Divorce Bill and the buses
I take exception, frankly, at the Labour Party leader’s posturing about the Prime Minister’s “obligation” to vote in favour of the divorce Bill.
In an ideal world, the Prime Minister would, in truth, find it incumbent on himself to square his personal conscience with his political one, especially given the fact that we’re merely extending the definition of what is acceptable divorce under Maltese law to include divorce pronounced on by Maltese courts (as opposed to making divorce compulsory, as you might very well think we’re doing if you listen to the fundamentalists).
However, it’s not an ideal world, far from it, and in strict law, the divorce Bill not being a government Bill and there being a free vote on it, what any individual member does is immaterial, provided the darn thing passes, and there won’t be a governance crisis, however much Joseph Muscat is gagging for one, hoping that his new bestest best friends in the Nationalist Party will oblige him.
I take exception, though, not only because of the inflated importance being given to the whole thing by Labour in their blindingly blatant zeal to politicise an issue that should never have been politicised. I take exception also because coming from Labour, this Damascene conversion to respecting the will of the people takes on depths of perceived hypocrisy that are almost vertiginous. I remind you, dear reader, of Dom Mintoff’s oafish refusal to recognise that the country had told him to go in 1981 and of Alfred Sant’s tired and emotional assertion that the country had not voted to join the EU in more recent years. Insofar as concerns 1981, perhaps Dr Muscat was a tad too young to know anything about it but he was one of Dr Sant’s fervent admirers and collaborators when we were touted to become Swaziland in the Mediterranean or whatever Dr Sant’s notion was all about, so he should have a handle on how people feel when they hear a Labour leader talking about electoral majorities.
Is that enough to persuade you that Labour have this penchant for saying and doing precisely what they please and what might sound useful to them at the precise moment in time when they say or do it?
What other political party would allow its leader to pronounce smugly from on high that he has solutions, proposals and promises that will solve all the country’s woes but he will only tell us about them after he wins the election and becomes Prime Minister? Karmenu Vella is going to have a dead easy electoral manifesto to write: it will consist in three words, namely “tell you later”.
So whatever happens in the House in the next couple of weeks, we’re going to have a divorce law and unless the opportunists cravenly seize the moment, we’re not going to have a crisis of government (just to use an Italian construction). In fact, the only crisis we could have, realistically, would come about if, unthinkably, the President were to refuse his assent to the carried Bill. Given that he hasn’t, quite properly, pronounced himself on this, technically it’s a possibility, but that’s just me having a flight of fancy.
That’s not to say there won’t be some sort of flap, of course, because the temptation to carry on sniping at the Prime Minister might become unsurmountable.
Or Labour might come over all peculiar and try to introduce amendments to the Bill that will make its bestest best friends not love it any more. You might think that this would be political suicide, and you’d be pretty much right, but just think of the way Labour has handled itself over the years, what with Dr Sant looking an electoral gift horse in the mouth and the way it’s set itself up and tell me they won’t mess it up again.
As you read this, the new public transport system will be almost a week old and, hopefully, the teething troubles will have been largely overcome. I haven’t tried the system yet (check my blog for why) and I’m sure that there’s still plenty left to be desired but, to be sure, the carping I spotted on Facebook and elsewhere was nauseating in the extreme. One lad even found it within himself to whine publicly because, shock horror, a driver was spotted with a fag in his mouth.
I’m pretty convinced Arriva will make a fist of it and that we’re going to have an integrated public transport system (taxis and all) that will make eschewing the pleasures of parking anywhere near Valletta an easy sacrifice. This will annoy the carpers and cavillers who just love to bleat negatively about everything no end, and for this reason alone, I want it to succeed. I don’t know which I find more sickening, the smug ones who are just loving the fact that things sometimes go wrong or the ones who automatically assume that things sometimes go wrong because it’s Malta and we’re somehow inferior.
Badass Burgers are in town. Am I allowed to say Badass or will the thought-police jump on me? Whatever, the best burger in Malta can now be had in Valletta, down by Palace Square, and if you are carnivorous, head there. If you have non-carnivores with you, they do a mean salad, too.
We stayed up in Gozo on Monday, which meant we could get an extra evening of the Victoria Arts Festival and afterwards were treated to dinner at San Andrea in Xlendi. It was, not to put too fine a point on it, one of the better fish and seafood meals I’ve had in a long time and in one of the pleasanter spots on earth, too.
15 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr d. attard
Jul 9th 2011, 18:02
Now trying to paint Dr Alfred Sant as undemocratic in truly scraping the barrel...Dr Sant was the man who, on seeing that his one seat majority (when he should have three) was not solid enough to govern in the national interest, went back to the voter at the worst time possible for a Government, lost and graciously gave up the Premiership. Now compare and contrast with to-day's goings on within the Nationalist Government...tick skins are ok for a while, but then they start becoming a tad embarrasing...
Mr Victor Laiviera
Jul 9th 2011, 17:37
1981 is 30 years ago, Dr Borg Cardona. Most of your readers were not even born. Try living in the present.
On the other hand, if you prefer to live in the past, so be it. But then you have to take ALL the past, not cherry-pick the bits that suit you. For example the fact that in 1971, the PN showed an "oafish refusal to recognise that the country was telling it to go" and did its damnedest to win the government with less votes and more seats. As well as the fact that, in the Integration referendum, the PN loudly and vociferously insisted that yes, the dead HAD to be counted as voting "NO".
Giov DeMartino
Jul 10th 2011, 07:37
Ben tornato Mr. Laiviera.
Mr Victor Laiviera
Jul 11th 2011, 09:39
I didn't go anywhere - where have YOU been?
Austin Farrugia
Jul 9th 2011, 13:13
I.M. Beck
it seems you do not learn from your mistakes.I told you to wait a few weeks as our p.m. will vote yes.so why start again beck try to be patient and wait. as regards your scale it is always in the blue shade.
Andrew Borg-Cardona
Jul 9th 2011, 10:25
Typical! The main thrust of the argument (Labour's democratic past) is ignored and the few lines about public transport focused on!
Mr Eric Soames
Jul 9th 2011, 11:06
Didn't ignore, just gave it the attention it merited. Focus on the past? Surely there's a statute of limitations even on old news.
Charlie Borg
Jul 9th 2011, 11:18
Well, 'typical' to you, too!
The 'main thrust of the argument' is a non-sequitur. Level-minded people are only too aware of Labour's past. So? Does that mean that the Opposition should sit down and do nothing, because of the days of old? So much for your love for democracy!
But we are living in Nationalist-present and I think that we have turned around, full circle, and back in the days of old. A different kind, admittedly, but yes, definitely there. And we're much worse off than how we were then.
Mr Carmelo Micallef
Jul 9th 2011, 12:04
@ Eric Soames
There is no statute of limitation on remembering state authorised violent intimidation of its opponents.
This was the Malta of 1971-87 for which you are an apologist.
Mr Eric Soames
Jul 9th 2011, 13:39
Carmelo Micallef: Just because I advocate living in the present and looking to the future does not mean I'm defending any actions that took place in the past. But thank you for considering me an apologist, my former Jesuit teachers would be well pleased.
Mr Eric Soames
Jul 9th 2011, 09:45
Another look back 30 odd years? I suppose you're not a criminal lawyer otherwise you'd believe in fresh starts. If the PM has egg on his face you can't blame his opponents for pointing it out, even making the most of it, and if he is squirming it's because he's impaled himself, finally.
Charlie Borg
Jul 9th 2011, 09:15
Once again, a PN-apologist to the core.
I wonder why it is that the present PM is being 'sniped at' by his back-benchers? Could it be, just could it be that now we are realising that the method with which the heir to Dr EFA was chosen and elected was somehow viciated? And that the natural course of election was not allowed to take place? I just wonder.
While Malta and the Maltese are groaning about Arriva and even the PM and the Minister responsible, as well as various Arriva officials, are admitting about the very poor standard that the new bus system is proving to be after all the fanfare and promises of a revolution in public transport, you still choose to describe these problems as 'teething problems'. Well, it shows that you don't use public transport. It also shows that you refuse to listen and hear the groans and the sufferings of the common people.
No wonder the PN is in the terrible state it is now, with even its apologists so separated from reality and from the people in the street.
Yes, Malta is inferior: inferior to the core. Inferior politicians, inferior governments, inferior columnists.
Andy Farrugia
Jul 9th 2011, 11:17
"Yes, Malta is inferior: inferior to the core. Inferior politicians, inferior governments, inferior columnists."
Inferior politicians? I wonder! Compared to who or what? To "he can have bunga-bunga six days a week and rest on the Sab..... pardon... on the seventh"? To the singularly unpopular Zapatero and his suicidal attempts to drive Spain into bankruptcy? To the clueless Cameron and the equally vacuous Milliband jr.? To the stumbling Sarko? With the possible exception of Merkel, it's not as if there are any shining lights around.
Mr Tony Camilleri
Jul 9th 2011, 14:28
Andy Farrugia our politicians who are in politics are worse.
Politicks = politicians in politicks = blood-sucking insects.
Andy Farrugia
Jul 9th 2011, 17:17
@ Mr Tony Camilleri
"Andy Farrugia our politicians who are in politics are worse.
Politicks = politicians in politicks = blood-sucking insects."
I regret to say that i cannot make sense of incoherent babble.
Please choose the reason of your report below: