With both party leaders saying they will vote Yes, the electorate just might have to think for themselves
Yes to spring hunting
Yes to spring hunting
The Opposition leader has called a press conference for one o’clock, and I rather suspect what the news will be: he is going to vote in favour of spring hunting but the Nationalist Party is not going to take a position on the matter. UPDATED/INDEED HE HAS.
That way, both the prime minister and the Opposition leader will have taken the exact same position, leaving the unthinking electorate – which means a fair amount of people – a little freer to think.
Voting for spring hunting will become not a matter of simply following the leader to spite the other leader, or taking direction from your leader because you don’t know what else to do – because that means you’re also taking direction from the leader you don’t like.
The EU membership and divorce referendums were polarised between the opposing views of the leader of government and the Opposition leader. In this one, if Busuttil announces at one o’clock that he is voting in favour, the leaders of government and Opposition will be in accord.
I think this can go either way: it can mean a massive surge in those who would ordinarily vote PN and who are now encouraged to vote Yes like their leader because they didn’t have a clear opinion before.
Or it can force electors to think for themselves and not on partisan lines because there is no difference between the way the party leaders are going to vote.
I have it from reliable sources that immediately Muscat announced that he will be voting for spring hunting, the polls began to show a massive surge among Labour voters towards the Yes vote, where they were previously undecided or against it. I had picked this up already (though unscientifically) from social media and the internet comments boards, and also people’s responses in street interviews. Muscat’s stance not only shaped his supporters’ view but also told them what to say, how to say it, and gave them the confidence to say it.
This referendum is completely different to that on EU membership and divorce, and that needs to be factored in. Where people have a vested interest, they have a motivation to go out and vote against the direction given by their party leader. There were vast numbers of people who felt they had a vested interest in EU membership (or against it) and divorce (or against it). They derived their motivation from that.
There is no similar personal motivation or vested interest in spring hunting. Those who don’t shoot and are not linked closely to those who do are likely not to have an opinion on the matter either way. They will therefore pick whatever opinion their party leader picks for them.
A major difficulty here is the massive ignorance (as always). Listen to the way the topic is being discussed in every forum: it is portrayed as the right of hunters to practise their hobby versus those who object to killing those poor birds on the basis that killing is wrong.
The Constitutional Court has already established – some days ago – that there is no such thing as the right to hunt, still less the right to hunt in a particular period. Meanwhile, the major weaknesses of the ‘I object to killing birds’ arguments are immediately obvious to rational people, not that there are very many around. Yet that is all you hear.
This has never been about anything but CONSERVATION to ensure the survival of species, yet in all the published street interviews I read, only one respondent mentioned this. On social media and the internet comments board, there is no mention of conservation at all. The No vote is represented by the views of the sort of people who organised a public demonstration when a dog posthumously named Star was killed, and who talk about ‘loving animals’, by which they mean cats and dogs.
Views on divorce are shaped at a fundamental level by faith issues and issues of personal morality. Tens of thousands of Labour voters did not agree with Muscat on the matter of divorce, but rather than going out and voting No to divorce, they stayed home and didn’t vote at all. That is how they squared with their political conscience being in disagreement with their party leader: just staying out of it rather than voting in a way that would ipaxxithe PN leader.
The mindset of Nationalist Party supporters tends to be a little different. Many thousands of us had absolutely no problem separating the issues and campaigning for divorce then voting Yes despite the position of the party itself and not just its leader.
The vast number of Labour supporters who didn’t vote in the divorce referendum emerges from a number-crunching exercise. But here’s the thing: spring hunting does not involve faith issues and people tend not to see it as a matter of morality (though it certainly is – not because of the act of killing, but because of the decimation of species and cavalier disregard for the human duty to conservation).
They will not stay home. They will say majtezwel nivvota ghall-kacca ghax wara kollox lili personali ma taghmel ebda differenza. I can also already detect the line that has been fed into the system by the fact that it is being repeated religiously by those who – judging by their other pronouncements on various subjects – have no idea what they are talking about.
A vote in favour of spring hunting has been framed by the government, the Labour Party and their leader as the liberal vote when it is anything but. Voting in favour of shooting and trapping in spring – which would in any sane environment be the atavistic vote – is, because of widespread ignorance in Malta, portrayable as a vote for freedom.
The majority of the Maltese electorate lives in an information and education vacuum, which means that they will be unaware that in the rest of the world, hunting and trapping are associated with the conservative faction of politics and the right, while those at the centre, on the left and the liberal wing favour conservation and respect for the environment.
Widespread ignorance is truly a dangerous thing.
209 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
How can anyone justify this massacre is beyond me.
Are people aware that these breeds are becoming extinct in Britain and partly because their numbers are being reduced when flying over Malta?
The party leaders are just showing a complete insensitivity towards the environment and sustainability. It’s not about rights; it’s all about conservation of species.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738954/Turtle-dove-extinct-Britain-decade-rare-birds-gone.html
If Simon Busuttil says Yes to spring hunting, then this will be my first: ‘Boo to you Simon Busuttil’.
How nice, in a few months my very first voting against my party leader.
My first ‘Boo to my high up spiritual Leader for defining and restricting what freedom of speech is’ occurred yesterday.
Now probably my second boo in so many days – to my political leader as well. What a sense of liberation – freer than those poor birds.
Do not be so eager to boo yet , it might just be check mate , if he does.
You won’t be voting against the leader of your Party but differently from him, and so will I.
I totally agree with you, bob-a-job.
I think after this declaration by Simon Busuttil, I might as well send in my “tessera” to the PN.
I agree 100% . I will be voting differently than my party leader too.
It is not for politicians to decide on spring hunting, but the PEOPLE.
Din isbah issa! Jew Simon Busuttil jivvota BHALI jew nibghatlu t-tessera. Dan tghid favur il-liberta tal-kelma? Ipokrizija u arroganza grassa.
@ GiovDeMartino
Ara min lat iehor.
Jekk il-poster boy tal-PN joqtol lil xi hadd, ghadni nkun marbut li nisaportjah b’ghajnejja maghluqa?
Jew naqbel mieghu, jew le. U jekk narah li ma ghandux l-istess valuri tieghi, ghandi kull dritt li ntemm is-sostenju tieghi.
Giovann, imma ma tahsibx li Simon spara ghal saqajh ? Ghax allura missu ma harigx jikkritika bl-ahrax lil Dr. Muscat ghax qal li hu personalment se jivvota favur il-kacca fir Rebbiegha !
Let us now see what Dr.Maro DeMarco , Beppe Fenech Adami and Chris Said will say !!!!!
YES: Demarco and Said.
NO: Fenech Adami
Inkwetat, sur Privitera?
Ghidilna int x’ser taghmel , ha tivvota bhal – leader jew ghal rasek , qatt qbadt senter f-idejk .
Sur Privitera, jien nivvota kontra l-kacca ghax jien personalment kontra l-kacca u nivvota PN ghax nemmen li huma kapaci jmexxu l-pajjiz ‘il quddiem.
Il-fatt li xi hadd mill-partit Nazzjonalista, fil-kapacita’ personali tieghu, jivvota favur il-kacca ma jaffettwanix.
Jien ghandi mohhi u hadd ma jimponili xejn.
Imma ghaliex dejjem inkazzat Privitera?
Bil-mod jahasra.
Oh look, like the neighbourhood ghoul Eddy can’t help it, but just has to turn up at the feast for a spot of smirking and gloating.
Little does he realize that his presence serves to inadvertently rally the angry Nationalist troops.
Baxter, are you their spokesman ?
Eddy, you’re such an arse. Baxxter has a double ‘x’.
You can’t even read.
No wonder Muscat doesn’t bother with you and gave the best jobs to ex-Nazzjonalisti whom you hate so much.
Kompli inharaq, siehbi.
Ha nipprova nispjegalu lil Privitera, billi niehu ezempju closer to his time.
Tiftakru lil Glenn Miller, Privitera? Dazgur li tiftakru. Ta’ zmienek.
Jekk tispellih b’L wahda jigi Miler.
Allura jekk tghid Miler minflok Miller tkun qed tghid din:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qkr9E2ZMbk
minflok din:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPXwkWVEIIw
Mela attent ghal kull ittra, Privitera.
If the No vote wins, then they won’t be able to legally roam the countryside taking pot shots at anything that flies. The diehard poachers ought to be easier to find in that case. As it stands, if you hear a gunshot in spring then you don’t know what species they’ve shot at.
If Simon Busuttil says yes to spring hunting, he proves himself to be an opportunistic scumbag like his political counterpart.
Simon Busuttil had a dilemma, but chose the option which ultimately would not lose him much votes. He could not do otherwise. His electoral fate will not depend on this referendum and to some extent neither on his abilities, as much as the economic situation at the time of the election.
I’m not sure I fully understand what you mean here:
What is the principle?
Are there two, or more, principles?
Or is it not about principle, and therefore about scenario?
Why should a leader have a quotable dilemma? Clarity of thought should serve to highlight and prioritise values.
In my opinion a “dilemma” can only happen when there is a conscious lack of information that creates a gut feeling. Is this the case?
“When in doubt leave out.”
Why say “Yes” when gut instinct is not convinced?
Gut instinct is where several as yet unnamed and unidentified values reside. A greater effort must be made to name and define these values.
That’s what happens when information comes in over time: today’s scenario is not the same as when the Derogation was negotiated and implemented.
Are you saying, therefore, that the personal pressure was to stick with the old decision irrespective of any value up-date to
be effected meanwhile?
(A value can be defined as anything that creates an impact: either positive or negative.)
How many years have passed since the Derogation was negotiated?
________
Gonzi’s principle in the divorce vote was clear and whether this gained or lost votes the principle was not bent to accommodate voter pressure.
Muscat has no principles. His expediency and compromised ethics are tainted and exposed beyond repair. He cannot be considered as a fair comparison in a context where ethics hold.
What are the ethics of this issue to Simon Busuttil?
________
Since politics by referendum is not a habitual occurrence in Malta, what are the parametres of a referendum?
What I find rather poor in this referendum is that no alternatives or further options are put to the electorate.
As though there are only two options that exist, when attractive alternatives do exist.
Is the Maltese electorate thought to be that limited in vision?
Are its leaders?
Are the hunters unable to design an even more attractive scenario outside of, or alternative to, Spring Hunting for themselves that would render nil the absolute focus on Spring Hunting?
Is the contra-hunting sector not able to present these more acceptable alternatives?
Is it through lack of thorough consideration?
Lost in legal nicety digressions?
________
All in all, I find the thinking that has been applied to the setting of the referendum context extremely poor in vision – and severely irresponsible – given that we are actually going forward with one.
________
I’d like to ask what concepts readers see in this issue?
What can they extrapolate?
I’ll give you an example:
The Spring Hunting issue has occurred in no small way because Malta is on a migratory path.
Concept: This migratory path principle is not dissimilar to that of the migratory path that the “much dreaded North African etc immigrants” find themselves on.
I cannot understand how we expect the rest of Europe to help with the Immigrants, even talk and act forcibly about pushbacks, rudely and ridiculously ask Sweden/ Malmström to smell the coffee on that issue, refuse emergency pleas for help from drowning immigrants, protest that we do not have enough EU financed resources, financial responsibility sharing, burden sharing, support….etc . ultimately calling for the pity and assistance of ALL of Europe.
On the other hand, Maltese hunters and the two Maltese party-leaders then say that the migratory path that birds are on in Spring is a first-come-first served situation: where we grab what we can – let’s be honest about the fictitious limits – and the rest of Europe and its huge interest in conserving the various now endangered species as it affects its environments, can just butt off:
“This is ours.”
“First-come-first-served.”
“Finders-keepers-losers-weepers” mentality.
“Hit-and-run.”
Birds are even less able to change their routes than immigrants.
They are magnetically programmed to within kilometres of their target areas to a certain flight path. What happens in and over Malta is a cruel and unnecessary massacre.
It is as though one and all who vote for Spring Hunting want to exterminate the handicapped, “because they can.”
A population self-determinating.
________
The tyranny of idiocy.
I am pessimistic about the outcome here: I say the Maltese population will perpetuate its pettiness.
There are too many self-serving groupies on this island to hold the total population in higher estimation.
I’m not even going to ponder on: “I hope I’m proved wrong” because the marker of the point of no return still has Muscat in a seat that by all ethical, moral and constitutional analysis, he should long have been removed from. Has a mass protest hit the streets? Not even that.
This shouldn’t even be his referendum to set:
We are here living Muscat’s flawed reality, whilst he grabs what he can and has destroyed a Malta we all used to be proud of.
So fickle is memory.
So fickle are principles.
A hit-and-run DNA, if possible stabbing – or hacking – the multiple naïve piggy-backs, on the inner-island circular track to nowhere.
Honest people don’t have a dilemma. They do what they believe is right.
Cold blooded arithmetic (vote counting), that’s what it is.
The moment I thought that Simon Busuttil had grown a pair, I get slapped by this.
No cure in sight.
So are you one who votes according to what his/her leader is voting? Do you have no opinion of your own?
I for one have always been against hunting and will go happily to the polls to vote against spring hunting irrespective of how the political leaders will be voting.
Would that hunting be abolished forever but that is just a dream not likely to happen during my time.
[Daphne – That isn’t the point, Etil. By saying that he will vote in favour of spring hunting, the Opposition leader has marked himself out as fundamentally different from those whose votes he most needs to close the gap between himself and his opposite number. This is exactly what Lawrence Gonzi did with divorce. This is not ‘just’ a vote on spring hunting, as it wasn’t ‘just’ a vote on divorce. These fundamental issues are ‘ciphers’ for where we stand on a whole raft of matters. They are signifiers for what sort of person we are – our ‘brand’, so to speak. Saying that he will vote in favour of spring hunting is, at a basic level, bad branding. My kind of person doesn’t like that brand, and my kind of person voted literally in droves, wholesale, for the Labour Party in the last general election after a lifetime of voting PN because Labour created a brand with which they were more comfortable.
True, Muscat has said the same thing, but he already had their support, having gained it in the last general election, and while Muscat’s words will not make them think they were wrong to vote for him (admitting you are wrong is difficult), Busuttil’s words will give them another reason to think they are justified in not supporting him (because people in that situation look for proof that they are right).
Affinity with a party leader or his PERSONAL views is the primary motivation in choosing one party over another, for this particular group of people. They are among the very people the PN lost over the last few years.]
This ‘Yes’ distanced a bit Simon Busuttil from a ‘EU yes boy’ perception.
Don’t be so quick to judge Simon’s stand in favour of spring hunting. I suspect it is not a moral move at all and does not represent his personal opinion but a political one.
He’s turned the tables on Muscat’s licking the collective hunters’ arse for votes; now people will not be voting, as Daphne rightly said, to please or spite anyone, but as they personally think about the issue.
What really scares me though is that die-hard idiots of both parties will be voting for their leader, irrespective of the fact that they are ipaxxu lill-iehor.
[Daphne – First off, it’s Busuttil and not Simon. Secondly, do you realise what you’ve just said there? That the Opposition leader’s vote is opportunistic and not his personal view. In other words, you have called him dishonest.]
Well?
Perhaps I’ve opened up a can of worms here.
If Simon Busuttil is not in reality in favour of hunting, and uses a political move to bring about a No vote, he is being true to his ultimate aim, but manipulating and dishonest to the unthinking electorate, though not to the intelligent thinkers who wouldn’t be fooled by his ploy for a minute – and neither does he want them to be.
[Daphne – This is not about using your vote to fool others who may or may not be fooled. This is about political honesty, a clear stand and a sound position. A political leader should not vote X unless he means X. People in Malta have serious problems understanding democracy and this is one part of it: the vote is not there to manipulate others – either politicians manipulating the electorate or electors manipulating politicians. Your vote is a statement of what you believe in and a clear choice of X for its own sake.]
On the other hand, if he is completely honest about his personal opinion, he would be indirectly undermining his ultimate aim of supporting the No vote. Does the end justify the means here? I’m not sure. I feel too strongly about this issue not to accept every opportunity available to get a No result.
That said, I feel very uncomfortable that the leader of my party is following Muscat’s manipulative tactics to get what we want.
It will certainly alienate many nature conservationists, who are mostly Nationalists.
He definitely isn’t dishonest, just admits he cannot do otherwise.
It does put a strain on the definition of consistency however.
My nanna would have immediately recognised the message; In-nazzjonalisti aghtihom jinkeddu u ahna maghhom. Tsk.
Do you really think he was “honest” when declaring that he will be voting Yes ? If he was honest, he should have said that, at least, one week ago and not attack Dr. Muscat for saying that he would personally be voting YES !
Daphne, do you mean to say that you actually think Busuttil wants hunters to shoot in Spring?
[Daphne – That is what a Yes vote means. It actually means more than that: it means you want the Yes vote to win. Nobody votes Yes if they want the No vote to win, and if they don’t care either way they don’t vote at all. That is the real definition of consistency: saying what you mean, meaning what you say, voting for the outcome you desire and not for the outcome you don’t desire while hoping that sufficient others will vote for what you really want.]
It is blatantly clear to me that what he thinks personally is not an issue here, and that he has come out in favour of spring hunting only because Muscat said he is too. Politically (and sadly), it was the only viable option left.
[Daphne – The only viable option in politics is meaning what you say and saying what you mean. Voting for something you don’t want because it is politically convenient is most certainly not an option. So I shall have to conclude that Busuttil wants spring hunting. The only alternative conclusion is that, like 75% of the Maltese electorate, he thinks that the vote is a tool for manipulation and not for the expression of a desired outcome.]
Of course, this stand disappoints many of us PN voters who are sick of hunters making the countryside theirs and having absolutely no idea about conservation – but there was never going to be any other way.
Going against the hunting lobby carries more political costs than being ostensibly ‘on their side’. Hunters are far less likely to forgive than the AB voters who will vote NO to spring hunting in April. I will happily vote against spring hunting and still vote PN in 3 years time, as, I believe, the majority of people like me will do.
[Daphne – This is not about how Busuttil’s stance will affect the referendum campaign and outcome. This is about how his stance affects his image, his brand if you like, in the eyes of those people of my sort who fled to Labour and have to be persuaded back by the sole expedient of out-liberaling Muscat. The PN is simply unelectable without those people and in the first chance the PN got to prove that it’s leader is more attractive to them than Muscat is (and Muscat is now quite embarrassing to them), they’ve blown it. Read my column tomorrow. Anti-hunting people who have always voted Labour, like Carina Camilleri and Moira Delia of the No campaign, will simply vote No and carrying on voting Labour. It’s not those we’re concerned with here – it’s those who never voted Labour because Labour was so bad and embarrassing, and then in 2013 decided that the PN was more embarrassing than Labour and fled there. Moira Delia and Carina Camilleri never thought it embarrassing to vote Labour; they did so doggedly. That is why they are sticking their necks out in the No campaign – Muscat is never going to think they’re switchers.]
Now you may argue that Busuttil never had the hunters on his side to begin with, and they never vote PN anyway, so why appease them? But I find it hard to believe that all those hunters (20k+ ?) all vote Labour. The fact that Gonzi got that derogation some years back is testament to their political importance for the PN.
This No stand will not have the same negative consequences of Gonzi’s divorce stand. The only negative might be a slight trickle from PN to AD, but by 2018 it will be largely forgotten.
Privitera, I will vote for the removal of the derogation.
What will you vote?
I give up.
The rationale for a no vote, according to me, should be due to two reasons.
1. There is the pressing need for environmental conservatism (as Daphne mentioned) above all petty, irrational and emotive claims to right for hunting. Hunting cannot fit in a dichotomous categorisation of either good or evil; it is a question of context and time. For instance, hunting for mammoths during the Ice Age was a matter of survival, whilst today we do not need hunting for food purposes.
2. A clear message has to be sent to the hunting minority that the rest of us are fed up of their antics and law-breaking (not everyone, admittedly). This reason is greatly subjective.
I do hope that the No campaign will be a serious one, and not based upon anthropomorphising animals, an aspect that we seem to have mastered here in Malta.
We should protect the environment and its flora and fauna not because the fauna are cuddly and it’s nice to enjoy a picnic in the flora (whilst simultaneously rubbishing the hell out of it), but because it is part of life on our planet.
Humanity has conquered the planet in terms of size, but instead of looking only at our rights, we should also look at our obligations.
It’s conservation, not conservatism.
You’re right, I’m afraid I typed the comment on my tablet, and I find it too cumbersome to check and go back.
Don’t worry, I have the same problem with my tablets. Once the clay has dried, I can’t correct anything with my stylus and I have to chuck the damn thing in the reed basket.
Right about the conservation because really that is what the whole issue is supposed to be – about CONSERVATION. Would that the politicians insist about that one word because otherwise they may be leading their followers up a blind alley.
I am against the killing of animals, even for food, and so I would still be against hunting if it were environmentally sustainable.
It’s not because I am fond of animals, but because the ones we kill are conscious beings with a preference to remain living, which far outweighs the satisfaction we get from eating (or hunting) them.
Since birds have preferences and a capacity to feel pain, you cannot say that morality is not a factor in this referendum.
Those who are talking about ‘animal rights’ need to be consistent and realize that it also applies to killing them for food.
Political prostitute. I guess, after this, the PN has lost not gained votes.
Please do not fall into the trap that because Dr. Busuttil says he will vote in favour of spring hunting, others will follow.
We do not have to wait for our politicians to express a view and should be capable of thinking without being influenced.
I admit this is almost impossible to achieve judging by the way the majority of the electorate voted in the PL government.
Voting with emotion rather than thinking seriously of what is good for Malta seems to be the norm, unfortunately.
Are you one of Busuttil’s fabled “advisors”? That’s some advice you’re giving him.
Etil, are you implying that the PN should use mirror tactics to resist failure?
I am a PN supporter and I dislike hunting and hunters and will vote … NO.
Busuttil contested the last election in my district. I regret voting for him then and I’m finding it increasingly difficult to justify voting for him again.
I can’t emphasise enough how much I don’t want him to take this stand, especially now that he’s becoming vaguely tolerable.
Spring hunting is an important issue for the country and the political parties standing on the sidelines are cowardly and lazy.
Busuttil’s PN, quite frankly, had repeatedly shied away from important issues and has been the epitome of cowardice. I find it really quite remarkable that you try and justify a stand like this.
If you look for precedent in other countries, Labour supported a ban on fox hunting in the UK, while the Tories took a stand in favour and their 2010 manifesto said they would reintroduce it (they’re in a coalition, so haven’t, of course).
[Daphne – Where have I tried to justify it? I have done the opposite. I wrote the piece above in the morning, before the news was out. If you read through what I’ve written on the comments board you will see what I have said since. As an exercise in branding, it’s a disaster, and it is also dishonest to vote for something you don’t believe in.]
I interpreted the bit about being freer to think as this being a desirable situation, which surprised me. I wrote my comment before your contributions in the comments board, which have helped me understand your position better.
You have to appreciate that Dr Busuttil is between a rock and hard place.
The PN did negotiate a derogation about spring hunting, so why should they turn their backs on it. It would be spineless at this point.
[Daphne – That was a long time ago, Mr Testa. Views should change when circumstances change. ‘For better or worse, in sickness and in health, richer or poorer’ refers to marriage and not to opinions, and even then there is divorce. That derogation was negotiated for pragmatic reasons – as an end to a greater goal – that had nothing to do with delight in or approval of spring hunting, which makes it more imperative still to yank that albatross off the country’s neck. If negotiating that derogation was imperative to achieve something else then, getting rid of it is imperative to secure something else now: the good of the country, as well as the conservation of those birds. It is an inescapable fact that Malta will be better off, in both domestic and European terms, without spring hunting.]
It is an issue in which the PN would lose ALL the hunters’ votes.
[Daphne – They didn’t have them anyway. There were none to lose. Now I am concerned that they will lose the environmentalists’ vote. A referendum is not a vote for a political party, remember, but when people vote for a political party they factor in the choices of that party and its leader in a referendum. Vide Lawrence Gonzi and the fall-out of his choices in the divorce referendum on his party’s electoral chances. I have very strong reservations about this decision, though I can see the inherent risks in Busuttil saying that he would vote against spring hunting. The only hope now is that people get so angry at the way both leaders are forming a common front in favour of spring hunting, that they go out and tell them where to get off: the ‘hekk, hudu go fikhom’ factor.]
The referendum means more to the hunters than to environmentalists, Dr. Busuttil risks to lose even more votes. Astrid, Moira and Co. are too proud to vote for PN should PN back the No vote. So Dr. Busuttil would cut his nose to spit on his face.
Dr. Busuttil should have dealt with this sooner.
[Daphne – Cripes, this is tiring. In a referendum, you don’t vote for a political party. You vote for or against something specific. Unless my ability to assess people has become severely impaired, I can tell you that Astrid Vella and Moira Delia will both vote against spring hunting in the referendum regardless of what either party leader says and does, then Mrs Delia will vote Labour as usual in the general election and Astrid Vella will vote AD as usual. My assessment is that the Opposition leader’s companion will vote against spring hunting, too, for much the same reasons that I will. Then we will both vote PN in the general election.]
“They didn’t have them anyway. There were none to lose. Now I am concerned that they will lose the environmentalists’ vote.”
Absolutely. This is about standards, the rule of law and possessing opinions within an educated mind.
You made multiple valid points which I agree with you.
Though this, I don’t feel comfortable with your comment with regards to associating a referendum with a political party. The EU referendum as well as the divorce defined two election results (the divorce issue perhaps with a lessor magnitude, but still showed Dr Gonzi in a negative light).
[Daphne – Associating a referendum with a political party: this obviously had to be the case in 2003 because the parties had a clear policy on EU membership. Divorce: the Nationalist Party committed electoral suicide by taking a stance against divorce and the party leader hammered the last nail into that particular coffin by voting No to divorce legislation in parliament even though this went against the will of the majority. If he couldn’t bring himself to vote for divorce legislation, he should have stepped down. He had the perfect excuse for doing so with grace and dignity, and the timing was right too. Instead, look what happened. Birdhunting: the parties have not taken a stance but people see the party leader as obviously representative of the party, because he is. The Labour Party already had a hunting brand. The PN’s only chance of getting advantage over the Labour Party was by building a different brand that appeals to all the people like me (though I in particular did not) who voted in droves for Labour in the last general election. A key part of that branding had to be a clear stance against spring hunting. Today’s news blew it.]
Also, Dr. Busuttil backed the derogation up to at least the run up to the last election. He hardly has a choice now. He made his own cake and now he has to eat it.
Also, changing his views now would not be consistent with his new mantra of “Politika Onesta”. If he changes his views time and time again, what would separate him from the Joseph Muscats of this world?(his views on gays, gay adoption, EU, etc)
Again, I agree with most of your points, but I think you are not seeing the bigger picture on the above issues.
[Daphne – Bed/lie in it, not cake/eat it. Absolutely fallacious reasoning. I have changed my stance several times over the years depending on new factors that changed my view. It doesn’t bother me or anyone else at all. It is only people with an unhealthy psychology who stick to their guns no matter the changing circumstances, like Alfred Sant. Simon Busuttil is not such a person. He has done it for other reasons and those reasons, I think, have been miscalculated.
My main problem is that I am cursed with an ability to see the bigger picture constantly, as well as noticing all the niggling details. I would be a lot more serene if I couldn’t.]
And now Daphne , I’ve just changed my view and agree with you completely.
Whether one agrees with him or not, I think Gonzi, with all his limitations, was the last truly principled prime minister we’ll ever see in our country.
The ‘principles’ Simon Busuttil is talking about here are not principles, but pragmatic nuances.
An unassuming nice guy he may be, but principles fall under a higher category, no longer forming part of the mainstream political game.
Daphne Cassandra Galizia.
[Daphne – Realist, you mean. And even so, the views of Cassandras tend to be more reliable than those of Pollyannas.]
Kev, you’re perfectly right there. The PN has always been the natural haven for people with ideals and principles.
Now Busuttil has just shot himself in the foot and gambled with these principles for hunters’ votes.
In one fell swoop he has angered people of good faith and switchers who have lately started being drawn back to the Nationalist Party. He has lost all the political mileage painstakingly gained over his superb handling of the Malliagate scandal, where we dared to hope that he had the makings of a strong leader who would breathe new life into the PN.
What an anti-climax, a let down and a betrayal of core voters this has been – a true imitation of Muscat-style politics which even the switchers have been disillusioned about now.
Suddenly, the party which has always proved to be on the right side of history has gone horribly wrong, and ‘is-sewwa jirbah zgur’ sounds hollow and mocking.
Busuttil has just conducted a re-shuffle of his shadow cabinet; it would have been much wiser of him if he had also booted out the spineless, amoral morons advising him. Do these people have a death-wish or have they been purposely planted in this position to sabotage the party by destroying its life and soul?
Actually the derogation provisions existed in the Birds Directive well before Malta joined.
They have nothing to do with the negotiating skills of Maltese politicians.
Derogations are applied by member states on a case-by-case basis and a member state is obliged to send a derogation report to the Commission every time a derogation is applied.
We never negotiated anything special; that’s a myth. Which is also why the Commission took Malta to the European Court of Justice in 2008.
Mark,
Busuttil just stated otherwise this afternoon.
https://www.google.com.mt/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=maltarightnow
I’m disappointed in Simon. I couldn’t care less what he votes for actually, but I can’t identify with a hunter supporter.
He may think he is being clever, but it sounds like opportunism and hedge betting on a grand scale.
I hope his son will be proud of him, when one time that son asks him why there are no birds in the countryside.
Just because that conniving spineless worthless Joseph will be doing so, is irrelevant. The PN has always looked for leaders who stood up to be counted, not power hungry calculators.
[Daphne – Busuttil and Muscat, please, not Simon and Joseph.]
Just for the sake of correctness, no derogation was ever negotiated or won for spring hunting.
The Maltese government interpreted and applied a derogation which was already written into the Birds Directive.
This interpretation was challenged by the European Commission, and the matter taken to the European Court of Justice, which ruled that there was scope for a limited and controlled application of the derogation.
A sort of balance had been achieved with some sort of control, and a level of enforcement till Labour came to power and sent the message that all birds were once again fair game, and this tipped the delicate balance which had been achieved, pushing conservationists and the public in general to want legal spring hunting to end for good, thus making it easier to enforce, since all shooting in this period would be illegal i.e. legal shooting of 3 turtle doves or grouse would not anymore serve as a cover for shooting anything that flies.
I completely agree with your last paragraph. The scenario has changed over the years and that is why Simon Busuttil should have taken a different decision without worrying about past actions and political work.
Saviour Balzan and Malta Today will win the day.
I appreciate that the leader of the Opposition found himself in a bit of a quandary. After all, it was a PN government that negotiated the concessions enjoyed by hunters.
However, wasn’t this another opportunity to break away from the past?
The Nationalist Party should have explained that the real reason why the PN government of the time could not afford to alienate the hunting lobby was to secure a Yes vote in that referendum and secure Malta’s membership of the European Union, and that much of it boiled down to the Labour Party’s anti-EU stand which already put the Yes vote at serious risk.
The referendum, and subsequent election, would have possibly been lost and we would not be enjoying the benefits of EU membership in 2015.
Does he really think hunters will take him in as one of theirs?
If he must be consistent, having been tasked with negotiating the derogation isn’t the equivalent of his personal opinion.
And that argument simply excludes everyone else.
Big mistake.
Really and truly, Dr. Busuttil’s personal opinion is irrelevant to the electorate’s own decision making. He is fully entitled to his own personal and political opinion. What is important is that we know it: transparency and avoidance of conflict of interest.
Simon Busuttil is Charlie, too.
The PN is a political organisation, and it must specialise in politics, not in environmental conservation. In the case of hunting, its duty as a political organisation is to reach a consensus between conservation and hunting, not to see that one prevails over the other. I am happy to note that today the PN has chosen to do just that.
The Spring hunting derogation was obtained under EU directives on conservation, so conservation has been catered for in the way the derogation was negotiated, and as applied later following the court decision. The level of migration of turtle dove and quail over Malta in Spring is not a threat to the conservation of the species.
There are out there many PN supporters among hunters who would never be able to reconcile with the PN if the PN took a position against them. They can now proudly say that the PN – through the art of compromise – has protected their interest in Spring, while making sure that they are also citizens of the EU.
The PN is right to remind the public that the conservationists never raised the referendum issue up to 2013.
I am for the environment, and I have joked about Spring hunting and its promoters.
But I am not an extremist. We as the human species consume the environment every day. We eat at the natural resources and dump waste routinely and yet no one takes us to task with a referendum.
Then there is the other point. I cannot see myself voting for a cause promoted by the likes of Saviour Balzan, Astrid Vella, and some other faces in their Shout crowd. I have to say, they have taken a big risk with that name.
And I have to say, they chose the name which best fits them: shouting. In fact, for many years now, they thought they would rule by shouting more than others.
This does not mean that others are not free to vote against Spring hunting. We are all Charlies.
This is is not about spring hunting, Ciccio. This is about defining traditions.
Both ‘leaders’ have seen to it.
Oh, no, they are calling Simon Busuttil a copy cat on the Times of Malta comments board.
Well, the real copycat is Joseph Muscat, because he is now agreeing with the spring hunting derogation obtained by the PN government. It is definitely not Simon Busuttil who is converting to Joseph Muscat politics, but the other way round.
Joseph Muscat’s hindsight is a marvellous thing. He has just been checkmated on the Spring hunting issue. So much so, he will be voting for the same derogation negotiated by the PN after years in which he betrayed the hunters about it. Not a small political victory for the PN.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150117/local/nationalist-party-leader-simon-busuttil-to-vote-for-spring-hunting.552229
Jozef, I think it is about “spring hunting.”
As far as I am aware, Article 9 of the Directive allows what we are calling the “Spring hunting” derogation when it is deemed that the alternative (the autumn season in the case of Malta) is not a “satisfactory solution.”
Now let me clarify that also as far as I am aware, the directive does not specifically refer to “spring hunting.”
Article 7 (which, together with articles 5, 6 and 8 are subject to the derogations of Article 9) protects migratory birds from hunting during the reproductive period and their return to their rearing grounds. I think this happens in spring, hence the conservationists’ concerns about “spring hunting.”
I do not believe that tradition is an issue addressed by the Directive, and specifically by Article 9, but I may be wrong.
So please let us make sure we have and disseminate the right information.
See Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009.
Let’s cut the crap here.
Traditionally when a guy wanted a mate, he stepped out of the cave, clubbed the first female he saw on the head, and dragged her into a life of bliss around his fire.
Another quaint tradition was the droit de seigneur (prima nocte). Great fun for the lord, but maybe less for his serfs.
Speaking of lords and landowners, people seem to forget that they had (multiple) votes, whilst the common men had one (if at all), and his wife had none.
Traditionally, women were chattels. As the Germans put it, they existed for the 3 Ks (Kinder, Kirche, Kuche). Or as Lady Hillingdon put it, lie down on the bed, close my eyes, spread my legs, and think of England.
Poor orphans were traditionally put in a poorhouse. Great fun was had by the kids as they were starved, worked and abused to death.
Hooray for tradition.
Ciccio, people are absolutely full of legalese.
And that argument is Muscat’s anyway.
Jozef, I do not see a problem if Simon Busuttil is using the same argument as Muscat. If I am not mistaken, Muscat won the last election not by distinguishing his product, but by deceiving the electorate that he had the same product as the PN – only that he claimed that his had a better warranty, a better after sales, and a roadmap attached. So he wore blue ties, carried around a blue backdrop for his press conferences, put “ex-GonZiPN” opportunists in front rows at his events, and so on.
In the market, differentiation may lead to a competitive advantage, but new products take time to become accepted, and innovators must pay the high price of innovation, research, initial marketing and so on.
In a very competitive market, the products must be homogenous. Like potatoes. It is when politics becomes like potatoes that consumers will move from one variety to the other.
The Maltese political market is not made up of sophisticated consumers, let alone the market for votes on hunting.
When the PN distinguished its product too much, voters thought it was too expensive, while Labour produced a copy in China.
So on an issue like hunting, politics must be presented like potatoes: one variety is the same as the other.
Let’s not prejudge Busuttil’s declaration that he will vote for the derogation (permitting spring hunting).
His was a case of a political chess maneuver, stalemating Muscat by stating that he will vote like Muscat. Unfortunately the only miscalculation Busuttil made was to assume that the vast majority understood his move.
His thinking (and his party’s) might have been that since the two leaders will vote YES, it is left to the true environmentalists and anti-hunters, to vote with their brains and not be influenced by how the respective party leaders will.
[Daphne – The fallacy of your argument is that the vote is something to use cynically, which is PRECISELY the criticism politicians lay on the electorate. A vote is a vote for what you believe in. In no democratic poll is this more sharply clear than in a referendum, where you are asked to choose just the one, simple thing rather than a whole raft of policies as in a general election. Let’s get this straight: are you actually saying that the Opposition leader is using vote cynically, rather than to vote for what he believes in, and that you actually admire him for doing so? There is only one reason for voting for spring hunting: that you are in favour of it and are determined that it should go on.]
It would have been preferable for Busuttil and the PN to have declared that ‘the issue is not to be politicized and let the electorate decide’ without revealing how Busuttil (and others) will vote.
If Busuttil would have been pressed to reveal how he would vote, he could have answered that his vote is as confidential as any other voter’s.
[Daphne – You have got to be joking. A party leader refusing to say how he will vote? A party leader is OBLIGED to tell electors where he stands. His vote is not as confidential as any other voter’s for the simple, obvious reason that he is not any other voter. He is somebody who asks voters to vote for HIM. It is bad enough that there were three Nationalist MPs in today’s The Sunday Times who said they will vote against spring hunting but refused permission to reveal their identities. Whoever they are, they deserve a good lashing – and we deserve one too for putting up with these insults and for, as you have done above, actually encouraging this craven and disgusting behaviour.]
What a let down. As if the derogation obtained by the PN was a good thing.
Another populist leader pandering to the worst types of the population.
What next? Yes to Armier squatters, OZD, etc? Pity the PN reshuffle did not include him. Leaders are made of sterner stuff.
Definitely Xemxija.
True , the Nationalist Party obtained the spring derogation , but I thought this referendum has nothing to do with politics . It’s not being pushed by political parties .
Therefore Busuttil surely has his own PERSONAL opinion on hunting , and is at liberty to vote accordingly without having to “be consistent” with that derogation .
The PN has landed itself with a useless leader, who can’t stand up and be counted when the need arises. He should stick to what he knows best – ice bucket challenges. Oh no, even on that one, he hesitated.
Bring on 2018 – the PN will lose by 30,000 plus votes again, and we can rid ourselves of this useless leadership.
It appears the mantra that the PN should change leadership is still going on. The more you want Dr. Busuttil out, the more I think he is being a pain in the neck to you all.
Jozef, you say “(Busuttil) having been tasked with negotiating the derogation”.
Where did you get that from? It was Richard Cachia Caruana as Chief Negotiator in tandem with Dr Joe Borg, foreign minister at the time, who obtained the derogation for Malta. Busuttil had nothing to do with it.
Because that is what he’s been accused of.
Or better, it’s what he implies with his replies and painful meanders around legislation, confirming the accusation. The man’s known for his stubborn loyalty.
When this is not the case it has to be clarified his is a personal opinion removed from any conditioning.
Daphne, if this referendum is lost, the environmentalists will certainly not vote for PN. It took so much effort to get those signatures, validation process, court case, and then PN leader declares a Yes vote.
[Daphne – Yes, I see it that way too. It’s divorce all over again, but much worse because of all the public-spirited effort made by hundreds of individuals to do all that which you describe above. The main difference is that this time both party leaders are saying the same thing, so they are both going to be ranked as jerks for doing this – except that Muscat is starting from a massive advantage and can afford to lose some.]
As you say the derogation was vital in obtaining a yes vote for Europe. That derogation was flagrantly abused.
Busuttil. Tal-misthija.
Agreed. Demanding the vote for teenagers will sound hollow.
The driving force is to be distinct from Muscat, not a better Muscat. Even because Muscat just breathed a sigh of relief.
I am a Nationalist, and will continue to be so unless I take leave of my senses.
However I will be voting No.
We have a free vote and I will use it.
[Daphne – ‘We have a free vote and I will use it.’ You always have a free vote, unless you are somebody with a seat in parliament on a party ticket and subject to the party whip for a vote in parliament.]
I see no problem in this. This is the basis of democracy.
And I will be voting for all Nationalist councillors in our local council. I do not see any problem here. Simon explained his vote, and I believe him. Joseph just tried to get on the bandwagon as usual.
[Daphne – Will everybody please stop calling the head of the government and the head of the Opposition Simon and Joseph. They are Busuttil and Muscat unless you are in bed with them or having a chat down the pub.]
Point taken.
Like the PL’s, the PN’s preferred policy is to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
I think Dr. Busuttil has pulled the rug from under Joseph Muscat’s feet by his decision. I will be voting against with no remorse at all, proud of the way he has handled it.
Hunting lobby lackey!
Simon had his hands tied on this one. He could have never taken a No position.
Otherwise, in the unfortunate event that it turns out to be a Yes vote, his credibility would be dented and maybe his position compromised.
As it is, the position is hedged and at least those PL voters who consider voting no, won’t be discouraged.
As for the majority of the PN voters, I tend to believe that the position of the leader is less influential. Therefore, all in all, this might be imotoring the probability for the No vote to get the edge.
So you agree this was a calculated move?
So the PN has a leader who believes that the end justifies the means?
Mind you the end still means that the PN will loose the next elections.
So Simon Busuttil has sacrificed his self respect for what exactly?
For this fella?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=64g69nfyFbo
Malta, the Utopian country for mass ignorance, hysteria and the consequential manipulators and frauds.
[Daphne – And of course, the fact that the vast majority of people in Malta are groomed from birth in a religious mindset has nothing to do with it.]
Must watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYgag85Rttk
‘Kuruna tax-xewk Europea’,
No, it has nothing to do with it. Think of it, if there were no religious mindset, there would not have been any orders, if there were no orders there would not have been a Franciscan order, if there were no Franciscan order there would not have been a convent in Rabat, if there was not a Franciscan convent in Rabat, there would not have been any shelter to escape an angry hysterical mob, surely not groomed in a religious mindset.
God have sent you a message, and you have not yet taken it, continuing deriding religion for no reason at all.
[Daphne – Another manifestation of an irrational mindset, I’m afraid. I do not deride religion. For the last few days, I have been derided on this comments board precisely because I refuse to deride Islam. I don’t deride Catholicism, either. I am critical – as distinct from deriding – people who have been trained from birth to be irrational and unquestioning about anything other than challenges to their own dogmatic views, when a rational person would use those challenges to reassess their views instead, even if they come out the other end thinking exactly the same way. Why are you religious – because you made an active choice in adulthood, based on a rational assessment of the available religious options after being raised without religion? Obviously not. There is a reason why almost nobody chooses religion in adulthood after being raised well without it. When people are raised badly without religion, however, a few might turn to it as a refuge (‘finding God’) but I think you’ll find they do so for roughly the same reason as they would have turned to drugs and drink. Case in point: those terrorists just now.]
If you think that one should depart from a religious vacuum to become a genuine believer, you are wrong.
I believe what I believe after what you call ‘rational assessments’ and deeper reflections.
Everyone is free to leave or remain. Other than that, my religious experience is to your concern as much as yours is mine. Only to raise the point that equating ignorance and hysteria with a religious upbringing, is a derision.
After Muscat said that he will vote Yes, the No campaigners were hoping that Busuttil would declare himself on the Yes side as well.
Otherwise the result would have been similar to the divorce referendum. If Joseph says YES, I say YES, no matter what I feel. If Joseph says YES, and the NO wins, Joseph would have lost so whatever the issue, whatever I believe, the vote will always go to Joseph (very typically Labour). Kif spicca dal-pajjiz.
http://maltarightnow.com/news/2015/01/17/se-nivvota-favur-id-deroga-li-gibna-ahna-stess-simon-busuttil/
“Jiena mhux kaċċatur u nħobb l-ambjent u l-annimali. Imma jien kont personalment involut fin-negozjati. Jiena kont involut biex pajjiżna jakkwista d-dritt li nużaw id-deroga. Din id-deroga ma ġabiex Joseph Muscat. Din id-deroga ġibniha aħna. Ġibtha jien ukoll – għax kien hemm bżonnha. Wara li ġibniha jiena ddefendejtha għal snin twal, kemm hawn Malta kif ukoll fi Brussell. Għamilt dan għax għalija il-kelma hija kelma u ma tmurx lura minnha – u meta ngħid li l-politika għandha tkun politika onesta’, dan hu dak li nfisser”
Hara kiri.
Sofistrija bazwija, at any rate.
I so loved him so I…..
The derogation was obtained against the PN’s better judgement in an effort to get the hunters’ vote. It was not meant to be kept in perpetuity.
Has Dr Busuttil gained the sympathy of the Labour-leaning hunter with his stand? I don’t think so.
Does he have the approval of the Nationalist hunter (who I suspect is a minority)? Maybe.
Has he just lost the trust of the environmentally conscious individual? Most certainly. Personally I am very disappointed.
Whatever everyone’s opinion, the hunters will never, ever vote PN.
Nor will Saviour Balzan, Moira Delia, Astrid Vella, and the other ‘personalities.’
Etil’s right, and Ciccio’s list is the switchers.
Perfect.
You are wrong. There are hunters, albeit in a minority, who have always voted PN.
This is such a missed opportunity. Although I understand his ‘voting for the derogation we obtained’ logic, I feel that Simon Busuttil could have easily come down on the right side of history and said he would vote no.
It would have made him look modern, in touch and in favour of conservation. Hunters will always vote Labour anyway because Joseph Muscat will always promise them more than the Nationalist Party is ready to give them.
Busuttil’s stand is not going to win the Nationalist Party any new votes. The only thing it might do is lose it some.
Does anyone know what young people think? Has the number of hunters declined over the years or has it remained consistent, with new hunters replacing old ones?
This is the demographic which Simon Busuttil should be targeting because all current 16 and 17-year-olds will have a vote in the next general election.
How would it look if Muscat was to change his mind
Tal-misthija! Is this the change Simon Busuttil is boasting about his (not mine anymore) party?
Was expecting him not to be in favour of the ban of spring hunting but at least not to take a position and let the people decide freely. He is copying Joseph Muscat and is always a step behind him. Such a loser!
[Daphne – ‘not to take a position and let the people decide freely’. No, you are wrong. Party leaders are obliged to say where they stand. That is a democratic imperative. The same applies to all other politicians who ask for our vote, though it is crucial with party leaders as they are the chiefs. If you are asking people to vote for you, then you have to be very clear as to where you stand on every issue, and that means telling people how you vote, out of respect for them. The fact that Busuttil and Muscat said how they will vote, which they are in duty bound to do, does not oblige you to do the same with your vote.]
Yes, Daphne, I do partially agree with you and I will definitely not vote as Simon Busuttil will!
But I am convinced that he does not agree with spring hunting but he did not have the guts to take a position differently from that of Muscat, fearing that he will lose again.
The PN cannot have this kind of leadership. As I see it, the PN has lost the hunting votes ages ago and it was a perfect opportunity for the party to regain some votes it lost from the other side of the fence, but it threw it all away.
I honestly hope that voters both from the PL and PN side will send a clear message to both political parties that they cannot tolerate this hypocrisy and work for the best of Malta.
“If you are asking people to vote for you, then you have to be very clear as to where you stand on every issue, and that means telling people how you vote, out of respect for them. ”
Daphne, in the case of the hunting referendum, in my view, the party leaders had no obligation to state how they will vote, as long as their party states that they will not be interfering with the referendum campaign politically.
This is also because the referendum was called by civil society, not by any of the parties. The issue was not a political one based on some differences between the political parties.
If the party leaders had to state their position on Spring hunting generally, this should not have waited until the referendum.
Between them, the Prime Minister and leader of the Opposition have ensured the loss of the right of their compatriots to enjoy the countryside, and have given in to bullying. Charlie Hebdo my foot.
May I Tweet this, just to annoy Etil and FP?
Do go ahead and annoy me, Baxxter.
Time to emigrate.
Daphne, is it possible to post this item at the top of your screen? Looks like it is what people wish to debate right now.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/48540/busuttil_will_support_hunting_derogation_gives_mps_free_vote#.VLqL1NLF9mM
Busuttil will ‘support’ hunting.
There you have it dottore, il-politika onesta’ ta’ min qed juzak kif irid hu.
Nice one Saviour, I see you know your gesthalt.
This stand is pure vorrei ma non posso.
No I cannot.
The pose does not make a politician. Good decisions identify with good politicians, wrong decisions and non decisiveness identify with the weak, unworthy, so-called politicians.
I cannot understand the logic of people who expected Simon Busuttil to take a different position on spring hunting.
How can you image him going against something which the PN obtained during negotiations on entering the EU?
The PN is not saying savage spring hunting. That is the impression hunters got when PL got to power.
Simon Busuttil himself said that he is leaving the vote free for one to decide whilst giving the two fronts the opportunity to expose their arguments.
I think he was very shrewd in his answer while neutralising Joseph Muscat’s stance.
When is this self-inflicting harm going to stop amongst the PN voters? Has Muscat not proven himself to be ruthless enough?
Do you want to give him more steam by going directly against him?
When are we going to start using our brains? I will not be going against my leader but I will be taking part of a new strategy.
We all know Muscat’s standards. Expecting us to accept Busuttil’s stance not to give political advantage to Muscat is unacceptable.
Unfortunately i think if the NO votes win, this could result in AD winning a seat in the comming general election …
Oh come on, this is a referendum about spring hunting – and I cannot fathom why people start coming up with hypothesis how a Yes or a No vote may affect the PL/PN or AD for that matter.
I am all out for a NO to spring hunting, but I am relieved that Simon Busuttil claims he is voting YES. Following Joseph Muscat’s opportunistic pronouncement, I am convinced that Simon Busuttil’s YES claim, serves the NO vote more.
Eventually if it has to take a third party’s representation in parliament, in order to shake up the “stagnant & murky” waters, wherein the PL & PN let themselves be held at ransom by opportunistic lobbies (or seek to cancel each other out on), at the clear detriment of the rest of the population and future generations, than such third party is more than welcome especially if it is credible and more or less consistently correct like AD (at least by my books).
Simon Busuttil promised something different from Muscat and Labour. The first test came and we got the same as Labour.
Unfortunately Busuttil’s decision has nothing to do with the issue itself.
One fact that is slowly but surely eating at Muscat’s mantra is his constant falling short of pre elections promises and declarations.
Muscat cannot rebut this with his usual tu quoque, despite continuously and desperately trying. Had Busuttil declared otherwise he would have served Muscat with a golden opportunity.
No Charlie Don’t Surf from Busuttil. Pussy.
To start with, a sustainable spring hunting season is a contradiction in terms.
Simon Busuttil may claim to be being consistent because he sees no way out due to his role in the negotiation of the derogation, but he is wrong. The hunters have shown that a sustainable spring hunting season is not possible because of their behaviour.
Therefore as an aspiring Prime Minister he should recognise that the cost of making it sustainable (a policeman at every hunter’s shoulder) is not possible and accept that the derogation was a mistake which needs to be corrected. To quote his press conference, THAT is honest politics.
As a voter on the 9th district who believes that the only sane way to vote in this country is to vote for the PN and therefore has no choice, I will in future be voting for those PN candidates who openly declare themselves in favour of banning spring hunting.
So far, this is the comment that most closely reflects any comment I would have written myself.
As I wrote a few days ago under another of Daphne’s blog posts, hunting in Malta is a ‘convenient vehicle’ for illegal poaching of protected and highly protected species of birds. Everyone knows this, it’s an open secret.
For the leader of the Opposition to deny that this is public knowledge is, well, an insult to say the least. If Nationalist sympathisers accept political maneuvering for the sake of the PN’s common good (and ultimately, the country’s allegedly), then by the same yardstick, the PN leadership will be given carte blanche to use the same modus operandi for its own benefit, even against its own sympathisers, eventually.
The fact that the large part of the discussion after today’s announcement centres on Dr Busuttil’s intentions, and the political strategy implied by the announcement, is a deliberate forcing of assumptions on the electorate, especially Nationalist sympathisers. And due to Nationalist sympathy, many, or most, will give Dr. Busuttil the benefit of the doubt.
In my book, Busuttil had to show statesmanship and cut through the issue with a blade. This was a golden opportunity to make a break with the politics we are so fed up of, especially from the Labour camp.
May the NO vote win!
Busuttil’s latest moves, the new shadow cabinet and now saying yes to spring hunting are making me feeling very uncomfortable. I might have always voted for the PN but that was at a time when the PN had solid core values.
I just don’t like it when people are sidelined because they were members of an unfashionable cabinet independent of their qualities. And I equality don’t like it when my party’s leader is led by a calculator rather than ‘what’s right’. And voting for a party because the other is worse sucks!
I think Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil should have stayed out of this.
[Daphne – They can’t stay out of it. Political leaders are obliged to tell the electorate about where they stand on matters of interest like this one.]
Besides this derogation which he claims he got for the hunters was non-existent in the first place as Malta was taken to the European Court of Justice and hunting was stopped for two years (in which the PN was re-elected incidentally).
I have tried many times to persuade politicians to stay out of this mess but I think it is to their advantage to leave this mess unsettled so the people can have something to alienate themselves when the politicians need an excuse.
I don’t give a rat’s behind if the PN or MLP leaders vote yes or no because it won’t even have the slightest influence on my vote.
I have always (and always will) voted for the PN in general elections because they are the (far) better of two evils but even during the divorce referendum when Prime Minister Gonzi was all out against divorce I still voted in favour of it because that is my choice.
Unfortunately there are so many people in Malta, dare I say the majority who always vote along the party lines no matter what their opinion (if they even have one).
All I can say to those people is that they are sheep.
‘the electorate just might have to think for themselves’ Oh good Lord! About time, wouldn’t you say?
After reading the 90+ comments here, I realise Simon Busuttil made a tragic mistake after all.
The mistake is not that he said he will vote Yes but that he will vote Yes.
His decision is ill-advised and rushed, but there are still three months. Is it reasonable to hope that the Coalition Against Spring Hunting can make him change his mind?
What he says in public and what he does in the privacy of the voting booth are two completely different things. That goes for Joseph Muscat too.
What worries me is that so many idiots, Nazzjonalisti and Laburisti alike will vote yes in favour of the killing of birds because they are so influenced by the party leaders.
No Chris, in spite of everything I truly believe that if Busuttil says he’ll vote Yes then that’s what he’ll do.
So, is the plan to alienate switchers, and vote with the switchers?
Nice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PATWGx_Ryzk
Imbaghad nitkellmu. This will be one dirty campaign.
Look at us. Aren’t we ridiculous. We’ve been reduced to guessing the reasoning behind the decisions of our political leaders.
We’re nothing but mushrooms: they keep us in the dark and feed us bullshit.
Simon Busuttil’s reasoning (I wanted the derogation ten years ago therefore I must vote for it now) is the most ludicrous piece of sophistry ever.
He claims this is consistency. It isn’t.
He claims elsewhere that his overarching principle, and that of his party, is the common good. Yet he spectacularly fails to understand that in an island microstate, you cannot cater for everyone’s hobbies. How consistent is that.
At least Muscat is consistent. He doesn’t give a shit about the common good, therefore he votes for that Maltese atavism which is so beloved to him.
There is no amount of twisted logic that Busuttil can apply in order to justify his decision as rational. It isn’t.
The rational decision would be to look at a map, look at population density, look at bird migration patterns, look at the annoying and violent behaviour of bird-shooters, look at the rest of us who’ve had enough of the incivility, violence, occupation of public land and wholesale destruction of bird species and then vote NO.
I’ve really lost all faith in Maltese politicians. This was Busuttil’s chance to distinguish himself from the pack, and he blew it. Instead of being smart, he pandered to ignorance and bigotry.
Farewell then, Europe. If Simon Busuttil himself cannot think European, then there really is no hope for the rest of us.
It’s clear Busuttil is pandering to the Gozitan vote. Idiotic move, as you rightly point out he had a chance to distinguish himself from Muscat and he blew it. I never liked that single minded Gonzi but at least he stood by his principles.
Ditto.
Tajba
Still relevant
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/154582/debate-2004
Our politicians should learn to shut the f*ck up and let the electorate decide for itself. The odds are now well and truly stacked in favour of the hunters, as the bulk of the sheep will follow their respective political leaders as they are genetically programmed to do.
Muscat left Simon Busuttil with little choice. Muscat wanted to secure the hunters’ votes and Busuttil could not risk being on the losing side.
This is not one bit about party beliefs and derogations. No sir! This is all part of the political game and Busuttil has played it safe. Or so he thinks.
He will never get any of the hunters’ votes, and is sure to lose a few more of the faithful in the process.
Best way forward was to show political maturity and not publicly say which way he was voting. But Muscat is still the one playing the tune, and Busuttil is the one dancing.
‘”That derogation was negotiated for pragmatic reasons – as an end to a greater goal – that had nothing to do with delight in or approval of spring hunting, which makes it more imperative still to yank that albatross off the country’s neck. If negotiating that derogation was imperative to achieve something else then…”
Simon Busuttil is indeed consistent.
Simon Busuttil is also right. Some of the hunters were there when the country joined the EU according to existing EU laws, including the Birds Directive with its derogation on controlled and limited hunting in the reproductive season. Without their vote, EU citizenship would have remained a dream.
So those who voted to join the EU must appreciate that this is part of the price to be paid for the bigger benefit.
I think this is what he is suggesting in his argument.
As I’ve said in a previous post, before Simon Busuttil proclaimed himself, the best strategic option for him and the PN, was to mirror the PL’s position. Nothing less, nothing more.
Both parties are making an error by stating their party’s position.
[Daphne – Neither party has taken a position, but made it clear that they are NOT taking a position. It is the party leaders who have said how THEY will vote, which they are obliged to do, but Malta being Malta, people can’t distinguish between the two as your comment and many others show.]
They should have clearly stated that the voting is beyond the party and should have allowed a free voting to the MPs without stating how they will vote. In this way people won’t be influenced by their decisions and we know that some people are just unable to think by their own. Apart from that we will never know if they are going to keep their promise or not as the vote is secret.
[Daphne – This is a referendum and not a parliamentary vote therefore there is no party whip involved and the vote is quite obviously free. People will be influenced regardless if only for the simple reason that spring hunting is not an issue on which most have a strong opinion or any opinion at all, so they will do what the leader does ghax majtezwel.]
Oh my God the Maltese will have to think on their own two feet mela! This is going to be interesting!!
I agree with the stand taken by the PN. If PN took a stand for NO, the PL would have manipulated the referendum into a contest between the two leaders; Joseph Muscat vs. Simon Busuttil. That would have been very bad news for the NO camp, because the PL would have galvanised its voters to support YES.
It would also have been bad news for the PN because hunting would have been the main issue being discussed by the political parties in the campaign for local council elections. Attention would have been diverted away from PL’s incompetence in government.
The PN needs to get people to focus on PL’s many faults: lack of transparency, lack of accountability, a mess in the energy sector, excessively high fuel prices, increased threats to the environment, broken promises and lack of respect for the rule of law. Joseph Muscat has shown himself to be a poor leader (like for example in Malliagate), dishonest and without values.
We do not just have a bad government; we have a very bad government and it takes time and energy for the PN to convince people that this is the case. The campaign for local council elections is another opportunity for the PN to drive the point home and it simply cannot afford having attention diverted away on another issue, no matter how important that other issue may be.
Nistaqsi, I agree fully with your excellent comment, especially from the second paragraph onwards. In fact I was hoping to make the points you make myself.
The last thing the PN wants right now is to have to fight a referendum campaign on a position against that of the Labour party merely to distinguish itself from the Labour party. It could turn into another expensive electoral campaign, but worse still, the PN would be fuelling Muscat’s quest to have a 5-year long electoral campaign.
The PN should remain focused on the country’s political agenda – there are so many issues going on. It must not get distracted. It should continue with its criticism of government where due, and refining its policies to make it the natural choice of the electorate as soon as possible.
Moreover, the hunting issue could only harm the PN’s electoral chances, especially if Labour turns it into another ‘minorities’ issue.
Labour is constantly trying to split the PN with ‘liberal’ minority issues. The last move is the one about the age of consent.
It is exactly why he said yes.
He literally blew the wind out of his next sail. This is a move about keeping the score at 1:1, nothing else. Muscat is doing his best to keep popularity with every national issue.
Nistaqsi, coming back to your first paragraph, I agree that with his decision to vote Yes like Dr. Muscat, Dr. Busuttil has ensured that the social class which votes No is now unified.
There is no excuse for them to vote Yes because they are with Muscat, or No because they are with Busuttil.
Now they can vote No to spite the two leaders. Rather than Shout, the No campaign can now be called the “Hudu go fikom” campaign.
It’s all a mathematical game. Muscat came out in favour of spring hunting because he knew that choice would attract more consensus, mostly because it favours the general anti-EU sentiment.
On the other hand Simon Busuttil had the time to gauge people’s reaction to Muscat’s choice and came out accordingly. Any hope to win this referendum is sadly dashed.
The 11th April 2015 referendum is totally a FREE VOTE. The electorate is called to speak on that date. So simple and not complicated.
Exactly.
Busuttil’s was a calculated move. He has more to lose by what would have been perceived as another defeat (obviously the referendum vote was going to be for spring hunting) then by displeasing the Nationalist environmentalist voters (not that many I would guess).
This is not such an important issue for the Maltese electorate and will be forgotten in a few months. Not worth losing face over it.
The most glaring inconsistency in policy, direction or vision (whatever it is they are calling it nowadays) is that the party that presents itself as liberal and forward looking has chosen to support the cause of preserving ” the traditional Maltese hobby” of spring hunting.
You’re the only one here who has seen the essential point.
When the PN government negotiated our EU accession terms, these terms were negotiated on behalf of all the people. That includes hunters.
The referendum is a chance for people to rid themselves of the shackles that tie both political parties to this Hobson’s Choice with hunters and take the decision out of the Parties’ hands.
Dr Busuttil is correct when he says that as head of the Party that negotiated membership he should be consistent with the derogation negotiated by the Party.
It is our current Prime Minister that had a problem with his choice, having promised both the hunter’s lobby and the bird watchers his vote. He clearly thinks that there are more hunter’s votes.
None of us voted against Europe because there the PN negotiated a hunting derogation. None of us should shun the PN because its leader stands by that negotiated position.
“None of us voted against Europe because there the PN negotiated a hunting derogation. None of us should shun the PN because its leader stands by that negotiated position.”
I agree.
Democracy is not only rule by majority. It is also, among other things, rule of law.
A derogation from the EU birds directive is hard coded in the directive itself – Article 9. Under the conditions mentioned in that article, a government of an EU country may derogate from the requirements of the directive, including the protection of species in the period of their reproduction. EU law allows this.
What’s more, the European Court of Justice had agreed with the position made by Malta that the autumn season was not a satisfactory alternative to spring.
It was after the ECJ court decision that Malta applied the Article 9 derogation.
The derogation is part of European law, which is also part of Malta’s law, and it is part of European policy.
When Malta voted for EU membership, the Maltese accepted EU law with all its pros and cons. Not that this stops them from changing their mind now, of course.
I do not see why conservationists must exaggerate the derogation. I expect that during the campaign they produce numbers, studies and science to convince me that the application of the EU-permitted derogation has negative effects on bird conservation when applied in Malta.
Meanwhile, voters must not overlook the risk that with the signatures of just 10% of the electorate, the hunting lobby could re-open the EU membership issue. I heard this argument by one of their activists on NET TV last week. The PN’s and Dr. Busuttil’s positions taken today should minimise the risk of that taking place in the foreseeable future.
There is no guarantee that the issue of EU membership will never arise.
The problem with the hunters is that they are never satisfied and they always want more.
The position taken by the two political parties strengthened the hunting group considerably and the hunters have obtained a wild card. They will use the wild card when it suits them.
Not quite. The only reason Malta negotiated the derogation is because the nation was held at ransom by a powerful (or that’s how it was perceived) lobby and what would have otherwise been a hardly significant issue was blown out of proportion.
That was wrong, but it had to be done.
Now, many years later, we have an opportunity to fix the situation. Just because Dr Busuttil’s (and the rest of the nation) arm was twisted 10 years ago he is in no way obliged not to do the right thing.
As a result he is at best looking weak. If he, and his advisers, are really convinced that what he’s doing is right than we are in for a good one!
Don’t people make mistakes? Don’t they regret their mistakes? Can’t they rectify their mistakes?
Can’t one see things one way at a point in time, and differently ten years hence?
Isn’t that why divorce was introduced? Sorry, Busuttil’s argument is weak at best, pathetic at worst.
“They will say majtezwel nivvota ghall-kacca ghax wara kollox lili personali ma taghmel ebda differenza”
I am hearing another by non-hunters tending to vote ‘Yes’.
“Ma joqtluwomx il-Maltin, joqtluwom it-Taljani”…..I do not know if this reflects bird migration realities.
“The majority of the Maltese electorate lives in an information and education vacuum, which means that they will be unaware that in the rest of the world, hunting and trapping are associated with the conservative faction of politics and the right, while those at the centre, on the left and the liberal wing favour conservation and respect for the environment.”
It is not ignorance. There is an issue, and one is bound to vote according to his conscience. This is like saying all Scottish people on the right should have voted for independence, and those on the left should have voted to remain in the Kingdom. Democratic expressions does not need a political science certification.
Thank you Xjim Purtani. I could not have said it better myself, if anything much of the rest of the world is staunchly conservative.
I’m right-wing, unapologetic about it and I’m angry about the wanton environmental destruction that takes place under the guise of being a “tradition”.
To hell with it, it is not sustainable and it’s not even real hunting; it is just bird slaughter.
The whims of this shortsighted gang of hobbyists who have stolen the countryside shouldn’t take precedence over the conservation and interests of our country.
I’m fed up of seeing our politicians pandering to them. Ultimately, it is not these poachers that are the problem, because they are a mere symptom of the disease.
They are no different from the “developers” who are ruining the little countryside and heritage we have left with their concrete monstrosities.
We are a collective of ugly people who envy and abhor anything that is beautiful. We are a troop of apes masquerading a nation, unable to see beyond instant gratification and base whims.
Such people cannot conceptualise aesthetics and aspire to transcend.
Chapeau.
Seems quite pathetic that local politicians feel that they need to declare their voting intentions while at the same time professing their support for a free vote. The leader of the oppositions logic is quite disappointing. This is about improving the country’s environmental credentials and curtailing a brutal and disruptive practice enjoyed by a minority of the population. Such opportunities are few and far between. One would hope that the electorate would be mature enough to make up its own mind rather than let this be turned into a partisan affair or blindly follow the voting intention outlined by the part leaders. But this is Malta and party politics seems to be a higher priority than the environment or modernising the country in areas which to the outside world look draconian at best.
If our political leaders feel bound to keep their side of the bargain in any promise they may have made to the hunting lobby those promises are not binding on the referendum voters especially in the light of the massive disregard of the subsequent hunting laws – and the leaders of both political parties have said so.
Let us stop squabbling politically and do what we must do – vote, and vote NO if we have any respect for the environment.
I accept Busuttil’s reasoning for voting Yes. I will definitely be voting No as are all of my circle of friends.
At the end of the day if the environmentalists, the LGBTs and the rest of the touchy whatevers are happy with Labour, let them vote Labour. I am past caring.
People expected better judgement from Simon Busuttil. He shouldn’t have expressed his intention now.
He should have waited for the electorate to hear the arguments of both sides and time for people to make up their minds before expressing his intention. I believe the referendum has been killed.
The shooting season has already started. The referendum for the abolition of spring hunting has been shot down by the politicians. The next step is to enshrine hunting in the Constitution.
The shooting season hasn’t closed yet. We are still in the ‘autumn’ hunting season which closes end of January.
Anybody of you surprised about PN’s move? Who cares about birds when there are votes at stake?
This is not a PL/PN issue. This is an environmental issue and any true environmentalist should vote his conscience which can only be a NO vote, irrespective of how the political leaders will vote.
[Daphne – Ah, so the Opposition leader is not a “true environmentalist” then. We knew already that the prime minister isn’t.]
Besides who is to know how Muscat will actually vote? One has yet to catch him saying anything truthful.
I have no agendas like the party leaders . It’s a NO vote for me.
I’d love to know who comes up with such poor ideas at the PN headquarters.
Everyone was counting on Busuttil declaring that he’ll vote against spring hunting. Instead, someone decides that it’s best to mirror Muscat’s decision so that the people feel free to vote whichever way they like.
Qatta tigieg, dak li ahna.
It’s obvious that Busuttil will actually vote no, but as it has been said already, that’s dishonest.
I will vote PN again in the next election but I’m really starting to wonder what sort of values this party has. Is it really that weak and cowardly?
Then you don’t fully understand Busuttil’s political maneuver!
Although from a point of view of ‘principle’ (in wildlife conservation terms), Busuttil’s declaration leaves much to be desired, his stance has potentially (inadvertently or purposefully) given the NO vote a boost.
This is so because if, and this is a big IF, our Maltese nation is politically mature, and given that the issue has now been de-polarised, the voters have now the opportunity to give the middle finger to both party leaders and vote en masse against spring hunting.
I hold this referendum as a test of our ability or otherwise to bring down the Maltese politicians from the pedestals that we have kept them on since Independence. This is an opportunity to de-idolize the Maltese politician. I’m holding my breath.
I think that the only way not to polarise this referendum was for Dr Busuttil to declare that he will be voting for spring hunting.
For Dr Muscat the referendum was an opportunity to show his power and humiliate Dr Busuttil.
To say that one’s vote in the general election will be influenced against the PN by this decision is ludicrous to say the least.
Dr Muscat does not think and act like a prime minister.
He always manoeuvres and plans ways to destroy his opponent. This referendum was another golden opportunity for him to do just that.
I think Dr Busuttil’s decision was highly influenced by this fact.
Busuttil still going nowhere. Muscat leads by 15 points . PN lost 2013 election by 12 points. 55% versus 43%.
Not good . Not good at all.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/data_and_surveys/48514/watch_muscat_stays_15_points_ahead_of_busuttil#.VLtu5mK9KSM
And that survey was made before Busuttil ‘s press conference on Saturday. A leader cannot expect his popularity to increase among his followers , if he does not understand how most of his party’s electorate will vote in the upcoming referendum.
Voters should put a stop to this political manipulation and vote NO to spring hunting and that’s it. For the political leaders it will always be a tug of war and they will seize every opportunity to topple each other.
I am decided and neither Muscat and nor Busuttil will sway my vote on the matter of spring hunting.
But I am sure that the majority of voters will follow their dear leaders’ steps.
If Muscat and Busuttil really intended not to influence the mindset of electors and outcome of the referendum they should have kept their voting intentions to themselves.
Yet again disappointed by both.
With regards to the dear leaders allowing their party MPs a free vote, I cannot comprehend such statements. We are supposed to live in a democracy. Why does the leader have to allow a free vote?
And yet we clap.
Dr. Busuttil’s reasoning , prima facae , made perfect sense. “I worked hard for the derogation on spring hunting , and I am not going to change just because of few hunters who were encouraged by Government to go beyond what was allowable”
However , in my opinion , parties are there to take a stand. If the majority PN executive members are for a NO vote ( and I suspect that is the case), this should have been expressed by its leader.
Alternattiva Demokratika took a stand on this one. They will be the only ones to gain . Both PN and PL ( more PN than PL ) will loose votes to AD, and this will be evident in the Local Election result.
End result : its referendum phobia all over again : and if the NO vote wins , it will be even worse.
The referendum is specifically about spring hunting.
If the NO vote prevails, it is the birds, the public enjoying the countryside, and conservation over opportunistic politics that reap the benefits.
How the political parties will fare in the local councils, general elections and European Parliament elections will depend on completely different things and issues, and loads of decisions or non-decisions until then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEwnuI88jnE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX7UELG9Y5E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64g69nfyFbo
The parties should take a stand against being held hostage by hunters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiDjZDxDPAw
Who was inciting the hunters against the PN?
Staġun farsa! They were told.
Labour made a back room deal with FKNK and now both are reaping the benefits.
Vote NO.
The worst position statement I have heard is that since Busuttil was an employee he had no choice but to work for it. The malaise of Maltese society summed up in one sentence. Every employee has the right and the duty to disagree with a position a company or institution he/she works in takes. He/she should he responsible enough to object. Unfortunately the few who take such positions stand out and are reprimanded whilst the lackeys get promoted.
Dr. Busuttil should have explained clearly, because it has to be explained repeatedly, that this is a referendum called by the public and not by the political parties or the government, hence every citizen has the duty and the right to vote based on his personal views.
[Daphne – I don’t know why these things have to be spelled out. That’s the case even in a general election. You vote as you wish.]
The electorate must not be influenced by either leader but vote wisely without any pressure from either party. The divorce issue was similar.
Consistency, irgulija and whatever else Busuttil may say to justify his vote, it ultimately all boils down to one thing: like Muscat, he will be voting for the thugs and against decency.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2015-01-18/local-news/Editorial-Vote-no-to-political-manipulation-6736128959
As usual Muscat has managed to derail the real issues.
What’s with the power station and the sale of passports to name but two.
Precisely.
He should be out by the deadline date of end of March, 2015. His own words – that he backtracked doesn’t change the original promise.
Who put him in the position of offer and counter-offer proponent and receiver contractual parties all in one?
Joseph Muscat’s promise to the electorate.
His resignation is still expected. Beyond that date his usurper position is engraved in history, that he conveniently thinks is made of shifting sands.
I want to ask if the campaign and the discussions are going to change anyone’s mind and in such a number that will affect the outcome of the referendum?
I don’t want to judge others by my yardstick but no matter what I hear I am not going to change my mind and will vote NO.
I have a feeling that the campaign will do harm/good to the political parties without being of significance to the actual referendum.
I may be wrong. What do you think?
Vacancy
IN MALTA: A LEADER IS NEEDED TO ADMINISTER A NATION FROM SCRATCH.
Those candidates who decide on the basis of how many votes stand to be gained or lost need need not apply.
Thank you
The way I understood Dr. Busuttil is that the referendum for European Union membership might not have been won by the Yes vote if the derogation for spring hunting had not been negotiated.
Dr. Busuttil feels he would be going against his word to the hunters if he votes against.
I think he is being loyal; he promised them spring hunting for their Yes to Europe vote and he is sticking by that promise.
I just cannot understand how this makes him similar to Joseph Muscat. The two cannot be more different, and thank heavens for that.
[Daphne – I think it is terrible that I should be sitting here having to explain these things in the year 2015 and in what is supposed to be a developed democracy. Simon Busuttil is not ‘Simon Busuttil the individual’. Back then, he was just another person doing a job for the government. Now, he is the Opposition leader, would-be prime minister and party leader. Consistency doesn’t come into it, among other reasons, because there has been a complete break and change of status between what he was then and what he is now. As Opposition leader, party chief and would-be prime minister, his loyalty is to the electorate first and foremost, and to his party after that. He has no business at all being ‘loyal’ to hunters on a matter of something that occurred in another life when he wasn’t Opposition leader. He is no longer Simon Busuttil the individual. This is the same catastrophically fallacious reasoning which, on the matter of divorce, was Lawrence Gonzi’s undoing: confusing his personal self with his public role and duty.]
Stretching a bit here and there the argument somewhat holds a bit. But then you have to come to grips with the issue of ‘convincement’, which you so much harp for the other side.
[Daphne – ‘Convincement’ is not a word in the dictionary. Please explain what you mean.]
Because stretching a bit further your reasoning, there is no inconsistency between Joseph Muscat mark 2003, the Eurosceptic just doing his journalistic work for the Labour Party, and the present, almost Europhile Joseph Muscat. It cannot be otherwise. Not to mention that this card never worked electorally. This subconscious inconsistency is somewhat confusing the majority of your readers.
In truth, Simon Busuttil the MIC leader, apart from being a government employee, was also a political figure, going in programs confronting the ‘No’ campaign and other political activities. If today he says he was not convinced of what he was doing, his credibility rating would spiral down drastically.
And you will not want that for sure.
Simon Busuttil took the best strategic option this time round. Of course his position on spring hunting is now compromised even when he will be in government, but the first aim of a political party is to get elected. In 3 years time this issue will only be remembered mostly by hunters. On the other hand, there will be more environmental issues on which Simon Busuttil can take a friendly stand.
‘Conviction’ is the word, but it initially sounded like a word from the court reports. The word ‘convincement’ has an entry in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, but not in the Oxford dictionary. I will start use the latter. Thanks for the correction.
Politics has nothing to do with the hunting referendum.
Do not heed what politicians say because all they are concerned about is VOTES.
The key question to ask oneself is: do I want spring hunting to continue – YES OR NO?
I will be voting in favour of the free passage to birds on their way to breed, to stop the slaughter of birds and to revoke the derogation.
I am voting NO
At this point, my only hope is that Busuttil is replaced with a new party leader as soon as possible.
At the time of writing my comment there are 176 comments.
I do not feel to ready them all. So I wish a straight answer to my question.
Having both leaders took their stand in voting YES, will you think that the AD will become popular come next general election?
Thank you.
The short answer to your question is no.
I don’t know who is perpetuating this idea. It is ridiculous.
If the No camp wins the referendum, Malta would have proved that it can deal with environmental issues without having Greens in parliament.
If the Yes camp wins, it would prove that Alternattiva Demokratika cannot even mobilise enough people to vote in favour of one of the causes dearest to its heart, let alone win votes on all sorts of issues.
For a third political party to start making waves in the political scene, there would have to be great dissatisfaction with the other two, similar to what is happening in Britain with the United Kingdom Independence Party and the Green Party, which are both doing well in the polls.
I hope you are right, Matthew S.
Time will tell.
Thanks.
Bah, what a disappointment!
Nobody knows how he would really vote, remember how the Labour party elite said they voted YES for EU in the referendum, (though I do not believe a word they say.)
Do all the bird species migrating from Africa have to fly over Malta?
[Daphne – Of course not. The problem is that migrating birds can’t change course.]
Don’t now much about hunting – in fact I don’t have a specific opinion on this issue.
Maybe if Malta covered half the Med Sea I would understand the reason given by the No side, but if Malta is not in a specific `corridor` through where birds MUST fly, then, the amounts of birds (species) that risk their extinction flying over Malta is close to negligible, and I bet that not even a small percentage of those that by accident happen to pay these islands a visit ends up in Mari`s kitchen.
[Daphne – Significant numbers of birds pass over Malta because they use Malta or Sicily as a staging post.]
As someone who would like to see spring hunting abolished I was really concerned that Simon Busuttil would state that he was voting ‘No’ as this would have inevitably become a Muscat vs Busuttil vote. With the head-start Muscat has, this would have resulted in a defeat for the No campaign.
The best thing for the referendum would have been had neither leader pronounced himself and stated that they were going to leave it up to the people to decide and would abide by the people’s wishes. However, with Muscat taking the position he did, Busuttil had no choice but to take a position, especially after he failed to do so on the civil unions bill. In the circumstances, the one he took was probably the better one for the ‘No’ camp but a disaster for his own environmental credentials.
It is Muscat that forced this position and to my mind Busuttil was between a rock and a hard place. He may have neutralised Muscat’s position so that Muscat cannot claim any victory over him in case the “yes’ win, however, he has alienated environmentalists many of whom one would consider a ‘floater’.
As for the referendum, since the political leaders have now pronounced themselves, the hope is that people will think for themselves. However, there is the risk that die-hards will vote in a particular way because the leader is voting that way, which will be a disaster for the No camp.
I know that there is a strong argument that leaders of political parties should say the way that they are going to vote. However, I believe that once a question is put to the people in a referendum, political parties and their leaders should step back and not seek to influence the vote in either way. Throwing their weight around is going to lead to a distorted result as inevitably there will be many who will simply follow suit.
To my mind these are the issues that need to come out strongly are:
1. This is not a referendum to abolish hunting altogether but just hunting in spring when birds (including the turtle dove and quail) are breeding.
2. The referendum will not effect the autumn season whichever way the vote goes, so hunters will still be able to practice their “hobby’ in the autumn. This year alone this is a whole 5 months.
3. This is a “hobby” which effects others. It infringes on the rights of others – to enjoy the countryside without fear of being hit by pellets or even threatened by confrontational hunters, to not be woken up at the early hours of the morning if you live close enough, to enjoy watching and listening to birds.
4. The derogation that they are all using as an argument to prove how limited their practice actually is, was not sufficient for them and they wanted more. This is what actually led to the referendum being called in the first place. Had they not pushed for more, the chances are there would be no referendum. What will happen if they win, will they be satisfied with the derogation they are using are their defence or are they going to ask for more again?
5. The hunters lobby have held political parties to ransom election after election. Their intimidating tactics need to be stopped.
6. The shooting of birds in the spring has given Malta a really bad name all over Europe. This effects each and every one of us.
I’m sure I could think of more and this without going into all the illegalities and slaughter of protected birds.
Allura jekk gibna deroga u issa wara bosta snin ma zammejnix mal-kondizzjonijiet taghha ifisser li ghandna nitqannew biha?
Kieku mhux ghal kaccaturi irresponsabbli dan ir-referendum ma sar qatt necessarju.
Kif ser nidru mal-Ewropew jekk il-vot LE jghaddi?
Dawn ser jehduna bis-serjeta? Veru li ahna BISS ghandna l-kacca fir-rebbieha?
[Daphne – Yes, Victor, that’s why it’s a derogation from the law banning spring hunting. Otherwise we would be subject to the law just like the rest of the European Union.]
Je suis chasseur:
Wise men think alike, only fools differ.
Shame on you Dr Busuttil. I always imagined that you were made of sterner stuff.