The obvious questions about the backroom deal between Delia and Muscat

Published: September 30, 2017 at 11:34am

There are obvious questions about the backroom deal struck between Joseph Muscat and Adrian Delia. The press and the public shouldn’t let this one go because it clearly part of a wider scenario on how things are going to be done.

1. Which party proposed that the elections to the Local Councils Association executive committee be scrapped? We shouldn’t take it for granted that Muscat did and that Delia accepted. It could well be the other way round.

2. What did the accepting party cede in return, and if nothing was ceded, what is the extent of the favour now owed?

3. If it was Muscat who proposed it, and not Delia, why did Delia accept? There is nothing in it for the Nationalist Party that is obvious. Is there something in it for Delia himself?

20 Comments Comment

  1. The Dark Knight says:

    It could simply be that Muscat was testing the water and the principe of basic strategy to see first what you can get “for free”. I wouldn’t be surprised if he used his position of power and experience against a completely inexperienced politician (and what seems to be a generally inept leader, public speaker and political negotiator) to push to see where he stands.

    • I had an email yesterday telling me about Delia’s charisma and oratorical skills. Standards are really low, aren’t they. What charisma? What oratorical skills? I went to a party yesterday, and spent the greater part of the evening listening to people who had been ripped off by him, who had been exposed to one of his shocking volleys of blasphemy and swearing, or who were sickened by his wife’s compulsive exhibitionism, showy spending and unpaid bills (for the showy spending).

  2. You can’t use hidden money as ballast for your Maltese bank loans. Shouldn’t that go without saying?

  3. politicks says:

    Seems to me that we have become a one party dictatorship.

  4. USELESS ELECTIONS? Let’s save even more money, scrap parliamentary democracy, and have a permanent government run by committee.

  5. Don’t bother with the young woman. Why don’t you mention Patrick Spiteri instead? It’s the ideal comparison, and you’ll find that some of your interlocutors are probably among the long list of those he swindled, but who couldn’t go to the police because the money they gave him wasn’t declared to the authorities.

  6. tupp says:

    One has to ask what constitutional role does Delia have at the moment? Does the deal he struck with Joseph Muscat hold water?

  7. Gee Mike says:

    Wait for the constitutional changes. They are getting closer. And it will be nothing Franco Debono proposes.

  8. Chris says:

    Perhaps you can explain what money and how much you think will be saved with the election of members to the Local Council Association members. You’re not being controversial; you’re being daft.

  9. We don’t agree. You are probably shocked by the mentioning of various names in vain. I’m shocked by the vulgarity of doing it.

  10. Smug CATS? I’d replace the A with a UN.

  11. Sally Anne says:

    Off course there is, was and will be.

  12. Sally Anne says:

    Hekk hu u izjed. Deal no. 1 is done baqa izjed.

Leave a Comment