Wednesday, 13th May 2009
Campaigning by confusion
As columnists Austin Sammut and Marisa Micallef rightly pointed out in their recent contributions to The Times, the next European Parliament elections are very much about electing the most suited six individuals (five MEPs immediately in July and the sixth one to take office after October 2009, pending result of the Irish Referendum) rather than giving one political party a majority over another one.
Having said this, it is however also important that consistency and credibility remain the hallmark of the political parties and of the candidates they are presenting for the scrutiny of the electorate.
In this respect, the multifarious stands taken by some candidates vis-à-vis the policies of their respective parties is certainly mind-boggling. When one hears the contradictory statements, especially among PN candidates, one question rightly comes to mind: What does the PN stand for?
How is it possible that Roberta Roberta Metsola Tedesco Triccas declares herself in debates to be strongly in favour of increasing maternity leave to 20 weeks when the PN government has fought tooth and nail against it in European circles and Simon Busuttil and David Casa's PPE Group in the European Parliament teams up with the Liberals and with the rightist parties to ensure that the vote on this issue is postponed to another legislature? Ironically, the Partit Laburista is also in a quandary on this issue: the party has not taken any stand... and is always in a perpetual state of discussion on the subject, while its candidates Marlene Mizzi and Joe Cuschieri declare themselves in favour.
What is the real face of the PN when it comes to Libya and the migration issue? Is it Frank Portelli lambasting the Ghaddafi government behaviour or is it Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici who admonishes all of us to leave Ghaddafi alone and treat him with velvet and kid gloves?
What is the real face of the PN when it comes to environmental issues? Is it Alan Deidun desperately rushing about the whole of Malta in the three months preceding the elections and announcing (rightly!) his strong opposition to Mepa granting permission for building in Wied il-Għasel in Mosta, for the building of a cemetery in the prime agricultural area of Nadur, to the setting up of yacht marinas in various sensitive areas of Malta, to the proposed Għadira road project? Or is it Prime minister Lawrence Gonzi who, as Minister in charge of Mepa, is actually assuming political responsibility for the granting of the go-ahead to such permits?
And, when it comes to the issue of bird hunting in spring, who are we to believe? Edward Demicoli, who started off his campaign with a bang against spring hunting? Dr Busuttil, who is the person who (with his then deputy Mr Demicoli) negotiated the supposed derogation on spring hunting? Or candidate Alex Perici Calascione who, together with PL candidate John Attard Montalto, has taken up the defence of the hunters, being their defence lawyer against the European Commisson in the proceedings at the European Court in Luxembourg?
Who are we to believe regarding the refund of VAT on car registration: Roberta MTT, vehemently in favour? Or Minister Tonio Fenech, vehemently against? And what about Europe and VAT? Are we to believe the Vince Farrugia of 1996 cash register fame? Or the Farrugia Vince, economist who is today contesting the elections on the PN ticket?
Ranier Fsadni, President of the PN sister Foundation AŻAD, summed it all up in his recent article in The Times when he stated, with reference to the PN's deliberately confused (and confusing) message regarding the concession of voting rights in local elections to legally resident non-EU citizens (ergo, legal migrants): "The Prime Minister and Dr Busuttil are right to insist that Malta should be sending a single, clear message. So should their own party".
Please, let us all heed this wise maxim.
Dr Cassola is chairman of Alternattiva Demokratika - The Green Party and candidate for the European elections.
RSS
Comments
I have no idea what this candidate's position is, though it may surprise you to know that green campaigners in the UK are trying to push the government to bring in measures to limit the size of UK families to cut down on greenhouse gases! This means also pumping money into abortion services.
They won't be allowing us to breathe here next!
Just another pre-election publicity stunt. Why does not Dr Cassola tell us what he stands for and tries to convince us to vote for him because of what he stands for, rather than trying to attract votes by being negative about the competition?
Dr. Cassola asks many interesting questions and here I would like to add few:
Why EU leaders are scrambling for a solution on Ireland referendum results and still acting as if nothing had happened? Why the Irish government betrayed its people? What is democracy?
Reaction of EU leaders to Ireland NO result is sending couple of unpleasant signals indeed:
•In referendum a No result does necessarily means a NO (Malta-Dr, Sant style).
•Peoples are welcomed only to express opinions that powerful ‘elite ‘organizations want them to express (Zimbabwe, Mugabe-style).
Pretending to dismiss Irish opinion as the European leaders are doing risks turning a democratic deficit into a democratic chasm.
If the Irish were not sure whether they made the right decision by voting a NO to the Lisbon treaty, the reaction by many European leaders had confirmed that Irish made the right thing.
In real democracy people’s opinion must be counted. If not, over the coming years we will see more controversial issues are going to be loaded onto the EU and its slender support in public opinion withers further.
Can a football game be re-played if a team loses?