Are you serious with the above? Which EU?

If Labour will be in government the EU regulations will be flushed down the drain and this is an important issue which the voters needs to consider before casting their vote in the forthcoming election.

All the regulations and controls that we have in place will be ignored and destroyed and that will be the point when the trouble with the EU will commence.

Joseph Muscat publicly stated that he will also ignore judgements given by our courts so let alone what he will do with any desicion taken by the EU and I am sure it would be his pleasure to start arguing with the EU as soon as he is in power and those people who went on the rounabout to burn the EU flag will go and support him like we experienced during Mintoff and KMB cause it will be the same attitude with Joseph Muscat as Labour changed to worse.

They can put it up again, cause that’s where we’re heading.

so bye bye tax rate reductions, so the fat cows can get fatter.

Bit tricky for Astrid to remain on the environmental agency’s board then is it?

Not her competence, Antoine.

Oh dear, sarcasm.

What got my goat was her ‘proposals’ and Joseph’s replies.

They’re under implementation already, all of them.

Mario Demarco should really explain all the work undertaken to make the authority greater than the sum of its parts.

Astrid won’t accept it. Makes her redundant.

Chetcuti already is.

Imagine the confusion there will be as all the various sections (and there are many – MEPA is a complex organisation) try to find out where they’re going and what are their exact remits.

This is something the PN will have to deal with. With no MEPA and no environmental NGO to confront an aggressive Labour government, the party will be the only entity left to resist and, if necessary, refer the matter to the EU.

Get rid of it.

The discussion around the toadstool yesterday uncovered the forma mentis. Some architects can’t be bothered to understand that perhaps abuse should be nipped in the bud.

Putting in an application which blatantly ignores policy isn’t even possible with the new protocols.

Killed their slow but sure buck, toing and froing to Mepa, revising this, messing with that, inciting conflict between contrasting aspects of policy.

Those were the days.

No wonder certain architects have taken to law degrees lately. Architecture, what’s that?

Labour propose to amplify that vicious cycle, reducing design to legalistic compromise on a popular vote.

Inflate demand for ‘developers’ who can’t sustain themselves.

Confuse matters by giving local councils the vote on projects which ‘size’ isn’t specified.

Instead of providing clear criteria by which a project can offset any disadvantages.

What criteria will a local council apply, political majority?

To hell with awareness and Mepa’s inbuilt knowhow, gathered over the past two decades.

Joseph’s repeated emphasis that his isn’t the dismantling of Mepa followed by Astrid’s ‘opinion’ and Chetcuti’s suggestions are clear signs.

We will relive planning controversy on a daily basis.

To each his own business.

Its main aim, of course, was to wrest building/development controls from the ‘placet’ of the Public Works Minister – as had been the case up till 1987. You know what I am talking about.

If I am not mistaken he was the protagonist who piloted its creation – and rightly so, may I add. How come this volte-face? I wonder.

As Alice said ‘curiouser and curiouser’ indeed.