested facts. Whether this makes JC an MEP, a potential MEP, and MEP-in-waiting or whateber is irrelevant and immaterial. Whoever argues about it is nitpicking – obviously to divert attention away from unpleasant realities.
Enjoy.
[Daphne – Precise language reflects precise thought. Sloppy language reflects sloppy thinking. A potential MEP, somebody who stands to become an MEP when the seat becomes available, is not the same thing as an MEP. You can bang on about it and protest all day and all night. The fact remains that your sloppy thinking is indicative of why you vote Labour in the first place and fail to understand certain basic principles.]
Reason it out like this: I shall inherit a million is totally different to I have inherited a million.
The facts, as I listed them, speak for themselves. Go on playing with words – it’s a nice substitute for a life.
[Daphne – No need for a substitute for a life, chavs. I can manage a life AND playing with words. I’ll admit, though, that this level of competence is difficult for Labour voters to understand.]
As far as I can see,. you are the one who is using sloppy (liquid, in fact) language to remain in denial – and avoid having to face the fact that the Maltese electorate assigned four out of six seats to the LP and two to the PN.
[Daphne – What a tiresome pittma you are. I hope you’re not married. If you are, then breakfast with you must be really trying. Somebody who is not married to you would have left by now. That aside, it is not the electorate cannot ‘assign’ seats which do not exist. You know you are wrong, and you are not going to keep at this until I succumb because the facts are on my side. So off you go to browbeat the woman in your life, because in my extensive experience, men like you almost invariably select a woman they can preach at, but then find the ones they CAN’T preach at far more interesting. Scoot.]
Par for the course as far as you are concerned – when losing the argument, get personal. Fortunately (for me, not so much for you) I have a very thick skin.
[Daphne – I haven’t lost any argument, chavs. And I’m not getting personal. I’m just saying that by the time you get to my great age, you’ve learned the limited range of character types, how they behave and how to handle them. You’re not trying to win an argument against me. You’re trying to beat me down, because you’re a classic, textbook male pittma.]
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, dear Mr Cuschieri.
You should have hung on to your seat in the Maltese parliament as your fellow Labour MPs did, and not give in to empty promises that translated into hot air and little else..
I’m surprised no journalist has yet referred to Joseph Cuschieri as MEP Emeritus,
For the time being, he is just an MEP-Wannabe. It even rhymes.
Exactly what I was thinking…..
You could have spared mentioning Jose Herrera this time round. I think that Herrera does write some sensible things occasionally http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110720/opinion/Superior-court-judge-for-Gozo.376416
[Daphne – Oh please. I suppose he means the way his sister was a ‘superior magistrate for Gozo’ some years ago, which is why she ended up being reported to the Commission for the Administration of Justice and now, the Police Commissioner.]
K Farrugia, read the comment left by Carmel Camilleri under Herrera’s article. Far more sensible.