Tuesday, 10th February 2009
I’m the boss, says the Prime Minister
That would have been the best headline to catch the essence of what Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, said last Sunday in reply to questions over the revelations that there will be musical chairs in Brussels as Richard Cachia Caruana is reportedly set to take over as Malta’s EU Commissioner and Simon Busuttil gets re-elected as an MEP but then steps down to replace RCC as Malta’s Permanent Representative to the EU.
The Prime Minister’s answer and the way he said it has been described as smacking of arrogance and reminiscent of Louis XVI’s “L’ etat c’est moi!”
This might be the case if one takes what Dr Gonzi said literally.
I want to propose, however, that Dr Gonzi was neither addressing the journalists who asked him the question nor the Labour Party.
Given what has gone on within the Nationalist Party over the last few weeks, especially within the PN’s Parliamentary Group, it is more than plausible to surmise that Dr Gonzi was actually telling his own MPs and his own party who calls the shots.
It all began, of course, with Dr Gonzi’s decision to single-handedly nominate George Ablea as the next President of Malta. Something to which Labour Leader, Dr Joseph Muscat, agreed to in principle, but only signed up to after obtaining a virtually unanimous endorsement from Labour’s Parliamentary Group.
This incensed the PN’s MPs even more and we had clear and on the record declarations of disagreement about the way Dr Gonzi handled the matter from MPs as diverse as Simon Busuttil and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. We are told that they were not the only ones but that others kept their disagreements within the bosom of the PN’s Parliamentary Group. No wonder then that the PN whip, David Agius, even wrote on the record to the effect that in future such decisions will be taken after a proper consultation process.
The grapevine says that this tension has not abated and that Labour’s motion on the PN Government’s proposed plan to dig up St John’s Square in order to construct an underground museum to house the Co-Cathedral’s treasures has hit another raw nerve. This, again, is another issue about which there are quite well known and well publicised divergences within PN’s Parliamentary Group. It is said that, once more, Dr Gonzi has had to make clear in private within the Parliamentary Group that there can be no room for dissent.
Apparently, that was not enough and hence Dr Gonzi’s outburst last Sunday. It is clear that there were mischief makers who leaked the plan to shift Richard Cachia Caruana and Simon Busuttil around in order to embarrass the Prime Minister. This was the ultimate straw which broke Dr Gonzi’s patience with his own MPs. Hence he felt he had to remind them who is running the show. “I am the Prime Minister. I am the Government,” means two things.
Firstly, “Don’t forget who single-handedly won you the general election last March!”. For which read, “It was I who won it for you - me and only me – GonziPN!”
Secondly, and following on from the first clear interpretation of what Dr Gonzi said on Sunday, what Dr Gonzi was telling his MPs and his party was very clear and very unequivocal. Not only, “Don’t forget who won you the last election!” but also, because of that, “Don’t forget – I’m the boss!”
RSS
Comments
You would note that I had answered all the points that merited a response, however, you always disregard most of my remarks and goes at a tangent with futile rhetoric completely out of order. I definitely do not belong to your political club but that doesn’t matter, what matters is mutual respect for each other’s opinion and to credit your opponent with some intelligence.
Should you consider changing your style to a more civil one I would be honoured to debate issues with you, if you don’t I would be compelled to ignore you like I ignore some of the others.
Rest assured that if what you see as white meets my agreement I would call it white but if not I will debate it until you convince me.
“It was your Government and Party that send Maltese Nationals to be trained by the North Koreans” Sic .(vide full text) This is another blatant lie. The truth is that the Government of N.Korea sent four martial arts experts to train the then ‘Special Mobile Unit’ of the Police Force. Was that so horrendous? Yes that was through the initiative of Alex Sciberras Trigona, one of our best Foreign Ministers so far. Yes we are extremely happy to have him Joe Grima and others back on board and that is part of the earthquake.
Now let me teach you something about our foreign policy.
1. Recognition of Libya came almost immediately from Iraq and Egypt. Other countries, at first hesitant to recognise the new Libyan Government but then followed suit in a relatively short period of time. George Borg-Olivier was the first W.European PM.
2. Dom. Mintoff was amongst the first, if not the first to visit and recognise Red China,USA followed immediately afterwords,now China is the fastest growing economy in the world and the higher hierarchy of the PN are not afraid to visit and embrace the Red Atheist Chinese.
@Joe Vella ( Mellieha ) Part One
Simon Busuttil MEP is a person I like and we exchanged emails, I like his style and admire his intelligence. His admission that the burden sharing agreement was a flop and calling a spade a spade increased my admiration for him. Malta needs more politicians like him and less PN lackeys like you.
With regards to your sweeping statement that Joseph Muscat ”........so far all he has shown is his dishonesty on the issue” (Vide full text), I will not dignify this form of puerile and futile codswallop with a detailed reply.
And why do you keep repeating a lie even after it was proved to you that you were wrong about Joseph Muscat and the granting of votes to immigrants. For goodness sake check your facts.
I don’t need to tell you who supported the Juntas, of the Fascists Mussolini, General Franco and Pinochet because you know who they are. If you don’t you shouldn’t be debating politics here.
You are absolutely right.
At Least my friend is being honest showing his displeasure with the lack of action so far. This couldn't be said in regards to your friend Joseph Muscat whom so far all he has shown is his dishonesty on the issue. Joseph Muscat during his time at the EU didn't utter one word on illegal immigration, except voting to extends voting rights to immigrants in local and EU elections to please his Socialist and Communist friends at the EU.
You never supported any Juntas? How short your memory is. It was the regime that you wholeheartdly supported that aligned Malta with some of the brutal regimes of the day. It was your Government and Party that send Maltese Nationals to be trained by the North Koreans. Speaking of the past, the architect was none other then Alex Schiberras Trigona, and thanks to the earthquake that Joseph Muscat promised is occupying the International Secretary position at the PL.
@Joe Vella (Mellieha.)
When you make a statement in my regard in that “I know you would have been much happier if Malta would have adopted the rule of the Juntas. I know you feel quite at home in that ambient” I could sue you for your bottom Euro but then I would be taking advantage of a person who have difficulties to express himself in a civil manner, so I just pity you.
The only thing that you really know about me is that I support your opposing party and yet you still find justifications to hurl personal insults at me. And that is precisely why I feel sorry for you.
Truth substantiated by facts can’t be offensive but throwing mud for the sake of it makes a person look like a despotic bigot.
I shall now give you the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is to tell the whole wide word how you know that I would be much happier if Malta would have adopted the rules of the Juntas and that you know I feel quite at home in that ambient.
Stop wasting your time. Instead you should be after the government to start building high rise apartments, fully furnished so that they would accommodate the immigrants better and so the MSF would stay.
Then more will come since they will gladly opt for a nice apartment rather than a tent in a desert, will be fed for free, given a small allowance which will pay for a mobile phone so they can communicate with their brethren and tell them what a wonderful world they live in.
Then C J Buttigieg and others will complain that the money spent in building better accommodation for the immigrants, thus encouraging many others to come here, would have been better spent elsewhere.
If you say 'white' CJ will say 'black' and vice versa.
In the meantime he (they) have no solution to offer.
Don’t ask me to give it time, ask your MEP, he’s the one who gave up hope. Medicins Sans Frontiers aren’t very patient either because they’re leaving a sinking ship. You seem to have bags of patience so give the earthquake some time, as you say “Things of this nature do not happen overnight.”
As per Juntas, I never supported any Junta, it was the PN who formed part of ‘The Junta Djocesana’- Remember?
And then your masterpiece, faces from the past, hi hi hi. You will be voting for one of those faces to elect him as your MEP.
Just give it time. Things of this nature do not happen overnight. How conveniently edited the part about France. It only speaks of your character. I know you would have been much happier if Malta would have adopted the rule of the Juntas. I know you feel quite at home in that ambient.
Joseph Muscat also promised us an Earthquake. Where is it? Or bringing faces from the past was the earthquake he promised?
Joe Vella (Mellieha.)
Once upon a time you tried to convince that the EU burden sharing agreement was the best thing to happen since ‘hobz-biz-zejt’Do you still believe that? I told you then but as usual you wouldn’t listen, maybe now you would believe the Times’ report quoting Simon Busuttil.
Wednesday, 11th March 2009 - 17:30CET
EU lacks solidarity on asylum - Busuttil
When the European Commissioner for Immigration visits Malta on Friday, he would be able to see the lack of solidarity in the EU's asylum policy, Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil told the European Parliament yesterday.
Speaking during a sitting in which the commissioner, Jacques Barrot, was participating, Dr Busuttil said that while solidarity was introduced in the Immigration Pact signed in October, only France had offered to accept immigrants from Malta.
He said that the European Parliament had already allocated 5 million Euros for this mechanism to work and asked Mr Barrot what the Commission was doing for this aim.
The Commission, he said, should present a European programme which permitted the transfer of immigrants from a country that was burdened disproportionately to another European country.
Roderick Galdes has answered my question. In fact he explained his stand the same day. Don't you keep abreast of developments?
Perhaps you are the one that needs to say a prayer to have Mr. Galdes answer your question posed to him.
L-Unjoni Ewropea Eqreb lejn l-Ewropej
L-ghan ta’ kull ghaqda huwa certament dak li jindirizza d-diffikultajiet jew jikseb l-asperazzjonijiet tal-membri tal-istess ghaqda.
Madanakollu dan mhux dejjem possibbli u hafna drabi l-membri tal-istess ghaqda jigu njorati.
L-istess jista` jinghad ghall-Parlament Ewropew fejn dak li jahdmu ghalih il-Parlamentari Ewropej ta’ spiss ikun differenti sahansitra oppost minn dak li jkun qieghed jaspira c-cittadin Ewropew.
M`hemmx dubju li l-Membri Parlamentari Ewropej ikunu qeghdin jaghmlu l-agenda taghhom bil-ghan ewlieni u genwien fl-ahjar interess tal-Ewropej.
Madanakollu l-agenda maghzula mill-Parlamentari Ewropej mhux qed thalli spazju ghall-ugigh u pre-okkupazzjonijiet ta’ min qeghdin jirraprezentaw.
Illum aktar minn qabel f`sitwazzjoni li qed tghix l-Unjoni Ewropea flimkien ma’ pajjizi ohra jehtieg li kulhadd jinghata widen.
Ix-xoghol, l-ambjent, il-livell tal-ghixien huma mhux biss ta’ nteress tal-Parlamentari, izda zgur mhux forsi ser jaffettwa lic-cittadini wkoll.
L-edukazzjoni u s-sahha hija ta’ mportanza kbira ghall-futur ta’ pajjizna u l-idejali jkun li minn jirraprezenta l-Maltin fl-Unjoni Ewropeja ikun il-boghod minn kull agenda partiggjana u rejalment jirraprezenta lill-Maltin.
Il-UHM fil-jiem li ghaddew nediet il-progett o9o5o9 li ghandu l-ghan ewlieni li jaghti l-opportunita` lil kullhadd sabiex jikkotribwixxi fl-agenda li l-Parlamentari Ewropej eletti ghandhom jimxu fuqha.
Nistiednek tidhol fis-sit eletroniku www.090509.org u aghti l-intervent tieghek.
Tislijiet
Jesmond Bonello
And I can guess why!
For your information I had replied re your quote yesterday. Looks like it has been censored . Don't blame me .
Still searching? You may just as well give up now. I do not try to pull wool over anybody's eyes!
As soon as you quote where I have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of anybody I will answer you.
We are changing.
‘Vince Farrugia confirmed at PN EP candidates.’
You disapprove the ongoing attempts by some PL supporters to pull the wool over the eyes of the new inexperienced voters who have no firsthand experience of the past PL methods of governing , yet you approve , encourage and even make regular attempts to put the wool over the eyes of all the voters who have firsthand experience of the present PN government .
I read The Times. A Gauci Cunnungham has a mind of his own. So have I.
Here’s the answer to your last:-
The Times. 24\02\2009 .Quote.
A. Gauci Cunningham
Trying to shut PL members and supporters up because they voted against Malta's entry in the EU is now a tirade of those who fail to understand what the EU is!! I proudly voted for the EU and would do the same if a referendum had to be held today because I think that the EU stimulates progress and gives a voice to the people most especially those in the lower income brackets, businessmen and self-employed!! But this does not mean that I have to vote PN for the rest of my life just because in 2003 they had the better vision!!! Fact is the government we have now disregards and flouts EU law on a daily basis and is far too timid to tackle problems as they should be tackled in the EP----with verve, courage and determination!!
In June we will be voting for the party which was anti-EU but which is turning out to be a better manager when it comes to EU affairs!! The party which speaks my language and understands my pains!!!
Next June we will be voting Labour!!! Unquote.
1500-1
I repeat that I live for the day when the LP will emerge as a new reconditioned political party, first as a loyal and efficient party in opposition, thus gaining the approval of the electorate as a party fit to be entrusted with the reins of power.
You assert that I will never vote for the LP.
We are saying the same thing - but only if the LP continues to pose as a new refurbished party but in actual practice does not really emerge as anything different from its horrid past.
I like to call a spade, a spade, and admittedly, I respect your views when it comes to changing your voting pattern according to who you think is the better party to govern. I would have left it at that and we would have been in perfect agreement.
But then you threw in a remark, (addressed to Dr.Saliba) "...you always vote PN cause that is in the National interest as if the PL works against the national interest". So the LP's unrelenting anti-EU campaign was in the nation's interest? The embracing of anti-EU elements (past and present) including the present leader, are in the nation's interest? Labour's inconsistency is what keeps them on the Opposition benches. The NP has its core supporters as much as Labour has. There is no argument there and Dr. Saliba knows that, so you did not have to point it out.
With regard to the St. John debacle, I expressed my surprise when you quoted Charles J Buttigieg as "bringing up valid and convincing arguments" when the FAA, the LP and some other uninformed and non-qualified individuals failed to prove anything and moreover managed to nix full investigation supporting their allegations.
You declared that you do not hold in low esteem all Labour supporters,I assume that that includes our level of intelligence- and yet you expect us to believe that you remotely consider that one day you might vote Labour. You will vote Labour on the same day that I vote Partit Nazzjonalista. Hallina .
Whence this your compulsive urge to justify yourself to me? What do you hope to achieve?
I never said that "I always vote PN because that it is only that party that serves the national interest". At every general election I assess which particular party credibly presents the best electoral programme. Unfortunately for the recent general elections the MLP/LP never persuaded me to vote for it and the way things are going it will be the same for the next election. I would be most grateful if the LP would provide a credible alternative "new" expurgated political party. Up to now I only see "more of the same". The cheap propaganda in these blog comments doesn't help. I hope that in due course the leadership of the LP will persuade me, and others like me, that these silly blog comments do not reflect the true rejuvenated LP.
I do not hold in "low esteem all Labour supporters" . I disapprove the ongoing attempts by some of them to pull the wool over the eyes of the new inexperienced voters who have no first hand experience of the past MLP methods of governing.
Unlike yourself and your knit circle of PN friends I have no political affiliations least still allies that make me fall in any category.I consider myself as an extremely lucky individual as I enjoy the luxury of a frame of mind that excludes political bias.I am also a voter which right forces me to analyse what goes on around me,in the past I had voted PN as well as MLP , a positive attitude which you would call turn coating.I gave my vote to the party which ,in my opinion, offered the best credentials, there were times that it was the PN other times it was the PL.Ironically , people like me choose the party to govern not people like you . You are on record that as far as you are concerned you always vote PN cause that is in the National interest as if the PL works against the national interest.
I do not care much about the low esteem you have for Labour supporters , personally I judge on what they and PN activists like you write and during the Co-Cathedral debate Charles Buttigieg brought up valid and convincing arguments. And you did not.
Comments
The Times. 24\02\2009 .Quote.
A.Gauci Cunningham
Trying to shut PL members and supporters up because they voted against Malta's entry in the EU is now a tirade of those who fail to understand what the EU is!! I proudly voted for the EU and would do the same if a referendum had to be held today because I think that the EU stimulates progress and gives a voice to the people most especially those in the lower income brackets, businessmen and self-employed!! But this does not mean that I have to vote PN for the rest of my life just because in 2003 they had the better vision!!! Fact is the government we have now disregards and flouts EU law on a daily basis and is far too timid to tackle problems as they should be tackled in the EP----with verve, courage and determination!!
In June we will be voting for the party which was anti-EU but which is turning out to be a better manager when it comes to EU affairs!! The party which speaks my language and understands my pains!!!
Next June we will be voting Labour!!! Unquote.
Like you,Martinelli, and the new comer Jo Said, generally speaking, Charles Buttigieg makes a good argument even though sometimes we miss the point innocently,conveniently or maliciously.We are all guilty of that and only a hypocrite would profess otherwise.
Throughout the Co-Catherdal debal, Mr Buttigieg was very consistent,he always backed his arguments with solid and convincing facts and he must have exercised a great deal of patience to resist a counter attach when you and Mr Martinelli tried, on numerous occasions , to divert from the argument and resorted to futile personal innuendos like,'I am left with the nagging doubt that, after all,you are not so happy that time has changed'
You may continue with this debate until you turn blue in the face however,sad for you, you will never manage to change the bottom line of thw whole argument simply cause you made it amply clear that you are trying to defend a lost cause.
Dr Gonzi was prepared to allow a potential risk to reach its fruition had it not been for the nrilliant move by Joseph Muscat to challenge him in Parliament which left Gonzi one option, to throw in the towel.
Well-done CJB
Answering your qustion, you tried to turn me into a turncoat when you suggested that I should follow in your footsteps by removing my PN blinkers "as you did four years ago" and to "get off the (PN) bus".
I do not feel that I am haunted by anything, thank you. It is you who complain that you are furious at your inability to turn electors round to your point of view and please note that I do not admit that you are right about anything.
The "raw nerve" I mentioned hasn't got anything to do with your fury. It has everything to do with your spontaneous insistence, out of the blue, that you "are not the type to change allegiance for selfish reasons" when I had not accused you of anything like that. It was a case of "Chi si scusa, s'accusa".
When did I taunt you to become a GONZIPN turncoat? Quote word for word, please.
The problem which haunts you is that you never call a spade a spade. What I told you is to remove your blinkers and your predisposition by divesting yourself from the political obsession that seems to have taken over your life, hence your pitiful logic. That is all.
My raw nerve, which is public knowledge, is that I am so disgusted to see fellow Maltese elect a government which (forget the 'who') bulldozes over them, and the rest of the population, and then admit with me that I was right in all that I uttered before and after the general elections. And here is when the raw nerve inflames - when this same folk refrain from publicly condemning their party for fear of reprisals and retributions. Gutless, cowardly and spineless characters such as these infuriate me, that is true.
Then there are the ones who live in the past and refuse to change with the times. This ilk does not irritate me, really and truly. I pity it.
You taunted me (among other things) to become a PN turncoat. I gave you my honest answer that I put the nation's needs first and foremost even before any personal interests such as when I had a bone to pick with the PN. I accept your plea that you are also the type of "NEVER changing your allegiance for selfish reasons". I never said that, and I never enticed you to change any political party of your choice. However my comment appears to have touched some hidden raw nerve unintentionally and provoked a reaction of
"Excusatio non petita ........". Not my fault!
@F Saliba
Your ''I have had my own personal differences with the PN also but I do not let them blind me to the extent of changing my allegiance for selfish reasons'' is completely unwarranted as I never accused you of doing that. How could I if I do not know you? So, how can you if you do not know me? I repeat my stand that I never had any personal differences with the PN. I, however, condemn my ex-party, as it is now hijacked by the arrogant gonzipn.
I am not the type to EVER change my allegiance for selfish reasons, ever.
I do not agree with you that, for you, the nation's interests are paramount. Had they been, you would have accepted my advice to remove your tightly fastened blinkers, as Mr Zammit quite rightly observes. You seem to be firmly and soundly stuck in the past and that is when an apologist like you fails so miserably to judge what is REALLY paramount for the nation's interest.
If you read carefully my previous comment you would find my answers to your questions made without stooping to making ad hominem attacks.
People may cross the political carpet for selfish reasons just as much as for a genuine true conversion based on sound principles - you raised that question but Jo Said is the best person to answer that question for himself - not you ,not I.
I voted for the PN because in my own case that was necessary in the paramount interest of the nation taking precedence over my own interests. I did not, and I am not now making any reference to anybody else.
It is up to you, not me, to "find words to prove" your "conclusion".
don't you think you're waisting a lot of your time trying to show the way to people with tightly fastened blinkers??
@ Dr Francis Saliba
Are you saying that people who change their political allegiance from PN to PL do that for selfish reasons or were you directing your remark exclusively to the bubbly Jo Said? What can a person gain from a party in opposition to qualify them as selfish? You also declared that you remained a PN supporter because the nation’s interests are paramount; does that mean that those who don’t support your party do not consider Malta’s interest as paramount?
Sincerely from the bottom of my heart I wish that you may find words to prove my conclusion as a radical one and then I will apologise.
I have read all the comments on this blog and I could not trace one single instance where I "threw the LP's past" at you as you falsely claim in your last comment.
I referred to your sneers about my medical qualifications and I did my best to guess and to answer what you meant by your "double" on me. I have not run out of arguments but I have run out of any cogent questions from you to which I could reply.
I sense correctly and categorically deny the existence of any "rupture" or "schism" in the PN and gave you a concrete example of what those two words meant in our local context.
I have had my own personal differences with the PN also but I do not let them blind me to the extent of changing my allegiance for selfish reasons. The nation's interests are paramount.
I enjoyed your outburst
@F Saliba
Why do you throw at me the LP's past, may I ask? What have I got to do with that? I hope you're not running out of solid arguments.
As for your stated inability to even sense that there is a huge rift in the PN, I invite you, once again, to remove your blinkers, like I did four years ago. You'd be able to see so clearly, trust me. I used to be exactly like you, before I shed mine. I no longer allow the hijackers of our party use deviousness to mislead me, as they do you.
They are doing a mighty disservice to our country. And to make matters worse, when you refuse to see the writing on the wall, you invite mockery in your regard. For your own sake, get off the bus of political obsession.
But the point at issue on this thread is that Gonzi lost his plot. He is no leader - he is a front to an ogre and, as such, the man is politically dangerous. Thank God that he was shown the red card by his own backbenchers on the St John's Co-Cathedral debacle.
Dream on! Continue to speculate (even though you claim that you are not a person who speculates) on what might have happened - but didn't. I am left with the nagging doubt that, after all, you are not so happy that "time has changed" and that the public controversy was aborted as "a thing among friends". Only a week ago in your comment @The Boss's seconds" you were talking about the archbishop being "roped in"
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. And Dr. Laurence Gonzi, the Prime Minister is not a fool, he’s an angel.
When you, gonzipn apologists, see clearly, you might wish to let us in on your views of the huge pie Gonzi had to swallow because he no longer has control over his ruptured party - schism at its best.. THAT is the point.
You're qiute stuck on this one, aren't you? Take a deep breath and be humble enough to show us the man in you.... honestly, Mr Martnelli, honestly.
There can be no doubt that the decision to abandon the St John Foundation proposal was a joint decision by the Church and State authorities. I will not speculate irrelevantly whether the previous exchanges were a "consultation" acceptable to your personal dictionary.
@Joe Said.
Still waiting for you to clarify what you meant by "I was expecting you to answer my double on you".
A vote in Parliament could have gone either way, so speculating on the outcome is irrelevant.
Had the vote been in favour of the LP motion, the project would have been dropped anyway. It was not a confidence vote so, the government's position would have been unaltered. Ditto for MEPA. We still are deprived of the exercise arriving at a conclusion after all the application procedures were carried out.
For Jo Said to term these observations as 'childish' shows the depth of the man's capacity to see beyond the tip of his nose.
@ arthur felice
Anger? More likely humour or, at worst, embarrassment that there are people whose only renown is being controversial. I never take Jo Said seriously, so anger is out of the question. The only anger I feel is when for self interest there are some who circumvent procedures in case they are proven wrong.
@ Jo Said
When I comment about what you write, I do not expect anyone to prop me up as much as Dr. Saliba does not need me to enforce his well researched opinions. You usually worry about little things which bother little minds.
'One understands the disappointment of the LP at being outsmarted and deprived of the opportunity to debate a motion for which they had geared up so intensively'
Don't worry, there are so many issues the present Government could be debated upon.
You don’t honestly believe that the PM consulted with the Archbishop when it is on record that the Archbishop expressed his position that it is not within the competence of the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation to carry out such a major project without having in advance the approval of the two bodies that constitute the foundation. Do you call that consultation? The real dialogue took place in the PN Parliamentary Group and the opposition within insisted that they would vote against their party if the PM and his acolytes insisted on the perilous project. Why else would the PM leave his decision until a few hours prior to the convening of parliament? And you think that any level minded person would call that “a hurried and premature decision” (Sic)? Leave it out Dr Saliba, you must be joking!
There’s no doubt that the opposition would have had a field day in parliament if they had to “debate a motion for which they had geared up so intensively” however it turned out, as expected, that they had a grander field day seeing the PM,prime mover of the project, throwing in the towel before the fight.
When you, gonzipn apologists, see clearly, you might wish to let us in on your views of the huge pie Gonzi had to swallow because he no longer has control over his ruptured party - schism at its best.. THAT is the point.
I look forward to the day when you will submit comments rising above your habit of addressing me as "dottore" or "Medical". I will satisfy your expectation that I answer your "double on you" - as soon as I figure out what you mean.
@CharlesJButtigieg.
Prime Minister Lawrnece Gonzi who, in consultation with the Archbishop, aborts a highly divisive project even before an EIA is concluded cannot by any stretch of the imagination be accused of ignoring public opinion. There would be many who would consider his decision as hurried and premature. One understands the disappointment of the LP at being outsmarted and deprived of the opportunity to debate a motion for which they had geared up so intensively. But that just about sums it all.
Of course I read your comment attentively, dottore. I was expecting you to answer my double on you. In fact you confirm that Martinelli is your buddy in blue armour. You might also be called in to help the comrade.
Why are you demonstrating such anger on people with an opinion that we all know you share ? How do you expect intelligent people to be convinced when the preacher himself is sceptical ? How do you expect to be taken seriously when you support baseless irrevelance contributed by some?
You would feel a lot better if you had enough to allow your anger for JPO , Mugliett and Ninu Zammit to come out in the open - those are the people that caused the embarrassment to GonziPn .
If the Foundation proceeded without some sort of sanction from Church and State, how does Jo Said reconcile the fact that both sides took two years to speak out?
The Foundation made no secret of what its proposals were - FAA knew, the public knew but not the Archbishop nor the Prime Minister?
The Foundation made an application and not issued tenders for the project. Does Jo know the difference? Had they done the latter then they would have acted outside their mandate, but they did not.
Mr. Said does not follow logic because if he does, he would reason that the IDEA comes first FEASIBILITY comes second, TECHNICAL ADVICE comes third, DISCUSSION with any interested party comes fourth, AGREEMENT (with titleholders) in principle is fifth, APPLICATION stage is sixth, REQUIREMENTS as imposed by MEPA (EIAs etc.) is seventh, and ADJUDICATION by MEPA is eighth, AUTHORIZATION, in this case by Church and State is ninth.
FAA and LP's intervention ending the project was because of their mistrust of the system.
If you read my comment attentively you would understand that my appeal for less childishness was not addressed at anyone in particular and certainly not at Joe Martinelli.
Quote:
So, in your wisdom, you would advise a (GENERIC TERM) board to first apply for a (GENERIC TERM) project (the cost of which would be outside the remit of the board), unbeknown to the shareholders, risking that the latter be implicated in a PR mess (and eat humble pie the size of which is enormous) and also compelling them to spend E150,000 for an EIA, as well as application costs, architects fees and what have you, PRIOR to the same titleholders (NOTE THE USE OF THE WORD - TITLEHOLDER) approve the said project.
Read attentively, Mr Martinelli. That way you might get the gist. Refrain from being more childish, as Francis Saliba quite rightly points out to you. It does not matter how cash rich any foundation is, the point is that no board of directors is entitled to commence any proceedings PRIOR to the titleholder (the one they represent) sanctions such initiative if it is outside the remit of the directors. Refer to the Archbishop's message to Gonzi and you might comprehend the point.
However, remove your blinkers, first. Until you do, you can continue to harp on your own in a tedious monologue.
The relevant and undeniable facts are that the Foundation was exploring hopefully a project that proved to be too controversial. Even before an environment assessment analysis could be completed the project was dropped by the combined affort of the Prime Minister and the Archbishop.
What is going on at the time is a silly controversy about who should claim credit for this turn of events and chagrin that the LP was pipped at the post by the decision being taken prior to a parliamentary debate of an LP motion.
Could anything be more childish!
This was the salient point of your statement without the irrelevant part “The whole point was that Boards should be left to work independently, as long as, they do so”
This was your full statement "The whole point was that Boards should be left to work independently, as long as, they do so within the parameters set for them, and not be interfered by Governments."
My point, which was asserted by the Arcbishop, the Curia and the Times and denied by you, was and still is that the Foundation was not within the parameters set for them.
Where is the indecency in my excerpt? Did my quotation alter the gist of your complete statement? Is this how you defend a lost cause by citing irrelevance?
The logic you used below is as sound as the other 'Opinion' piece you write in today's paper!
Since when does an autonomous Foundation have 'shareholders'? So, if an application, coming from whatever source requires a fee, does one (a) not submit an application because of the fee? (b) Ask for permission (from who?) so that an application can be made? (c) If one of the requirements of such an application involves obtaining an EIA at a certain cost, should the entity retire the application because of the cost when, according to the Foundation itself it has E2 million at its disposition?
Please don't even try to assimilate your brand of reasoning with logic.
You would be the last person I would consult with in your consultancy circles (!), although I must admit, I recognize the 'circles' bit since you always seem to be enamoured with spinning in circular orbits.
If you had any decency, you would have quoted the whole quote not leaving the most important part out.
Here is my whole quote;
"The whole point was that Boards should be left to work independently, as long as, they do so within the parameters set for them, and not be interfered by Governments."
You're lost and confused my friend. The horse is led to the water. It is up to the animal to drink.
@ Far away Martinelli
Spin is derived from sPiN, I bet you knew that, already. But it is no wonder that gonzipn is so incompetent.
So, in your wisdom, you would advise a board to first apply for a project (the cost of which would be outside the remit of the board), unbeknown to the shareholders, risking that the latter be implicated in a PR mess (and eat humble pie the size of which is enormous) and also compelling them to spend E150,000 for an EIA, as well as application costs, architects fees and what have you, PRIOR to the same titleholders approve the said project. Then, in your grand way of doing things, you quickly quip ‘oops, sorry – hard luck, but I will not resign. Next time let the professionals decide’.
Thank God I never met you in my consultancy circles, Mr Martinelli. This is aside of the other poor logic you display in these blogs.
.
What evidence do you have supporting the decision to stop the project ? - None!
So, are we now to abort projects which the FAA and the LP do not agree with, even if for no other reason but to enforce an unscientific conclusion that they may be harmful to surrounding buildings?
Hypothetically, if the rebuilding of the old Opera House site requires excavation, do we worry and abort the project without an EIA, 'just in case St. James Cavalier caves in?
If that had to happen and a government project had to be abandoned, does that mean that the government has to resign, just like FAA are demanding the resignation of the St. John Foundation members?
It is evident that some people, self appointed experts, relish in the status quo and cannot stomach anything which impels the nation forward and which they cannot see the merits of. These same people would cry foul if one of their projects is turned down and would immediately accuse the ruling authority as being corrupt and biased!
With regards to the Foundation's parameters, your argument proves otherwise!
Continued
You quoted, "To me, Joe, (Vella) this means that the Foundation was not working within the parameters set for them,..."
This is the part which you and others do not seem to understand or rather do not want to. Any individual or organization has the right to apply for a permit to construct, alter or extend a building irrespective of where the funding is coming from. The Foundation did just that. It conceived the project, not without professional expertise, and submitted an application to MEPA.
Why is that beyond their competence? Now, since the Cathedral is in joint custody of Church and State, then AFTER the application was approved/disallowed (if such was allowed to happen), then both would have decided (or otherwise) to sanction the go-ahead.
To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Foundation's charter authorizing it to proceed independently of State and Church approval even if autonomous.
The Church and State intervention was not a matter of convenience but of concern, founded or not, and for the sake of quelling an outcry supported by many, most of whom do not even know what the project was about and much less competent to comment about it!.
Ironically this was your statement not Jo Said’s:-
“The whole point was that Boards should be left to work independently, as long as, they do so”
This is what the Curia had to say to The Times: -
‘When contacted, the Curia said Mgr Cremona had made his views known in a letter to Lawrence Gonzi. "The Archbishop expressed his position that it is not within the competence of the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation to carry out such a major project without having in advance the approval of the two bodies that constitute the foundation, namely the Archdiocese of Malta and the Republic of Malta," the Curia said.”
To me, Joe, this means that the Foundation was not working within the parameters set for them, and the Curia as well as the Governments had to stop them. Do you understand now?
Why, just why, do you keep fighting a lost battle? Ummi ma!
‘Saved by the bell’
Salient points of the story so far:-
The decision to stop the St.John’s Co Cathedral project was taken a few hours before parliament had to discuss the motion because Gonzi was afraid from taking a vote in parliament. The archbishop had spoken against the project weeks before Gonzi’s decision.
Gonzi’s decision was of convenience rather than a firm belief that the project should not take place. This was confirmed by Richard Cachia Caruana, who said that there was no other choice except to stop the project.
Moreover, during a Nationalist party meeting behind, closed doors, two persons said that EU funds could have been allocated for the project because some people knew the rules of the game well. We therefore expect these gentlemen to go public and the police ought to investigate.
The Prime Minister was responsible for giving the go ahead for the allocation of EU funds for the project since the decision had to be taken by the Planning and Priorities Coordination Division, the national managing authority within the Prime Minister’s office.
Away from rhetoric let’s see who has enough gum sheen to create a different image of “Quarrygate”so far.
To be continued.
Stop spinning and twisting the facts. Since you mentioned my name, I feel I have the right to answer your dribble.
The Foundation only had a proposal subject to the competence of an EIA and technical scrutiny prior to even obtaining permission to proceed.
Had they obtained permission from MEPA after the latter had been completely satisfied that there was no danger to St. John's, then Church and State would have supported the venture. Can one even imagine that had MEPA declined the permit, the Archbishop and the Prime Minister would have given the go ahead?
As I said before, I do not object to the demise of the project but rather the undemocratic way both the FAA and the Opposition acted, just for the sake of publicity.
Why did the other NGOs remain silent? Because they rightly felt that they had insufficient evidence to pronounce themselves nor the technical knowledge and therefore acted responsibly and with much prudence.
If only FAA and the LP could adopt the same responsible attitude!
I suppose the next chapters in this unfortunate saga would be concerning City Gate, the Opera House, Ghadira Road and Sikka l-Bajda?
I can't wait!
I think it is you that don't know if you are coming or going.
We were not talking about Agencies, companies, trusts, foundations, and associations. But I can understand once one loses an argument he/she tries to muddy the issue on hand.
We were not talking about Incorporated Boards. But Boards to serve at the pleasure of the Government of the day.
Some Boards are Quasi Judicial in nature and the Board's Members have to follow certain principles in law in carrying out of their duties.
Be my guest, and call whatever you want the document that set the duties of the Board's Members and the parameters for the Board Membersa to work within.
The whole point was that Boards should be left to work independently, as long as, they do so within the parameters set for them, and not be interfered by Governments.
Agencies, companies, trusts, foundations, associations, and the like, all have memoranda/articles/statutes (constitutions) which DICTATE the parameters of operations and also SET the behaviour of the directors nominated to represent the title holder. When a board acts outside the remit imposed on it, the directors are normally grilled and removed if needs be.
Now would the ilk of Mr Vella (Saliba Martinelli etc) admit that they goofed badly? Especially when faced with the statement that the Archbishop Paul Cremona had informed the Prime Minister "WEEKS AGO" that it was NOT WITHIN THE COMPETENCE of the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation to carry out a major project such as the proposed underground museum without prior approval from the Church and the State.
Not only did Wistin Gonzi not tell the truth in Parliament, but he deceitfully involved the Archbishop. The PM is the first to resign followed by the Foundation directors. (No silly answers MrVella)
I don’t mind if you revert with one of your typical evasive answers but I think that you would do well to read Kurt Sansone’s report in The Times (14 Feb) before jumping the gun. Here’s an excerpt: -
‘When contacted, the Curia said Mgr Cremona had made his views known in a letter to Lawrence Gonzi. "The Archbishop expressed his position that it is not within the competence of the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation to carry out such a major project without having in advance the approval of the two bodies that constitute the foundation, namely the Archdiocese of Malta and the Republic of Malta," the Curia said.”
Personal advise; before admonishing Jo Said and other people with phrases like “It is you that is time to stop and being silly” you’ll need to be fully prepared to face the counter reaction with rock solid persuading arguments not petty mindedness.
Take care of yourself.
Different people keep telling you the same thing but you are too stubborn to accept your mistakes and I wonder why. Admitting a mistake is a sign of intelligence and maturity.
Boards,Trusts,Foundations,Subsidiaries,Agencies,Councils and other entities are all given a ‘constitution’ to work with, that in itself is an imposition by the Principals, hence the term ‘Terms of Reference’, a guideline to refer to. In government, Agencies, Boards, and other subsidiaries, government interventions are not rare- they are called ‘ Government Directives ‘, all part of the checks and balance process and mechanism because in public administration nobody is the supreme boss not even your precious Gonzi who calls himself “The Boss”. The supreme boss is the voter.
The purposes of General Elections and of MEP elections are completely different and the results cannot be reasonably transposed, no matter how much you waffle irrelevantly about moral and legal rights to govern, to sleep with multiple partners, the personal popularity of the candidates and the mandates to govern the country. You are free to adopt hopefully the result of favourable minor elections as augurs for the results of a subsequent general election. That would only prove that you have not learnt anything from our recent past experience.
For the benefit of Joe Vella (Mellieha), ‘Directed’ means ‘giving an order’ and orders are given to underlings.
TheFAA called for the resignation of the members of St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation.
It said the project had been 'concealed' from the public for two years in what could be considered a serious breach of ethics in a project concerning a scheduled public monument.
Furthermore the foundation allowed this application to be processed and it obtained EU funding for the project in full knowledge that the government was carrying out re-paving of Merchants' Street , costing hundreds of thousands of euro of public funds, which works would have been destroyed by the St John’s project.
The foundation members pressed on with the project in spite of being aware of many expert reports highlighting the grave risks of the project, including the MEPA Directorate declaration that "The project is a non-starter due to the fact that no mitigation measures can guarantee that the Cathedral's foundations will not be affected".
FAA said it expected the government to request the resignation of its representatives on the foundation as this was a matter of mismanagement of Malta’s prime heritage asset and also of public funds.
"The public has the right to expect good governance from its public representatives, elected or not."
The point is that once Boards are constituted and given Terms of Reference to guide them they should be left alone to carry their Duties and and not be politically interfered by.
But I do get your point; Which is that it is OK to politically interfere with constituted bodies when it is conveniently for you to do so.
You accuse Gonzi with the same things that you practice and preach.
It is you that is time to stop and being silly.
For your peace of mind,
“Commissioned in 1572 by Grand Master Jean de la Cassière as the conventual church of the Order of the Knights of St John and designed by the celebrated Maltese military architect Gerolamo Cassar, St John’s Co-Cathedral stands as a unique monument of international importance”, was an excerpt from the St.John’s Co Cathedral Foundation’s home page which was referred to for ease of memory and for accuracy’s sake. That information is part of our documented history which the Foundation itself made reference to also without acknowledging the source. What do you find so incredible about it unless you’re trying to look smart?
Go on now; try to dispute the rest of my contribution if you can.
The MEPs election with a national vote, expresses the people's confidence in the political party not the candidates', it shouldn't be that way but that's how it is.Simon Busuttil was the most popular candidate within the PN list but his votes were all PN supporters.If he contests under a PL ticket he will not get more than a dozen votes from PN supporters.
If the PN loses in June they would still be legally correct to stay on in government and nobody is disputing that fact, the question is about public support and whether they would have a moral right to govern . A man has a legal right to sleep with six women - does that give him a moral right too ?
In 1981 Labour with fewer votes than the PN ,they were accused with gerrymandering but they still had a constitutional right to govern . Did you , at that time , consider that the PL had a moral right to govern?
You PN Local council garnered fewer votes than the PL candidates and Mellieha has a legally constituted PN council , but does that give them a moral mandate Dr.Saliba ?
The point is that the Foundation filed an application with MEPA some two years ago. The directors representing the government had the blessing of Wistin Gonzi and his Cabinet to do that. Had they acted arbitrarily, they should have been sacked.
As for political opportunism, it is Gonzi who used that tool - for over two years, in this case. Why did he and his hijacked party not mention the application before the general elections. Why did he and his blue gang not include it in their electoral programme?
So stop being silly ,Mr Vella.
@Martinelli
You too
That is incredible, absolutely incredible.
Prime Minister Gonzi had another option and it was the one that the MLP hopefuls hoped against hope that he would foolishly adopt. That option was that he would repeat the Sant unpardonable mistake of precipitating an unneccessary premature general election on a politically unimportant issue. No wonder that the eternal MLP hopefuls are chagrined that Gonzi did not swallow that hook but instead showed his political acumen of listening to the public opinion and, together with the Archbishop, agreeing to have the proposal dropped.
At one fell swoop Gonzi demolished the slur that he was an arrogant juggernaut uncaring of the public opinion and on the other hand that he was a manipulated puppet.
Ah! But Noah had God as the chief overseer of the project and it was Him who gave Noah the measurements and other details.
Unless of course, in your mind, God is an amateur!!
Or, maybe, you regard Joseph as the amateur, in which case, you are absolutely right!
@ Jo Said
Who is 'Wistin'? Can you answer a simple question?
Commissioned in 1572 by Grand Master Jean de la Cassière as the conventual church of the Order of the Knights of St John and designed by the celebrated Maltese military architect Gerolamo Cassar, St John’s Co-Cathedral stands as a unique monument of international importance.
And yesterday our Nationalist Prime Minister tried to convince us that Mgr Philip Calleja, Mgr. Lawrence Cachia, Mr Richard Cachia Caruana, Mr Paul A. Attard, Dr Philip Farrugia Randon and Mgr Lawrence Mifsud have the right to mess around with our heritage and our government can do nothing to stop them. Today, faced with humiliation in parliament he changed his tune. Incredible, absolutely incredible.
Never mind what was the real reason why Gonzi opted for a U-turn, what’s important is that our National Heritage was saved by the bell- the bell the speaker rings in parliament before a division.
A big thanks goes to all the PN MPs, led by JPO, that stood up to Gonzi, Astrid Vella,Lil Din l-Art Helwa, The PL Opposition and to all those who said No to Dr. Gonzi and RCC.
"None of the blue lackeys mentioned the fact that Wistin Gonzi's monitoring (?) of MEPA is in direct conflict with his application for the extension of the Cathedral Museum. How many other actions by the PM are in conflict with the MEPA part of his portfolio?"
I am glad that you brought the above subject up, perhaps that is the reason why Gonzi did not make any public statement on the issue until he was forced to do once the motion brought forward by the immature Joseph Muscat.
Gonzi, in his capacity, acted responsible on this issue and did not in any way prejudice the application brought forward by the Foundation of the Co Cathedral of St. John's.
Politicians should stay out of the due process always, and not only when it suits you Mr. Said./
Your hyprocasy shines threw.
Are you for real ? You had sent a cut and paste version of my contribution which I addressed @ The Boss’s seconds. What is your game because you got us all confused man?
The film 'Titanic" was not ' Something that is the product of imagination and has nothing to do with fact'.It was built professionals and sunk . Noah's Ark was built by an amateur and it survived the diluvium
This used-to-be man of honour, has completely shifted to the other side of the fence. Power and status have sent the man reeling in unethical behaviour. He is the one who should resign but like the greedy lot who feast on their prey, he won't.
Gonzi has transformed himself remarkably to the shady part of history. Pity, 'cause he himself deserved better. Numerous supporters who voted Gonzipn back to power are publicly airing their regret in backing such a devious lot.
In places called the eye-of-the-storm, they were celebrating Gonzi's defeat last Wednesday evening. Yes, they were happy that he was made to eat humble pie.
I can visualise the blue lackeys typing their foregone conclusion as to the colour of the storm. Nope, it is not a red one. It is BLUE. To be more accurate, it used to be blue... now it's turning turquoise.
Martinelli, Saliba, Vella and co remove your blinkers.
Yesterday the ' Boss ' had to lump a big piece of the humble pie which temporarily saved his government from meeting its eventual Waterloo.
The option to rope in the Archbishop was Gonzi's way to accentuate a false motion that the 'St . John's quarry' issue did not depend on government to reach a final decision.He wanted it to be seen as the Foundation listened to his appeal.
The plot looked slap dashed however under the extreme pressures and alleged threats by JPO , Mugliett , Ninu Zammit and possibly others, he was left with only two options. The second option would have resulted in an embarissing PN split in parliament . Damage minimisation although embarrissing ., was the lesser of two evils .
Due to today's inclement weather we now have to endure the expected naive spin doctoring of the active Gonzipn apologists. Attack is the best form of defense , wait for it ; it might even defeat the boredom of today's weather . The lesser of two evils .
@ Mellieha's Joe Vella
The point is that the Foundation filed an application with MEPA some two years ago. The directors representing the government had the blessing of Wistin Gonzi and his Cabinet to do that. Had they acted arbitrarily, they should have been sacked.
As for political opportunism, it is Gonzi who used that tool - for over two years, in this case. Why did he and his hijacked party not mention the application before the general elections. Why did he and his blue gang not include it in their electoral programme?
For Wistin Gonzi to cry 'wasn't me' last Wednesday, well, that is a perfect example of one speaking from both sides of one's mouth.
My answer to you once again is that any Government SHOULD NOT interfere with due process. But in this case, the Foundation is a government extension (apart from the Curia interest). Wistin Gonzi, I repeat, was the one who sanctioned the application in the first place.
Of course I opposed the application of the Cathedral Museum extension. And I did that from the outset. I accused the Prime Minister of many things. This is just one them. He is a double-face.
Nowhere did I say either that the St. John's Co Cathedral Foundation was an appointed body called for by the Constitution of Malta.
OK, lets get to the point.
There was an application to MEPA and for Political opportunism by Joseph Muscat and the PL the application was not allowed to go through the process. Part of that process was a an environment assessment study.
My question to you once again, Should the Government of the day interfere with due process?
Cause of you agree, as it seems that you are, since you came out and applauded the decision to sidetrack the application of the Cathedral Museum extension one can conclude that you speak from both sides of your mouth.
From one side of your mouth you are accusing the Prime Minister of to much interference and from the other side of not interfering depending on what suits you. On such issues one cannot pick or choose, one has to be consistent.
I personally would have preferred to have seen the application go to the process and then make a final decision on the matter. I think this is a political dangerous step and opens the door for greater interference from Government with appointed bodies.
The question is will you respond or the self appointed lawyer in the room will?
Who is ' Wistin' Gonzi ?
@ Joe Vella Mellieha
The St. John’s Co Cathedral Foundation is not a “Constitutional appointed body.” A Foundation is a nonprofit organization and may also and often have charitable purposes. This type of nonprofit organization may either donate funds and support to other organizations, or provide the sole source of funding for their own charitable activities. The Eden Foundation is one of them.
In real hard terms the St. John’s Cathedral is an agency to administer the property of the Co-Cathedral as a compromise between two bodies, Church and State, over its ownership dispute. Each person in the Foundation is accountable to one of the bodies in the same manner as a Board Director. This also means that the Foundation must act in accordance to the Church and the State’s directions and therefore does not qualify for NGO status either.
Yesterday’s good news came about after our PM and our Archbishop directed the Foundation, any other interpretation is nonsensical.
@ Joe Vella Mellieha
The St. John’s Co Cathedral Foundation is not a “Constitutional appointed body.” A Foundation is a nonprofit organization and may also and often have charitable purposes. This type of nonprofit organization may either donate funds and support to other organizations, or provide the sole source of funding for their own charitable activities. The Eden Foundation is one of them.
In real hard terms the St. John’s Cathedral is an agency to administer the property of the Co-Cathedral as a compromise between two bodies, Church and State, over its ownership dispute. Each person in the Foundation is accountable to one of the bodies in the same manner as a Board Director. This also means that the Foundation must act in accordance to the Church and the State’s directions and therefore does not qualify for NGO status either.
Yesterday’s good news came about after our PM and our Archbishop directed the Foundation, any other interpretation is nonsensical.
Perhaps Wistin Gonzi was addressing RCC for a change!
I won't answer 'cause you are missing the point. Wistin Gonzi is the one being paid by the citizen to govern, ie to manage. The opposition is paid to monitor the government's actions and oppose all of its illicit actions. If needs be, the opposition is duty bound to do all it can to halt any wrongdoing by the Government.
Please refrain from changing the subject every time your prima donnas are shown for what they are - a devious lot.
Governments of the day should not be interfere with constitutionally appointed bodies in carrying out their duties. They should only MONITOR their actions and ensure that any Authority carries out its remit according to the its brief set by the Constitution. If any Authority deviates from its set purpose, the Administration should change the directors it appointed thereon with the sole aim to correct any injustice. And this is why Gonzi cannot be trusted. He uses the appointees to his master's hidden agendas. He is just a face of a monster operating in stealth.
"...People don’t need to state the obvious normally..."
Dr. Gonzi must have been addressing LP supporters only. PN supporters already know who's boss.
You won't answer, cause you know exactly that is what happened.
I also would like to hear your thoughts about the Governments of the day if they should be interfering with constitutional appointed bodies in carrying out their duties?
I had posted a comment to “The Boss’s seconds” Would you, as one of the seconds, care to give us your reaction about it? About it, not about how long the PN had been in power or how stupid and cretins the Lejburisti are, leave that for next time.
Every single day we hear about hold ups and people beaten for some cash. What happened to Malta? We are not in the 80s as some people like to compare things with!! This is 2009! What is next I ask?
Your ''I would give the Prime Minister Political credit. I believe that he used the issue to his outmost advantage. It wasn't till after JPO, Ninu Zammit, and Mugliette, has (sic) spoken up against the proposed extension Joseph Muscat and the PL in haste jumped on the band wagon'' bit smacks of - how shall I put it? On second thoughts, I won't.
It just is not worth an answer.
@ the other GonziPN lackeys
Grow up, please.
Why all the fuss...imagine such a statement was uttered by Mugabe! Everyone would be crying out and denouncing the dictatorial attitude of the person. Well let me remind you that it is not much the messanger but the message
I would give the Prime Minister Political credit. I believe that he used the issue to his outmost advantage. It wasn't till after JPO, Ninu Zammit, and Mugliette, has spoken up against the proposed extension Joseph Muscat and the PL in haste jumped on the band wagon.
They quickly introduced a motion, and failed to give the necessary 6 days notice. The PM jumped on the opportunity and in the absence of pairing introduced the procedure motion. It was Joseph Muscat and the PL that didn't think their action through.
On the issue of the Cathedral Museum extension, I personally would have preferred to have seen the application go to the process and then make a final decision on the matter. I think this is a political dangerous step and opens the door for greater interference with Government appointed bodies.
I certainly hope that is not what you want to see happening?
“I'm the Boss, says the Prime Minister. Perfectly correct. YES, HE, Gonzipn, is the Boss.”
The Boss is the one who says ‘its quitting time’ In our present legislature all government PMs have got their individual power to say ’its quitting time’
"As Prime Minister and leader of the governing PN Dr Lawrence Gonzi was only stating the obvious when he stated that he is the boss. Why all the fuss?"
Dr. Saliba, you ask what all the fuss?
It is obvious, cause these poor soul's within the PL fold have nothing else to really complain about, not even when the world is going through a recession.
Answer. People don’t need to state the obvious normally, and in this case the ‘Boss’ has a hundred super bosses, one in Brussels and ninety nine in Pieta.
Gonzi is no leader, he is just a front, a yes-man, and therefore he is politically dangerous. The people do not elect a boss. They elect representatives. So, when an incompetent person becomes a leader (in Gonzi's case by sheer manipulation), he or she tend to turn nasty. That is the only way to prove one’s dominance.
Yesterday’s pie was too large for Wistin Gonzi to swallow. So he shared it with the archbishop in a most devious manner. He had no guts to debate the saga in parliament 'cause he was sure to have been defeated, otherwise.
As I told Astrid Vella last night in the strangers' gallery, when one is on the side of the truth, one prevails no matter the opposition. The ones who persist in finding excuses for the defeated are doing themselves an immense disservice.
Very well-argued, Alfred, the facts speak for themselves!
I bet we will have much more similar stories in the very near future! No matter how much you and your likes try to save a ‘sinking ship’ you will never succeed. It is sinking much faster then predicted.
A ‘castle built on sand’ can’t stand for long. Similarly, an Administration built on “LIES, EMPTY PROMISES and DECIET” is always very difficult to survive.
I always said that TRUTH WILL PREVAIL no matter what. Be assured it will.
Yesterday the ‘Boss’ had to lump a big piece of the humble pie which temporarily saved his government from meeting its eventual Waterloo.
The option to rope in the Archbishop was Gonzi’s way to accentuate a false notion that the ‘St.John’s guarry’ issue did not depend on government to reach a final decision. He wanted it to be seen as the Foundation listened to his appeal.
The plot looked slap dashed however under the extreme pressures and alleged threats by JPO, Mugliet, Ninu Zammit and possibly others, he was left with only two options. The second option would have resulted in an embarrassing PN split in parliament. Damage minimisation although embarrassing, was the lesser of two evils.
Due to today’s inclement weather we now have to endure the expected naive spin doctoring of the active Gonzipn apologists. Attack is the best form of defense, wait for it; it might even defeat the boredom of today’s weather. The lesser of two evils.
The decision followed a meeting during which the Archbishop expressed his concerns over the plans, the DOI said.
The two agreed that such a project should not divide the people.
The announcement was made just hours before Parliament was due to debate an Opposition motion urging the government to withdraw its support for the project.
The St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation in a four-line statement said that it agreed with the recommendation by the Prime Minister and the Archbishop that the project should be dropped”.
The PM and the Archbishop do not recommend to their representatives. They order.
The people are now entitled to know:
1. At what time was consensus reached by State and Church.
2. At what time did the Foundation meet?
3. At what time DOI Was directed to issue the Press release.
4. At what time was the press brief released.
“The bottom line is, like it or not, the Prime Minister is leader of the party, he appoints Ministers and the ultimate decision in nominating a President is his. In my books, that describes a 'boss' and as long as he is, then everyone else comes second,” Says his devout follower.
“The foundation has agreed to drop the project,” Mgr Philip Calleja who, like everybody else, comes second.
And who wants a strong Government anyway when ‘The second become first’
Next on the Agenda:
1. Utilities rates.
2. Opera House.
3. Cirkewwa Road.
Most films are produced following a script, usually fiction.
Fiction = "Something that is the product of imagination and has nothing to do with fact" - Webster's.
The LP has produced four such films and one short documentary called 'The 22 months'.
A beautiful girl falls in love with an American VVVVII pilot . She expects him to marry her , but instead he abandons her . Years later she marries another man and becomes a successful actress . That will soon become ' The Malta Story '
Your comments confirm that within the LP everyone is equal. We know different.
@ Muscat Peter
Why did you stop at # 10 ?
In the meantime, the PN formula works while the LP spent 22 months governing (sort of) and twenty years in opposition!
Does that not mean the problems within the LP are much much greater than the NP's? Just wait until June and you will, if history repeats itself, heal some wounds by winning some Local Council elections and maybe one more MEP than the NP. Enjoy!
Latest outburst by Dr L Gonzi confirms that :
1. The PN officially changed its name to GONZIPN!
2. It confirms too that his cry FL-IMKIEN KOLLOX POSSIBLI was most deceitful.
3. Dr L Gonzi is losing control where it matters most.
4. The wounds within GONZIPN can never be healed
5. Others are trying hard to captain his sinking ship.
6. His enemies ‘inside’ are deadlier then those ‘outside’.
7. He is fighting a battle he knows he can never win.
8. He is realising that he is on the edge of the cliff and has no way of escape.
9. His control is artificial and has no knowledge of what is going around him.
10. He cannot find the ‘life saving straw’.
Yes Mr Martinelli the above were well demonstrated in his latest outburst. You and your likes may translate his latest outburst to your own likings but the truth is in the above which you will die before accept.
The bottom line is that, like it or not, Gonzi is at the mercy of Austin Gatt, JPO, Dalli, Mugliet, Arrigo and some other MPs that are keeping quiet. If one of them sneezes he will get bronchitis.
It so happens we all have the right to criticize our PM!! That is a civil right that comes with the "Republic and Democracy" titles if you don't know.
The problem here is that our topmost servant, our Prim Minister, seriously believes, and openly states, "I am the PM and therefore I AM THE GOVERNMENT"!
Unfortunately, Mr Martinelli, "Men often become what they believe themselves to be." Mahatma Ghandi.
Dr. Gonzi, as a leader may find it worthwhile to consider that humility, or the quality of genuine modesty and unpretentiousness, is often disregarded when describing traits of good leaders because it seems to suggest a lack of toughness and resolve essential in an effective leader. However, the humble leader lacks arrogance, not aggressiveness. The will to serve others eclipses any drive to promote self.
If I get the drift he as much calls Dr. Gonzi arrogant because he made something clear (long well known to many) that he is boss! Not long ago many Labour apologists were having a bit of fun stating that the NP has two or three bosses. Now they can rest assured that the NP has only one boss as opposed to a triumvirate plus an ex, all stirring the LP's pot.
With regard to Dr. Abela's nomination, Alfred stated that, "Dr Joseph Muscat, agreed to in principle, but only signed up to after obtaining a virtually unanimous endorsement from Labour’s Parliamentary Group". How else could he have acted, when Dr. Abela would never have been nominated and Dr. Muscat never had a short list of even two candidates. He hadn't even got around to think about it and was caught flat footed!
The bottom line is, like it or not, the Prime Minister is leader of the party, he appoints Ministers and the ultimate decision in nominating a President is his.
In my books, that describes a 'boss' and as long as he is, then everyone else comes second.