SAR, illegal immigration and political bullying

Over the centuries, it has been quite obvious that larger countries do not easily offer anything on a silver plate to smaller countries. Thus when a small country possesses anything like a SAR (search and rescue zone) for example, it should hold on to it as adamantly as possible... no matter how hard Spanish and Italian politicians, diplomats and bloggers try to pour scorn and ridicule on the Maltese government. We are used enough to bullying and won't be impressed. Proved lack of generosity by larger countries cannot be repaid by masochistic naiveté. Giving any part of SAR away, or selling it off, is bad business and pure lack of patriotism.

Some Maltese are all out to prod the government into selling part of Malta's SAR. This is not surprising as, in similar circumstances, some Maltese - although, thank heaven, they are only a tiny minority - are always speaking or writing in favour of increased illegal immigration in Malta and never answer the question: How many illegal immigrants can Malta take? They don't answer that question as maybe, in their heart of hearts, they wish that Malta accepts an unlimited number irrelevant of the social and economic consequences on the Maltese population.

Illegal immigration is closely related to the voting mentality of Europeans. One reason why Conservatives on mainland Europe did better than Socialists in the MEP elections is that the former openly supported the growing feeling of patriotism under economic recession in Europe while the latter dreamt romantically about multiculturalism, believing that this meant a massive importation of people from problematic regions to be supported in Europe by the taxes of Europeans. In mainland Europe voters told the Socialists: You dream on; we shall vote on.

In Malta the situation is different from that in most of Europe as Social Democrats showed more hostility to the invasion problem while the Conservatives showed weakness even when all surveys showed that illegal immigration was of major concern for all Maltese. But the Maltese very Catholic government was overjoyed at the praise of the Pope at Malta's immigration naiveté and its missionary zeal. And what the Pope says, goes. June 6 arrived and a massive sledgehammer-blow of minus 35,000 votes expressed disagreement with official apathy in the midst of Maltese anxiety. Also, as if this were not enough, Silvio Berlusconi was also criticised by some, not all, in the Maltese government for organising a repatriation operation which did us a great favour. Bizarre mentality to bite the hand that helps you! This does not apply to most in the pro-government party. Indeed, 90 per cent of participants in a recent maltarightnow survey agreed with Mr Berlusconi's sending back of illegal immigrants to Libya. This is not a small percentage and it constitutes a democratic logic making most Nationalists disagree with some in the PN hierarchy.

A bizarre occurrence receiving little attention was one of strange proofreading of Minister Tonio Borg's statement. The proofreading was, I believe, not done by Dr Borg himself - though somebody must have done it (The Time, July 17). "However there is no doubt that this phenomenon was becoming a security issue." The Times continues that "this was removed from a version sent this evening to replace the morning copy". Dr Borg has a reputation for a common sense attitude towards illegal immigration and many are convinced that, if he had more freedom of action, the illegal immigration problem would have been solved ages ago.

Few have tried to understand why some apparently staunch Conservatives repeatedly huffed and puffed in favour of an increased numerical invitation of illegal immigrants to Malta. At the least word or sneeze expressing anxiety about illegal immigration (even of the PM), they lost their temper. This they did while knowing that the governing party's massive vote loss prediction and execution at the MEP elections (and beyond?) was also clearly related to illegal immigration policy weakness.

One may be drawn to the conclusion that some pompously "staunch" Nats subconsciously desire a loss of popularity of "their own government". Which makes one entertain the possibility that one may shake hands sweetly with a party while awkwardly pulling the carpet from under its feet - an obvious naiveté if not sheer clumsiness.

Meanwhile European Commission unelected employees sometimes issue directives related to immigration. This is surprising as they are bureaucrats rarely in contact with people and their feelings. However, they feel they are in a position to dictate from an academic data base not from European citizens' point of view.

In support of this, top Socialist Martin Schultz repeatedly pounces on politicians who promote political rationality - which he confounds with European institutions. But bureaucratic socialism is a thing of the past.