Thursday, 15th May 2008 - 12:18CET
Hunters petition the European Parliament
The hunters' federation has presented a petition signed by 31,000 people to the Committee of Petitions of the European Parliament complaining that an injustice was committed when the EU ordered spring hunting to stop despite pre-accession agreements with Malta.
"In the FKNK's opinion, should this injustice be allowed to continue, there is not only a grave risk that as many as another 76 pre-accession arrangements be jeopardised, however also of wider repercussions that could affect all the other Member States," the federation said.
Representatives of hunters' associations in Spain, Portugal, Serbia, the Czech Republic, Ireland, France, Italy, Greece, Austria, Slovakia, Cyprus, Belgium and Latvia, representing 4.7 million European hunters, also signed the petition.
The text of the petition was the following:
"Malta signed the Treaty of Accession with the European Union (EU) on 16th April 2003, and became an EU Member State on the 1st of May 2004.
"EU Common Positions were adopted by the then EU Member States signifying their agreement to seventy-seven special arrangements affecting various sectors of the Maltese Society. One of the special arrangements was about the traditional socio-cultural passion of spring hunting as practised within the framework of EU Directive 79/409/EEC.
"Today, the EU Commission wants to go back on this agreement and is taking Malta to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over spring hunting with evidence that is based on gross misinterpretation of material facts.
"This could see the eventual crumble of the other seventy-six special arrangements affecting the other sectors.
"This would also send a clear message to the Maltese population that EU membership was based on a hoax.
"This petition is appealing to the EU Commission to withdraw its attempt to nullify this special arrangement."
File picture: Members of the hunters' federation in a plea to the Maltese government to allow Spring hunting, last month.
RSS
Comments
The MIC information for hunting states that " Malta and the EU agree that hunting in spring will continue to be practised".
If as you state due to a change in case law resulting from the Finland case, spring hunting can no longer be practised. How would you explain DR. Busuttil's statement in late 2007 declaring that Government should open the spring 2008 season inline with its agreed position. Also how would you consider the Governments commitment to defend the spring hunting issue at the ECJ. Surely if you are aware of any change in case law so would Dr, Busuttil and our government.
If as you state Malta has a loosing case, are you implying that through their commitment to defend the case Government is only playing the game in order to save face.
Another point I feel I should mention is that the person appointed to negotiate hunting who happens to be an editor of a local newspaper and a known anti-hunting activist, actually declared in his newspaper that he was instrumental in bringing about the end of spring hunting. So the fact that hunters state that someone has lied is no imaginary statement
Indeed Malta's spring hunting case apart from several promises and written guarantees has a lot of loose ends that still need to be answered. Hopefully you would be able to answer some of our questions.
If there is anyone who is distorting the issue, it is certainly not the hunters. Let us assume you are right, and I do think you are, that there is no special exception in the accession treaty – merely a statement, as you say, that Malta could avail itself of the procedures already in place to obtain an exception on a year-by-year basis. Why did the then Prime Minister not say so? Why was it made known publicly that Malta had made a special arrangement about spring hunting, when in fact there is no special exemption in the accession treaty? Surely a lawyer would know the difference between a special arrangement and the mere use of a derogation that can be availed of without anything special being agreed about it a priori? Why did Dr Fenech Adami give a spring-hunting guarantee twice in writing, specifically urging the recipients not to trust what others were saying? If, according to you, Dr Fenech Adami had good reason “to believe” that Malta would qualify for an exception, that was exactly his mistake, namely that he based his guarantee on a belief, not on a certainty. That explains why the famous letters will always remain “infamous”.
Furthermore, I agree with you that “it is hardly fair to retroactively impose that NEW reality on the then prime minister”. But, excuse me, who is imposing the new reality on him? It is certainly not the hunters, but the EU Commission that is citing case law that happened, as you correctly say, AFTER accession. Now, this blog is not the place for me to discuss the Finland case which is the case you’re referring to. So the only remarks I will allow myself are these: (i) the ECJ has the duty to examine and decide whether autumn hunting in Malta (not Finland) is a satisfactory alternative to spring hunting; and (ii) if it were only a matter of quoting case law, why should the ECJ take from 2 to 3 years to decide?
Of course, much will hinge on the word “satisfactory”. If the ECJ adopts the attitude that what’s good for Finland is good for Malta, then I would agree with you that the only way to keep spring hunting would be “to change the statute law at the EU level - to propose and get passed an amendment allowing numbers alone to be a factor”. On the other hand, Commissioner Dimas has been reported as saying he wants to make an example out of the Malta case to set a precedent. If that is correct, why bring in the Finland case law? Which country creates a precedent: Finland or Malta?
Are these facts straight enough?
You did right in cancelling what one of your readers wrote against hunters. Getting personal and offending people with their diction and grammar is a bit below the belt. Thanks once again, and I suggest you get this one, in order to send a clear message to anyone trying to play Macho.
To my knowledge, if a person or company sells you goods and upon purchase you are entitled to a 2 year warrenty (parts and labour) what would you do, if the retailer decides to change his mind and not honour the agreement ? You would be quick with your words and say, well I have a signed agreement that states otherwise (2 years). and i will be seeing you in Court. Who do you think will win the case? The same thing happened with the Spring Hunting Saga. Now do you get my point?
I refer to your statement earlier on and would like to help you get your facts right. For your guidance, once a country has signed an agreement with who ever it is, no super block can change it. What do you think will happen, if the agreement Malta signed with the Arab country that supplies us with crude oil decides to break the contract, just because by misfortune, oil has gone up and up. Same applies to any other contract . INCLUDING THE E.U.
What if the Malta Government had to play around with Foreign Affairs? Do you think that outside Companies would invest here? NO WAYYYY. With regards the English grammar, you so joyfully singled out, I tell you only this, the way people write has got nothing to do with trigger happy members. So pls ,do not get personal with the people voicing their opinion and are entitled to make mistakes, be it spelling or grammar. I suggest YOU stop mixing beer with Brandy .
Furthermore, how come you decide to interfere in our Maltese culture and traditions, when I am sure you have much to worry about in your own country. I will refrain from mentioning them as I am sure you are well aware of them. The unfortunate thing is that some Maltese do not realise that foreigners are inciting them against fellow Maltese citizens.
FKNK keep up your good work. We will support you. The 31,000 signatures already show this. And alas, considering that the referendum result was a 50 - 50 affair, some people should be in a very worried situation right now.
FKNK has worked alongside foreigners for the benefit of our cultural pastime, long before you ever dreamt of forming part of the EU. Worked alongside, yes, employ and jeopardise Malta's image...NEVER.
Now, what about the infamous letter from Dr. Fenech Adami? What always appears to get missed is that at THAT time, the state of EU case law was such that Dr. Fenech Adami had good reason to believe that Malta would qualify for an exception. HOWEVER, the year AFTER accession, that case law changed - the ECJ ruled in another case that lower take numbers alone were not sufficient reasons to justify an exception - ergo Malta has a loosing case at present with little hope of maneuvering. It is hardly fair to retroactively impose that NEW reality on the then prime minister.
Since the case law is what it is TODAY, the only way the FKNK can change that is to change the statute law at the EU level - to propose and get passed an ammendment allowing numbers alone to be a factor. Without that, spring hunting is dead in Malta.
Get the facts straight please.
The FKNK's council is made up of Maltese who are proud to be such and work relentlessly to retain spring hunting. Birdlife on the other hand are lead by an ex Greenpeace activist and a Bermudan ornithologist who after being here for barely a year has already designated himself as an authority on migration and hunting statistics in the Maltese Islands. They only scope is one - to have hunting abolished irrespective of what they state even if this is the contrary. And I challenge anyone of them to prove otherwise !
You would ban everything if you decide to make a petition to ban practices which are not popular with majorities.
For example you would :
Ban horses from using roads.
Ban fireworks during feasts.
Ban fishing from coasts.
And Others.
I hope that the EU is not half as selfish as you....
By the looks of things, you are one of those who voted YES in the Referendum. Did it ever occur to you, that you voted also YES , for SPRING HUNTING. Ah, GOT YOU THERE!!!!!!!
Let me give you some sound advice, if we are ever called to re-affirm the referendum result and you do not like HUNTING, all you have to do is vote NO.
HAVE A NICE DAY
Hunters were lied to by the government, thats a fact. However, the hunters have been lying to us, the non hunting population, for a LONG time. Maybe its about time we met up and marched against them, and went about collecting signatures, because for every signature the FKNK can collect there the anti hunting population can gather 5.
When removing the signatures of the foreign EU nationals, the Maltese signatures amount to 10% of the adult Maltese population.
Oh, and no signatures were collected electronically - All manual!!!!
As a Federation and above all being a Maltese, we expect nothing more but definitely nothing less than what was agreed upon before voting for E.U. membership. (REFERENDUM)