I’m glad to see that the Nationalist Party is formally objecting to Anglu Farrugia being made Speaker of the House
Oh look, it’s the Speaker of the House
Christian Peregin reports in The Times today:
The Nationalist Party is objecting to Anġlu Farrugia being appointed Speaker, The Times has learnt.
“The Opposition Leader made a clear statement about this matter last Sunday during a radio interview on Radio 101. He reiterates that, with a nine-seat majority, there is no valid reason for the Speaker to not be chosen from among the elected members of the House,” a PN spokesman said, adding that the Opposition would object to Dr Farrugia’s nomination.
Dr Farrugia, who was forced to resign as Labour’s deputy leader for parliamentary affairs before the election campaign, was chosen by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat to become Speaker of the House, Government sources confirmed on Tuesday.
The PN is critical of the fact that the Opposition had not been consulted about the matter.
“The Opposition expects, by right, to be consulted about matters that are directly or indirectly related to Parliament,” the spokesman said.
(…link to the rest below)
17 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130328/local/PN-objects-to-Farrugia-as-Speaker.463303
Il-gimgha l-kbira giet qabel iz-zmien ghalina dis-sena ghax issallabna fl-10 ta’ Marzu.
Yepp. And Easter came earlier too. Anglu Farrugia has risen from the dead already.
I somehow feel sorry for Anglu although he deserves all of this for being so crass and thick. Never met the guy and not planning to, so my observations are limited to what I read and see on the media.
Being a true believer of Socialism and Mintoff’s puppet for decades says a lot about him but somehow he does not stuck me as a horrible, deceitful guy but as your average Joe who tries to swim with the sharks. If he is so malicious he would have been kicked out by Sant and Muscat would have brought him in, not vice versa.
Probably I feel sorry for him because he looks so lost all the time.
As if. He has a long and inglorious history of doing the wrong thing, including, as a police inspector, arresting people at night because it was expedient to do so and (this is where you see how foolish he is and how corrupt the system was) actually BOASTED about it in court.
Clinton said, ‘It’s the economy, stupid’. Here we have, ‘He’s stupid, stupid.’
The Constitutional imperative of consultation places an OBLIGATION on the Prime Minister to work for consensus with the Opposition, thereby ensuring that the person ultimately nominated Speaker enjoys the trust of members on both sides of the House.
A nomination by the Prime Minister, without prior consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, renders that nomination invalid since the mandatory consultation procedure will not have been observed.
The principal role of the President is to defend the Constitution, that is, the President must in all matters ensure that, in acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, the President must ascertain that the required procedure will have been duly executed before giving his assent.
Since the leader of the Oposition was not consulted at any stage regarding the nomination of Anglu Farrugia as Speaker –
– that nomination is unconstitutional and so is invalid;
– the nomination being invalid, the assent/appointment by the President is consequently invalid;
– the appointment of the Speaker being invalid, Anglu Farrugia has no authority to preside over the procedures of the House of Representatives;
– consequent to the above, any and all procedures and Acts by the House are rendered unconstitutional and so invalid;
– by acting on advice of the Prime Minister, which advice was not consonant with the requirements of the Constitution, the President, having failed in his primary duty to defend the Constitution, must resign.
It is incumbent on the Leader of the Opposition to act with due urgency to ensure that the requirements of the Constitution be properly and clearly adhered to, and that before the House is convened.
Very well pointed out and diplomatic. I would simply chop his head off (as a speaker) for a simple reasons: he cannot speak, he is totally inarticulate in argument.
The real problem would start if the opposition accepts him.
There is a big difference between getting a law degree and being a practicing lawyer.
And there is a big difference between being an MP (especially with local Labour’s mentality) and being a house speaker.
Meritokrazia my ass.
Muscat is probably following in his hero’s footsteps, ie, probabbli jigi jitnejjek mil-kostituzzjoni.
@ Min Jaf
While I undertand the points you make about consultation, our Constitution does not specifically mention that the PM must consult with the Leader of the Opposition on the appointment of the Speaker of the House. In contrast, the Constitution does require such consultation in certain other appointments, e.g. with respect to the members of the Electoral Commission.
The Constitution states that the Speaker is to be appointed by the House, either from members of the House, or someone from outside. It is to be expected that the person chosen will enjoy the support of the majority on the side of government. However, it is clear that a person must be nominated for such choice. And it is therefore to be expected that, as a good practice, the PM will consult with the Leader of the Opposition about the nomination.
The Leader of the Opposition – which is part of the House – is entitled to have his say on this matter, contrary to what the Elves on timesofmalta.com seem to think.
Incidentally, it is possible that the Erskine May contains guidance about the procedure by which the House appoints its Speaker.
But here I have to turn once again on The Times. Have we had a leading article from The Times about its position on the appointment of Anglu Farrugia as Speaker of the House?
Back in December 2012, The Times had found Farrugia’s “comments on magistrate unacceptable” – and I fully agree with that view. This is what the leading article of The Times of 20 December 2012 said about Farrugia’s comments:
“…a far more important point which did not even form part of it has been lost: which is Dr Farrugia’s accusation that Magistrate Audrey Demicoli displayed political bias when she acquitted a man of vote rigging in the March 2008 election.
Such an unsubstantiated statement made by the deputy leader of a political party, who may be Deputy Prime Minister next year, is utterly unacceptable, especially as he made no quick move to either prove or retract it.
Although caught between a rock and a hard place, Joseph Muscat’s reaction to his deputy leader’s comments have been weak.
When asked by The Times how he reconciled Dr Farrugia’s allegations with his own previous calls for cool heads when it came to the judiciary, Dr Muscat said: “We should be very careful what we say about members of the judiciary and ensure their serenity.”
Dr Farrugia’s comments do not just affect serenity. They undermine the credibility of the judiciary. And this at a time when public confidence has been shaken due to bribery allegations against one judge, while another faces impeachment proceedings.
Someone in Dr Farrugia’s position is well aware of this. And if he is not, he should not occupy that position.”
In my view, if Dr. Farrugia’s comments were not acceptable from him as the man who may have been Deputy Prime Minister this year, then those comments are not acceptable from the man who will be Speaker this year, and The Times should come clean about this.
It has to be recalled that on the same day of this editorial, Anglu Farrugia was asked to resign by Dr. Joseph Muscat – the man who became Prime Minister this year – for the reasons mentioned in The Times, or so we were told. Anglu Farrugia himself did not resign for that reason, but he was compelled to resign claiming he had no confidence in his leader. The rest of the story we all know it.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20121220/editorial/Comments-on-magistrate-unacceptable.450247
With hindsight, after we came to know more about the persons behind Labour’s electoral campaign, the following questions may now be pertitent: Did The Times receive any suggestions from anyone to publish its leading article of 20 December 2012? Was there anyone who had decided on Farrugia’s fate within the MLP who may have influenced the editorial of 20 December 2012? Of course, these are only legitimate questions in a western democracy.
Fat chance. We’re out of control. A sorry and sad future.
Time to think about a Swiss bank account ASAP. I’m ‘all in’.
Does everyone remember how much little Joey loved Cyprus? Duh.
min ikun fil-Gvern jaghmel li jrid ahseb u ara b’9 siggijiet iktar mill-Oppozizzjoni. Dak fatt. Il-konsultazzjoni hija formalita’ biss.
Is there anything in the good book about this at all?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/132977328/Anglu-Farrugia-Admits-to-Illegal-Arrest-of-a-Newspaper-Editor-Times-21JUL1981
69 x .66 = 46 (rounded)
46 – 39 = 7
The NP must ensure at all times that no absence, abstentions or voting with the government ever add up to 7 especially on Constitutional matters.
The NP bled enough at the last election and if it means bleeding some more, it better to do it now and get rid of any dissenters and get a start fresh.
Daphne is right – anything Joseph does is invariably a calculated scheme and no doubt, he will have already started working on weaklings of the Opposition in order to get his magic number on side.
Divide and rule – that’s the game.
I wonder if Joseph Muscat did this to embarass Anglu knowing it was most likely that the PN would object to his nomination.
Let’s face it if he was capable of committing ‘political murder’ on the man, he is capable to do this to him too. Like this he looks good with Anglu and his sympathisers for “reaching out to him” and yet he may still be left out on the lurch.
One thing for sure Joseph Muscat has shown that he is a master at strategising and playing these types of games.