
Thursday, 5th November 2009
Gonzi, Muscat disagree with court ruling on crucifixes
The Prime Minister yesterday called on richer countries to provide Malta with the means so that illegal immigrants will be repatriated. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi.
Both Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat yesterday in Parliament expressed their disagreement with a European Court of Human Rights ruling that called for crucifixes to be removed from Italian classrooms.
Asking questions after Dr Gonzi had made a statement on his recent meetings in Brussels and Madrid, Dr Muscat said that he disagreed with the decision of the court.
"To believe in a secular society does not mean doing away with religion, culture and tradition," he said. He asked the government for its views.
Dr Gonzi said he agreed with Dr Muscat.
"I disagree with the decision completely, in the most categorical manner, it does not make sense," Dr Gonzi said, adding that it denied the rights of individuals as well as countries.
Questions were also put on various subjects by Labour MPs Anġlu Farrugia, George Vella, Leo Brincat, Carmelo Abvelas, Anthony Agius Decelis and Alfred Sant, as well as Nationalist MP Franco debono.
Dr Gonzi said that the EU was very cautious on its negotiating position on climate change because of possible developments in the Copenhagen summit. Everything depended on the reaction of the US and Chinese governments.
Malta could participate in the first phase and its financing. The government had made its financial calculations with little variance noted on whether one based calculations on emissions, on the GDP or the Gross National Income (GNI). It was inopportune to reveal the amount that Malta could contribute because of negotiations in Copenhagen.
Malta could absorb this contribution and would later reap benefits if emission reduction targets were met and maintained.
The Prime Minister stressed that emission reduction targets if met by Malta by 2015 could provide an opportunity because Malta could sell carbon credits to other countries besides saving on energy use. It also meant that Malta could be more competitive.
If these targets were not met, industries would have to pay for differences in carbon credits. It was therefore paramount to close the Marsa power station and reform the public and private transport sectors by 2015.
The EU established a working group which was to discuss particular problems with East European countries relating to conversions of nuclear reactors.
Dr Gonzi said that the European Commission's economic forecast was positive for Malta because it was limiting its economic decline by a 2.2 per cent negative economic growth when compared to a 4.4 per cent negative economic growth across EU countries.
Recession's negative impact on employment in Malta was projected to be seven per cent below the EU average. The unemployment rate in Malta was the ninth lowest among the 27 member states. Unemployment in all EU countries was bound to rise in 2010.
Malta also had a better record than other EU member states on the deficit. He added that together with the Finance Minister, yesterday he convinced a company not to close shop and sack its 150 workers.
Referring to the agreement with a Dutch company providing vaccines against the A H1N1 influenza to Malta, Dr Gonzi said the problem was one of authorisation. The government had taken advice on its legal rights and was insisting on them. Another five countries were in a similar position. The Dutch government, however, had a great supply of vaccines, which Malta could rely on.
Replying to questions by Dr Farrugia, Dr Gonzi said that with Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero, he had spoken on the European dimension. There was a strong interest by Spanish companies to invest in Malta. Six agreements were to be signed during the visit of King Juan Carlos to Malta in the coming days. These agreements aimed at strengthening the structure to attract more investment from Spain.
Speaking on the recession, the Prime Minister said that it was not reasonable for anyone to make wishlists before the budget when the recession was not yet over. The exit strategies adopted by certain countries meant that they had to address the deficit through heavy taxation. If Malta remained cautious it could create an opportunity to become more competitive.
However, Malta could not retain its objectives to balance its deficit by 2011, because it had to address recession problems.
In reply to questions by Dr Vella, he said that it was an achievement to have the Malta pilot project on immigration mentioned in the final European Council document.
He said the number of countries committing themselves to take more refugees from Malta increased with all states having time until the next official council to make their position known.
Although he was not still happy with the situation, Frontex - the EU agency for external border security - had led to addressing the issue of repatriation. Progress was registered between the EU and Libya on a framework agreement. Malta was insisting that repatriation formed part of this agreement. He called on richer countries to provide Malta with the means so that irregular immigrants could be repatriated.
One should also insist on appropriate travel documents to repatriate irregular immigrants through other countries.
Development aid had to include obligations for the receiving country to take back its emigrants. He said that refugees in Malta came from countries where there was internal strife and others facing climate change problems like desertification and lack of water.
The Euro-Mediterranean Legislative assembly did not form part of the talks with the Spanish Premier but there was appreciation for the setting up of a liaison office of the Arab League in Malta.
The Prime Minister also referred to the windfarm project adding that it was the government's aim to realise this project through private investment. Private companies were showing strong interest in this project. Enough energy could be generated to make the scheme bankable at negotiating stage.
Answering Dr Sant, Dr Gonzi said that the protocol signed with the Czech Republic confirmed in writing what was already known and did not change the Lisbon strategy in any way.
The Prime Minister showed his personal appreciation and that of his government and the country, on the good work performed by Malta's EU Commissioner Joe Borg, adding that his work was also appreciated by European Commission President José Manuel Barroso.







RSS
Comments
“He said that refugees in Malta came from countries where there was internal strife and others facing climate change problems like desertification and lack of water”.
There must be at least 100 million people in Africa living in countries where there is internal strife. How many of them does Dr Gonzi want Malta to host against its will?
Having been more Catholic than the Pope, Dr Gonzi wants to be more pro-refugees than UNHCR. Even UNHCR does not consider as refugees those who migrate because of desertification and lack of water. But Dr Gonzi knows better!
“He called on richer countries to provide Malta with the means so that irregular immigrants could be repatriated”.
And suppose they don’t? Isn’t it in Malta’s own national interest to get rid of these illegal immigrants by repatriation or any other means? By shifting responsibility to richer countries Dr Gonzi is finding an excuse for doing nothing himself about repatriation. Anyone reading the court reports in The Times knows, for example, that there are many Nigerians in Malta. Nigeria is a country rich in oil and other resources (but full of corruption). Nigerians do not qualify for refugee status and in Malta they get into all kinds of trouble. It should be easy, through the courts, the police, the prison etc for the government to find 100 Nigerians and take all means to repatriate them. Why has the government not done so?
Dr Gonzi’s NGO mentality comes out clearly through his use of “irregular” instead of “illegal” immigrants.
"To believe in a secular society does not mean doing away with religion, culture and tradition."
If you beleive in a secular society you simply cannot accept religious symbols in public buildings, that's all there is to it. You cannot play around with it because you are scared of the Catholic backlash. Is this the great "progressive" that wants to lead change?