Comments on: Top comment: “the overarching constitutional argument against scaremongering by bird exterminators”

By: Wheels within wheels

Wheels within wheels — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 18:59:22 +0000

In reply to tbg. My thoughts exactly.

By: H.P. Baxxter

H.P. Baxxter — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 18:50:28 +0000

In reply to tbg. That's the least of it. Last time I checked, it was unconstitutional for a prime minister to work against the national interest.

By: tbg

tbg — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 18:27:19 +0000

“There are some superior values that are expressly protected by the Constitution or by law. Among these are the landscape, the environment, the guardianship of nature, the survival of biodiversity.”

If the harming or non protection of the above values is unconstitutional, then why is a referendum required? Spring hunting (or all hunting for that matter) should be banned outright.

By: H.P. Baxxter

H.P. Baxxter — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 18:23:01 +0000

Total RESPECT to Giovanni Bonello.

By: Jozef

Jozef — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 17:46:11 +0000

In reply to Charles Mizzi. Given the reluctance to deliver the new house, we'll soon sort that one. Very democratic.

By: Jozef

Jozef — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 17:43:17 +0000

Unless of course, we prefer tradition to the constitution.

Just wait for the class struggle whimpering.

By: Charles Mizzi

Charles Mizzi — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 17:32:37 +0000

This makes perfect sense but I find the last paragraph to be undemocratic.

It is legal for a bunch of MPs, that are proxies of the electorate, to alter the Constitution or any law but it’s illegal for the electorate to do the same through a referendum?