What an extremely arrogant comment. As for the 19 year old below, well she should get back in her pram.

I was asking the person who wrote this extremely interesting piece to provide some more insight. I like the way he or she writes. I would like to learn more and understand someone else’s views on an issue. Shoot me.

It’s not pedantry. It’s just me wishing we were still subjects of the British sovereign. Screw republicanism, screw independence, screw false promises of promotion through merit.

Oh, but one-party states DO protect the rights and freedoms of the individual, literally – the one who is running the show, and f*ck the rest. That is what one party states are all about.

Yawn away, Baxxter – you started with the spectacular pedantry. But I like most of your comments too much, so I’ll shut up now.

Immediate action on both statements is very necessary, especially right now.

Immediate for vigilance should be within 24 hours latest.

Daphne is very vigilant, and still I find that when she is not here for a day, there is not only a thirst, but a need for her statement and all the informative comments here.

It is not only for the sake of communication and information, but as a stabilising reassurance of a crisp voice representing sanity in Maltese politics.

A one-party state is a failure by definition. Name one that has successfully protected individual rights and freedoms.

http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=8566&l=1

(3) In so far as it alters –
(a) this sub-article or sub-article (4) of this article; or
(b) sub-article (2) of article 76 of this Constitution,
a bill for an Act of Parliament under this article shall not be
presented to the President for his assent unless not less than three nor more than six months after it s passage through the House in the manner specified in sub-article (2) of this article it has been submitted to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives and the majority of the electors voting have approved the bill.

In 1981, Mintoff had already been in power for two terms. Muscat’s only just begun. As Muscat himself would say, now we have the benefit of hindsight. No one knew just how rotten Mintoff would be. Now we know better or, rather, worse.

Yawn fekin’ yawn.

The government governs, parliament legislates, but the sovereign reigns. She doesn’t govern or legislate.

Does that make sense to you? You and I agree but you seem not to have understood what I said.

I’m not writing an academic paper here. I write for effect. So when I say “perfect” I mean “far superior to the Maltese system”.

The British have a sense of the immutability of certain things. The Maltese, with their ridiculous “republic” are always two thirds of a step away from madness.

Baxxter. No. Wrong. Spectacularly wrong:

(i) The legislative supremacy of Parliament in England/the UK has been established for almost 400 years. It hasn’t been uninterrupted, but it’s been fairly stable.

(ii) ‘Parliament sits at her pleasure’.
I’m afraid that you’re right that you do not understand the nuances. The formal legal powers of the Queen are inseparable from the relevant constitutional conventions.

(iii) ‘wonderful perfection of the British system’?
It’s incredibly insular in a very Maltese way to suggest that the British system is perfect. England/the UK has struggled to have an enforceable Bill of Rights for 800 years; they have spent the past 15 years debating an outdated electoral system and an undemocratic House of Lords; the devolution settlement is almost universally deemed unsatisfactory.