Not in your interest

My attention was drawn to a huge billboard as I crossed the road from the Floriana car park to Glormu Cassar Avenue (that's the road that leads up to Castille) on Friday.

Since I came up to it from the back (it is meant for motorists, not pedestrians), I had to put life and limb at risk as I stood at the edge of the kerb craning my neck with cars whizzing past.

From that position I could not work out whose propaganda it was promoting, but I assumed it was Nationalist since the message was Int Jaqbillek (In your interest); in case you have just stepped on the planet, this is all about joining the EU or not.

If, on the other hand you haven't, and think you have had enough of propaganda for or against, you ain't seen nothing yet! I was out on Friday night, so I could not indulge in the now habitual TV programme-zapping for about ten minutes and switching to a book.

I don't know about you, but I think television has become excruciatingly boring. And it is not just the local fare. BBC Prime is inundating us with repeats from the Seventies: Yes Minister, as much as I love it, Only Fools and Horses and Fawlty Towers. All excellent entertainment pieces, but all of them on in the same season is too much been there, done that!

Although Yes Minister, in particular, can be pertinent to the local scene, even though we are now in the 21st century, for example, the last programme was about women not making the top jobs in the civil service despite their abilities.

The arguments presented, to ensure they pay lip service to the principle of equal opportunities while ensuring no woman scaled their bastion, by all the male permanent secretaries, were hilarious and are still the same presented by most men today to keep women out.

But I digress; since I was out on the town I missed the Prime Minister on a programme on the state television station, which the Leader of the Opposition refuses to appear on, and its rival programme on the Labour Party channel on which Dr Sant appeared.

What what was interesting was that the representatives of the GWU (anti-EU) and the UHM (pro-EU) appeared on both programmes.

However, from what I hear, neither programme managed to give the public a clearer picture to help them decide what to vote for. Apparently, we had the usual booing and inability to listen when someone gave a different opinion and those who were in and zapped gave both programmes the thumbs down.

Anyway to get back to the beginning; I mentioned that I had assumed that the billboard in question belonged to the PN because of the message. I thought it must have been done in a hurry since they had to 'Tipp-Ex' out some words I could not make out.

But all was revealed in yesterday's Times front page. It was a GWU poster saying Int ma Jaqbillekx (Not in your interest). Amazing what a difference a little word can make.

But how naive of the poster designer to put those words at the bottom within easy reach, rather than at the top where it would have been a lot more difficult to tamper with!

L-Orizzont made much of the "vandalism" on this billboard, failing to see the funny side of it. Frankly, the billboard's wording was prey to any prankster with a sense of humour, whatever his or her political affiliations.

Vandalism is not subtle and is humourless as depicted in the total defacing of a PN billboard at Cospicua. However, I wanted to understand why the GWU is telling the public that it is not in their interest to join the EU, but reading yesterday's L-Orizzont did not help.

The front page story was about allegations that Nationalist MPs had been pressured to take part in the parliamentary debate. Do I care! I would have preferred to see some analysis of why it was not in my interest to join the EU.

On page three a male pensioner, a middle-aged housewife and a young male gave their reasons why they felt joining the EU was not a good idea.

The fears expressed were neutrality, taxes, employment and housing. The pensioner fears we will no longer be able to take our own decisions and we will be "turning the clock back".

The former is a valid concern. However, as ideal as it would be to be able to stand alone, the EU proves that even the larger, stronger countries have reached the conclusion that it suits them better to unite than stand alone.

Although I agree that we obviously will not have as much clout as larger countries in the Union, we are not being 'colonised'. Rather than turning the clock back if Malta joins, it might be more a matter of stopping the clock if it does not.

As for taxes, the unfortunate truth is that taxes, as much as we hate them, will get heavier whether we join the EU or not. State deficits, the welfare gap and growing costs of health, education and housing provision are a fact of life and one we will have to face regardless of whether we brave these problems alone or with help from richer countries.

Employment can be a problem, if workers from abroad are paid less, but as I understand it this will not be possible under EU rules; if anything, our workers' wages will have to improve. If foreign workers are more skilled and better trained, then the GWU should ensure that Maltese workers are given the same opportunities to train.

Anyway, better skilled and trained workers are hardly going to move to a country with a lower standard of living, so property prices will not be affected by that sector.

Companies like Lufthansa Technik Malta are training Maltese workers in conjunction with Air Malta, and the German executives, here for the inauguration of the company last week, had nothing but praise for the Maltese workers.

Given the right challenges, the Maltese workers have always proved they can rise to the occasion.

So I am afraid I have not been convinced that it is "not in my interest" that Malta joins the EU, although I am sure that all our problems will not disappear once we join. Only we can solve our own problems, we might get help but how 'we' shall use that help will determine on whether we sink or swim.

Anyway, I don't see why I should bother. I got a funny letter the other day telling me that due to my age I am seen as unsound of mind and would not be able to vote in future. Apparently my door number, which is 80, was confused with my age.

I jest; but seriously, the PN have scored an own goal on the age discrimination and human rights front just when we have been commended for our human rights record. Ouch!

Off with a bang

Lo and behold we have had yet another fireworks factory explosion. The man working the fireworks got off lightly, losing a few fingers rather than a whole arm or even his life.

Also, the only damage was done to the shack housing the explosives, unlike the fireworks accident in a garage which destroyed the home of a young couple, who fortunately were out at the time.

We never heard the end of that story; only that the couple were having a hard time getting an alternative home. I hope they got the right compensation and were awarded ample damages.

Needless to say, nothing has been done to tighten firework regulations. despite the recurring accidents and the noise nuisance caused by the petards every summer.

You may remember that a campaign carried in this column resulted in about 1,000 signatures being presented to all MPs at the House of Representatives in December 2001. Not a single MP responded to the campaign.

By complete contrast, not only do MPs in the UK, especially the Opposition, take a great interest in such campaigns, but they actually start them.

Here are some snippets I picked up on the Web:

July 11, 2002 - Yet another petition has been handed in to the House of Commons on the subject of Firework Safety. Mr Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk), 500 signatures. This one makes it four so far this year.

February 11 - Mr Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire), 1,866 signatures; March 25 - Dr Howard Stoate (Dartford), more than 2,000 signatures; July 3 - Mr William Cash (Stone), 1,500 signatures.

The petitions are from various parts of the country, all saying the same, we have had enough. Also on the same day, Cheryl Gillan, MP, Opposition Whip, presented 'Control of Fireworks Bill No. 2'.

Ms Gillan told the Campaign: "This is a private member's bill that I am tabling in an attempt to get the matter discussed. I have constituents who feel very strongly".

October 16 - Eleven boxes of petitions containing 200,000 signatures were presented at No. 10 as 50 MPs crowded to support the plea. Labour MP Barry Gardiner said: "Two hundred thousand signatures is only the beginning".

October 16 - BBC News 24, West Midlands reported: "Labour MP for West Bromwich East, Tom Watson, is presenting his petition signed by more than 1,000 residents of Sandwell to the Prime Minister at Downing Street". The campaign asked for tougher laws on the sale and use of fireworks .

October 31 - "Councillors in Coventry will next week decide whether to ask the government to allow the city to become one of the first in the country to bring in a bye-law banning fireworks from being set off late at night and early in the morning. "

November 19 - "Tories in the south of the borough are calling for tougher restrictions on the sale of fireworks to stamp out prolonged anti-social abuse of the explosives."