Is-sovranità tagħna mhiex għall-bejgħ

Hawn sinjali u indikazzjonijiet konfliġġenti dwar x’inhu għaddej bejn Malta u l-Istati Uniti tal-Amerika fuq negozjati dwar kundizzjonijiet li jirregolaw il-presenza ta’ militari Amerikani fuq teritorju Malti. Dak li hu magħruf bħala  Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). Il-presenza f’Malta tas-Segretarju tad-Difiża Amerikan  Mark Esper iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa jindika mhux biss li t-taħdidiet huma għaddejjin, imma fuq kollox li huma fi stadju kritiku. Uffiċjalment ħadd ma jaf iktar minn hekk, ħlief dawk li għandhom idejhom fil-borma!

Billi hemm skiet kważi perfett – silenzju stampa – dwar il-materja, hu naturali li bħalissa għaddejja ħafna spekulazzjoni dwar dak li għaddej.

L-Istati Uniti ilha s-snin turi xewqa għal ftehim SOFA mal-Gvern Malti, imma kull Gvern repetutament qagħad lura. L-indikazzjonijiet illum huma  il-possibiltà ta’ insistenza Amerikana għal rabta  bejn ftehim u l-proċess tal- Moneyval dwar l-osservanza ta’ standards internazzjonali li jirregolaw il-ħasil tal-flus.

Kemm ir-rappreżentanti tal-Gvern Malti kif ukoll dawk tal-Gvern Amerikan jiċħdu li hemm din ir-rabta. Imma fin-nuqqas ta’ informazzjoni iktar konkreta nistgħu nkunu nafu biss matul il-ġimgħat u x-xhur li ġejjin. Jekk il-Gvernijiet humiex ser iħokku dahar xulxin ikun magħruf diplomatikament, kif jiġri ħafna drabi bejn l-istati  fil-maniġġi internazzjinali globali, kontinwament.

Fil-politika internazzjonali m’hemmx ħbieb, hemm biss interessi. Ir-relazzjonijiet diplomatiċi kontinwament ifittxu l-aħjar mod kif jaġevolaw dawn l-interessi. L-Istati Uniti tal-Amerika qed tfittex u tħares l-interessi tagħha meta tipprova issib mod kif tasal għal ftehim SOFA li jirregola l-presenza ta’ militari Amerikani fuq teritorju Malti. Din hi l-politika internazzjonali.  

Hu magħruf li Malta tablet l-assistenza tal-Istati Uniti biex tegħleb il-pressjoni internazzjonali dwar il-proċess tal-Moneyval li jirregola jekk il-pajjiż huwiex qiegħed miexi sewwa dwar il-ħasil tal-flus fuq territorju Malti.

Id-diċeriji jindikaw li l-Istati Uniti lesta tgħin, imma għal din l-għajnuna hemm prezz: il-ftehim li ilhom jixtiequ. Din hi opportunità li mhux la kemm terġa’ titfaċċa. Kif nafu: ħadd ma jagħmel xejn għal xejn.

Ftehim SOFA jistabilixxi l-qafas li fih il-militar Amerikan jopera f’pajjiżi barranin. Ftehim ta’ din ix-xorta jistabilixxi jekk u kif il-liġijiet ta’ Malta japplikawx għall-militar Amerikan u għall-ħidma tagħhom, inkluż kull apparat (inkluż il-flotta navali) li jistgħu jġibu magħhom. Ftehim ta’ din ix-xorta meta jkun negozjat – jista’ jwassal għal konċessjonijiet u eċċezzjonijiet b’mod li mhux il-liġi Maltija kollha tkun tapplika għall-mistednin tal-Gvern ta’ Robert Abela.

Dan kollu jwassal għal mistoqsija bażika: il-Gvern Malti qed jikkunsidra proposta tal-Istati Uniti li jkun hawn il-militar Amerikan jopera minn teritorju Malti?  Ma għandi l-ebda dubju li ftit huma l-Maltin li jaqblu ma proposta bħal din, jekk teżisti. 

Tul is-snin fil-pajjiż żviluppa kunsens nazzjonali li m’hawnx post għall-militar ta’ pajjiżi barranin fuq artna.  

Nistgħu allura naslu għall-konklużjoni li l-Gvern Malti qed ikun rikattat: Ftehim SOFA jekk trid l-għajnuna dwar il-proċess Moneyval? Sfortunatament ma tantx nistgħu naslu għal konklużjoni differenti.

Iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa, Alternattiva Demokratika u l-Partit Demokratiku (li fi żmien qasir ser jingħaqdu f’partit wieħed) għamlu sejħa biex l-abbozz ta’ ftehim mal-Amerikani jkun ippubblikat immedjatament. Dan hu meħtieġ biex ikun jista’ jsir skrutinju pubbliku: dan hu obbligu demokratiku bażiku.

Nazzarda ngħid li l-idea innifisha tal-ftehim hi oggezzjonabbli fil-prinċipju u dan billi tmur kontra l-prinċipji bażiċi fil-Kostituzzjoni Maltija:  mhux aċċettabbli li jkollna l-miltar ta’ pajjiż ieħor f’artna. Anke d-dettalji tal-ftehim huma inkwetanti: dawn jistgħu jinkludu l-presenza ta’ elementi tas-Sitt Flotta Amerikana bl-elementi nuklejari tagħha, li jkun opposti bil-qawwa mis-soċjetà ċivili.

Jekk Malta, kif inhu xieraq, tirrifjuta ftehim mal-Amerikani, jibqa’ l-pendenza tal-Moneyval  li tista’ twassal għal miżuri li jkollhom impatt negattiv fuq is-settur finanzjarju f’Malta. Robert Abela xorta jibqgħalu l-obbligu li jħoll l-egħeqiedi li rabtu bihom il-predeċessur tiegħu u ta’ madwaru u dan mingħajr għajnuna Amerikana.  

L-għajnuna Amerikana għandha prezz għoli li Malta m’għandhiex tħallas. Is-sovranità tagħna mhiex għall-bejgħ.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 4 t’Ottubru 2020

Our sovereignty is not for sale

Conflicting signals are flying around as to whether, if at all, there is any sign yet of Malta and the US being close to concluding an agreement on a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

The presence in Malta of US Defence Secretary Mark Esper is indicative that discussions are ongoing and moreover that they are at a very critical stage. Officially no one knows much more than that, except, that is, for those having a finger in the pie!

As a result of a news blackout on the matter, it is natural that a lot of ongoing speculation as to what is actually being discussed is developing.

A SOFA agreement with Malta has been on the US wish-list for ages: requests being repeatedly declined by successive Maltese governments. Indications point towards a linkage between the US insistence for a SOFA agreement and the developing Moneyval test on complying with money laundering standards. Both the US and the Maltese government representatives flatly deny such a linkage. In the absence of detailed information from both sides, whether such a linkage exists or not will only be clear as matters develop over the coming weeks and months. The possibility of a quid pro quo would only be evident on a diplomatic level, as happens continuously in the games states play globally.

In international politics, states do not have friends, they only have interests: diplomacy seeks to achieve and service these interests. In pursuing a SOFA agreement, the US is seeking its interests. This is the nature of international politics.

It is known that Malta has requested US assistance in the forthcoming Moneyval test. The rumour mill is of the opinion that such assistance will be forthcoming at a price: a SOFA agreement with Malta which has been yearned for by the US for a long time. It seems that this is an opportunity which is not to be missed by the US.

A SOFA is an agreement that generally establishes the framework under which U.S. military personnel operate in a foreign country and spells out how domestic laws of the foreign jurisdiction apply toward U.S. personnel in that country. Exceptions and concessions are normally sought and negotiated.

This begs a basic question: is the Maltese government considering a US proposal to have US military personnel operating on Maltese territory or in Maltese territorial waters? I would not hesitate to state that few Maltese would agree with such a proposal. It is reasonable to state that over the years a consensus has developed on these islands that there is no room for foreign troops on Maltese soil or in Maltese waters.

Should we then conclude that the Maltese government is being blackmailed: a SOFA in return for Moneyval support? Unfortunately, it is difficult to arrive at an alternative conclusion.

Earlier this week Alternattiva Demokratika and the Democratic Party (which will be shortly merging into one party) called for the draft of any Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the USA to be made public immediately. This is necessary for public scrutiny. It is a basic democratic duty.

I would dare say that the very idea of a SOFA agreement is objectionable in principle as it goes flatly against the principles enshrined in Malta’s Constitution: no foreign troops on Maltese soil (or in Maltese waters). The possible details of a SOFA agreement are just as worrying: these could include the presence of elements of a nuclear powered Sixth Fleet which will be opposed tooth and nail by civil society.

Rejecting a SOFA agreement would potentially leave the Moneyval grey-listing possibilities unresolved. But then Robert Abela must seek to disentangle Malta from the suffocating problems created by his predecessor and his kitchen Cabinet without seeking US help!

US help comes at a hefty price which Malta should not pay. Our sovereignty is not for sale.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 4 October 2020

Dynamics of the AD/PD merger: one step at a time

by Carmel Cacopardo & Timothy Alden

 

The merger between Alternattiva Demokratika (AD) and the Democratic Party (PD) is on. It has been developing gradually over the past weeks and, Covid-permitting, it will be formalised at the end of September. The discussions leading to the merger have been in hand for some time, inevitably slowing down as a result of Covid-19. They are now practically concluded.

The first practical step in the merger process was taken some months ago as a result of which AD and PD have made an effort to speak with one voice, whenever this was possible. Now that the discussions are practically concluded, a joint meeting of the Executive Committees of AD and PD was held yesterday Saturday 1 August.

Ironically both AD and PD have developed around former dissenting Labour Party Members of Parliament, at different times and in different circumstances. Yet they have, over the years, attracted support from both sides of the political divide. The ecology, good governance and the never-ending political struggle against corruption are core issues of both AD and PD.

Both AD and PD have, over the years, developed into separate and distinct parties: they will now merge into one, continuously cognisant of their roots. The merger will start as the summation of two distinct parties which will be slowly moulded into one.

We need a strong third voice in Parliament: the merger is a step in this direction. It is a step forward in reducing the existing fragmentation and as a result it will enable the better use of the available human resources.

AD and PD have developed on the basis of dissent: a determination to address important issues which others conveniently try to ignore. Over the years it has been AD and subsequently PD who have been at the forefront of the struggle for a better environment, good governance, transparency and accountability. Others have at times sought to parrot the political positions taken by AD and PD. Their political baggage, however, betrays their lack of political commitment: there is a stark contrast between their actions and their words.

The merger is not a time to sing our praises. It is rather a time to take stock of our strong points as well as our weaknesses. It is time to build bridges without in any way compromising our beliefs.

Encouraging the political debate is crucial to our political development. This is also in the country’s interest. Nurturing a constructive debate within our political parties is of fundamental importance. Silencing internal debate, as has been recently done by the PN relative to its youths, is a negation of the future. It is through analysis and debate that we identify our faults and the potential for improvement. It is thus suicidal to censor those who have the commitment and the courage to speak their minds. We mould the future by inspiring and encouraging active participation of all youths and not by subjecting them to disciplinary action when they dare speak up.

The road ahead is not a walk in the park. It is as tough as that covered by our predecessors. It is however as challenging as ever. The merger between AD and PD will build on the achievements to date to create a more efficient vehicle for the third voice of Maltese politics.

Our doors are open not just to those who are disillusioned by the prevailing duopoly. We can only be an instrument for improvement if we involve ourselves in moulding the future. This is our challenge.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 2 August 2020

L-MPs tal-PD bidlu l-ħsieb dwar il-mina

 

Nieħu pjaċir li llum il-ġurnata l-kelliema tal-Partit Demokratiku fetħu għajnejhom u qed jitkellmu kontra l-mina bejn Malta u Għawdex.

Naqbel perfettament li d-dibattitu parlamentari dwar il-mozzjoni li ressaq il-Gvern biex il-Parlament jesprimi ruħu fuq il-mina kien farsa. Imma ma naħsibx li kien għaqli li ż-żewġ membri parlamentari tal-PD ma ħadux sehem fid-dibattitu. Kellhom l-obbligu, fil-fehma tiegħi, li jippreżentaw il-kaz kontra l-mina u jivvutaw kontra.

Xejn xejn kien ikollhom l-opportunità biex jispjegaw kif u għaliex l-ewwel ġew eletti fuq il-programm elettorali tal-PN favur il-mina, u issa bidlu l-ħsieb.

IVF : Id-dibattitu qed jddiġenera

 

Hawn fuq qed nippubblika l-istrixxa ta’ fuq ta’ video share li għamel fuq facebook il-Partit Demokratiku dwar waħda mill-MPs tal-Partit Laburista. Qed nippubblika biss biċċa għax ma irridx inkun kompliċi fl-insulti. Ta’ l-inqas irrid inħalli l-isem/ritratt tal-MP insulentata barra.

Possibli li dawn m’għandhomx ideat aħjar dwar kif tkun il-politika l-ġdida?

Qaluli li issa dan il-video neħħewh imma mhux wara li komplew iniġġsu d-dibattitu.
Id-dibattitu hu minnu innifsu emottiv. Għandek liema veduta għandek. Imma possibli li m’aħniex kapaċi niddiskutu bil-kalma?

Dan il-pajjiż jixraqlu ħafna aħjar.

Godfrey, Marlene u l-kaċċa

Għamlu tajjeb Godfrey u Marlene li ressqu mozzjoni fil-Parlament kontra li jkunu estiżi l-ħinijiet tal-kaċċa fil-Park tal-Majjistral.

L-emenda mressqa mill-PN u li dwarha kien hemm qbil mill-Gvern Laburista hi logħba biex jakkwistaw ftit tal-ħin u jaħsbu ftit dwar x’ser jiġri minn issa l-quddiem.

Ovvjament, Marlene u Godfrey għad jridu jispjegaw kif daqqa favur il-kaċċa u xi minn daqqiet kontra l-kaċċa.

Probabbilment li jitkellmu skond min ikun hemm quddiemhom! Għax kunu afu li “Il-kaċċaturi għandhom lil Marlene Farrugia, it-tifla ta’ Joey tal-Blieq, nassab, tiddefendihom.”

Wara l-battibekk bejn Michael Briguglio u Marlene Farrugia

Il-battibekk bejn Michael Briguglio u Marlene Farrugia dwar il-byelection għas-siġġu Parlamentari ta’ Jean Pierre Debono jixħed dawl fuq il-forma (jew aħjar in-nuqqas ta’ forma) li għandha l-koalizzjoni imsejħa Forza Nazzjonali.

L-ideat tiegħi dwar din il-koalizzjoni dejjem kienu ċari. Koalizzjoni iva, imma mhux a kwalunkwe kost.

Sfortunatament il-koalizzjoni li iffurmaw bejniethom il-PN u l-PD hi sempliċiment alleanza aritmetika li ġiet iffurmata a bażi ta’ analiżi żbaljata tal-fehmiet tal-elettorat, għax kien hemm min ħaseb li kien viċin meta kien il-bogħod ħafna.

Hi koalizzjoni li saret bil-għaġġla u bla wisq ħsieb. Suppost kienet koalizzjoni favur il-governanza tajba u kontra l-korruzzjoni. Imma min mexa ħażin xorta kellu post prominenti fil-koalizzjoni. La ġie iċċensurat u wisq inqas kien hemm min ipprova jfisser x’tgħallem minn dawn l-iżbalji biex forsi tonqos il-possibilità li jkunu repetuti.

Id-deċiżjoni tal-Partit Demokratiku li jagħti direttiva lill-kandidati tiegħu biex jikkontestaw il-byelection għas-siġġu ta’ Jean Pierre Debono ma tistax tkun injorata għax hi rifless ta’ kif il-Partit Demokratiku jħares lejn il-koalizzjoni. Għax jekk l-imsieħba fil-koalizzjoni mhumiex kapaċi jaslu għal ftehim fuq xi ħaġa daqshekk sempliċi bħall-byelection, kif nistgħu nemmnu li jista’ jkun hemm qbil (fil-koalizzjoni) fuq issues ta’ politika ferm iktar ikkumplikati u li xi drabi jirrikjedu kompromessi mhux żgħar?

Il-pedamenti tal-koalizzjoni huma dgħajfa ħafna. Mhux kulħadd jaf x’inhu jagħmel.

James Debono u s-suf t’għajnejja

 

Mela James Debono permezz ta’ artiklu ippubblikat illum fuq il-Malta Today żdied mal-lista ta’ dawk li qed jippruvaw joħorġu xi messaġġ politiku mis-suf t’għajnejja. Bħal dawk li jaqraw ix-xorti mill-weraq tat-te!

L-artiklu, avolja f’diversi aspetti hu inkorrett ma jdejjaqnix. Imma tajjeb li nwieġeb ftit.

James jargumenta li jiena u Arnold Cassola m’aħniex kapaċi nagħmlu kompromessi politiċi għax ma ftehmniex mal-PN bħalma għamel sieħbu, li waqt l-aħħar kampanja elettorali ipprova jaqdi l-funzjoni ta’ poster boy tal-PN.

Il-verità hi li l-PN mhux kompromessi ried imma sottomissjoni. Blank cheque. Ried jagħmel li jrid imma fl-istess ħin ried jgħodd il-voti flimkien għax kien mingħalih illi kien viċin u ħaseb li l-aritmetika setgħet tagħmel differenza.

Wara li dam tlett xhur itella’ u jniżżel jekk jiddiskutix magħna l-PN iddeċieda li jiddiskuti magħna ftit siegħat wara li kien ftiehem ma Marlene Farrugia.

Fi ftit kliem il-PN ried biss jimponi: jew fuq il-lista tiegħu jew xejn.

Stajna kieku ridna lagħbna id-double game bħal Marlene: taparsi niftehmu u nagħmlu ta’ rasna. Imma minnflok għażilna triq ċara u dritta.

Sal-lum jiena għadni konvint li f’AD għamilna l-għażla tajba, li bħal dejjem hi l-għażla d-diffiċli.

Lumija magħsura

L-għasir tal-lumi hu sustanzjuż u jagħmel ħafna ġid għas-saħħa. Imma xi ngħidu għal lumija magħsura?

Iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa awgurajt lit-Tabib Anthony Buttigieg wara li hu ħabbar d-deċiżjoni tiegħu li fi ħsiebu jikkontesta għat-tmexxija tal-Partit Demokratiku. Possibilment huwa jimla l-vakanza li nħolqot minn Marlene Farrugia wara li din iddeċidiet li ddabbar rasha wara biss ftit xhur fil-kariga.

It-Tabib Buttigieg hu persuna b’moħħu f’postu. L-għada tal-elezzjoni ġenerali, meta kellu ma wiċċu dikjarazzjoni ta’ Marlene Farrugia li hi ma kienitx teskludi li tikkontesta għall-kariga ta’ Kap tal-PN, wara li kien irriżenja Simon Busuttil, hu irriżenja mill-kariga ta’ deputat mexxej tal-PD. Bħala riżultat ta’ hekk ħa posizzjoni ċara li kienet tikkuntrasta mal-impulsivitá ta’ Marlene Farrugia. Dakinnhar Buttigieg kien iddikjara li dak li qalet Farrugia kien kontra dak li jemmen hu, għax fil-fehma tiegħu l-Partit Demokratiku kellu jkun separat u distint mill-Partit Nazzjonalista.

Bħala riżultat ta’ din il-posizzjoni huwa għamilha ċara illi d-disponibilitá tiegħu li jieħu sehem f’koalizzjoni ma kellha l-ebda impatt fuq id-determinazzjoni tiegħu li jħares l-identitá tal-partit tiegħu. Li tkun allejat kritiku abbażi ta’ programm politiku miftiehem bl-ebda mod mhu komparabbli ma min żviluppa attitudni li jilgħaq kontinwament.

Mid-dehra Marlene Farrugia taħsibha mod ieħor għax diġa għamlitha ċara illi għadha tal-ħsieb li fi żmien ħames snin mill-ġdid tikkunsidra li tikkontesta għat-tmexxija tal-PN. Għax skontha, l-ebda wieħed mill-erba’ kandidati għal Kap tal-PN mhu kapaċi. Dan kollu sfortunatament jibgħat messaġġ wieħed u ċar: li l-mexxejja attwali tal-Partit Demokratiku tara l-futur tagħha u tal-partit tagħha bħala parti integrali mill-Partit Nazzjonalista. Għal Marlene Farrugia il-Partit Demokratku qiesu lumija magħsura li tarmiha wara li tkun użajta.

Bħala riżultat tal-mauvri tagħha bl-iskop li tkun eletta, irrispettivament mill-prezz politiku, Marlene Farrugia ikkaġunat ħafna ħsara li teħtieġ li tkun rimedjata mingħajr iktar dewmien.

Alternattiva Demokratika ma jkollha l-ebda diffikulta li tesplora kif tista’ tikkoopera mal-Partit Demokratiku immexxi minn Anthony Buttigieg, liema eżerċizzju (fil-passat) kien abbandunat minħabba li l-impulsivitá kienet l-għodda ewlenija tat-tmexxija tal-PD sa mit-twaqqif tiegħu. Buttigieg hu persuna konsistenti u l-imġieba tiegħu tidher li taqbel ma dak li jgħid.

Hemm ħafna ħidma li teħtieġ li issir u ftit wisq nies biex jagħmluha.

Fost il-kollegi enerġiċi ta’ Anthony Buttigieg hemm Timothy Alden li hu l-moħħ wara l-inizzjattiva kurrenti tal-Partit Demokratiku biex jiżdied il-ħarsien tal-widien u tal-ilma tal-pjan billi possibilment ikunu nklużi fil-qafas legali li ġie żviluppat għad-dimanju pubbliku fil-Kodiċi Ċivili. Alternattiva Demokratika tappoġġa din l-inizzjattiva.

Hi inizjattiva li timmerita appoġġ wiesa’ avolja forsi strateġikament kien ikun aħjar li l-ewwel tkun implimentata sewwa l-politika u r-regolamenti eżistenti li diġa joffru protezzjoni sostanzjali kemm għall-widien kif ukoll għall-ilma tal-pjan.

Il-futur tal-partiti ż-żgħar hu dipendenti fuq il-kooperazzjoni u fuq kemm aħna kapaċi li ma nisparpaljawx r-riżorsi limitati li hawn. Dan ikun ferm aħjar mill-impulsivitá u n-narċissiżmu li għamel ħsara sostanzjali.

Il-lumi magħsur għandu użu. Imma m’għandux ħajja twila.

ipubblikat f’Illum : 20 t’Awwissu 2017

A gambit declined

 

The setting up of a pre-electoral alliance is a complex exercise. Alternattiva Demokratika recognised the strategic importance of forming pre-electoral alliances a long time ago – in fact, prior to the 2008 general election, it had (unsuccessfully) taken up such an initiative itself.

The actual result of the 2008 general election was so close that any pre-election alliance would have had a substantial impact on the final result. This was very clear in the polls commissioned and published in the run-up to that general election.  The difference in votes on a national level between the PN and the PL in the March 2008 general election was a mere 1580, with AD receiving 3810 votes first count votes.

When examining the possibility of forging a pre-election alliance there is generally a choice between two approaches to take: either a principle-based approach or a pragmatic one.

The principle-based approach for a pre-election alliance seeks a long-term view based on building bridges that can possibly withstand the test of time. A pre-election alliance based on principles is based on an agreed shared vision. Even if it is not all-encompassing, this can be easier for voters to identify with as it entails a positive proposal: the shared vision.

On the other hand, the pragmatic approach is one aimed solely at the desired result. It is arithmetically driven. It can signify the lumping together under one umbrella of all sorts of views with (possibly) a minimum common denominator.

The National Front pre-electoral alliance set up by Simon Busuttil and Marlene Farrugia  was, in my opinion, one of the latter. Not only did it include the Nationalist Party and the Democratic Party but also the fringe elements of the PN itself, which had previously been weeded out over the years as undesirables.

The National Front was a pragmatic exercise to the extent that an analysis of the actual votes cast clearly shows that the PD link with the PN resulted in no votes being added to the PN by the PD.  Some may argue, for example,  that votes cast for PD candidates in the fifth district (Marlene Farrugia’s home district),  helped the PN turning the tides on Labour by recapturing Labour’s fourth seat. This is not so, as the gain of an additional seat by the PN on the fifth district was exclusively due to boundary changes: the village of Marsaxlokk having been moved to the third district and it being substituted by the hamlet of Ħal-Farruġ from the sixth district.

The PN/PD alliance failed in its major arithmetic objective as it is clear that it failed to attract a significant number of disgruntled voters. Actually, it rather repelled them with its continuous negative messages and sent most of them back to Labour. Unfortunately, this failed attempt will dissuade any other attempt at alliance-building in the immediate future, as no political party enjoys being taken for a ride, as was Simon Busuttil’s party.

Declining the invitation to join  the National Front as an appendix to the PN  was the correct response from Alternattiva Demokratika. It was an exercise in foresight that has been proved right. Listening to “independent” journalists and self-centred intellectuals advocating the Busuttil/Farrugia National Front was a very sad experience, as these were the same people who should have taken the PN itself to task for its internal contradictions on issues of good governance. By endorsing the PN-led National Front, unfortunately, they ended up endorsing the PN’s misdemeanours when they should have been at the forefront of those insisting that the PN clean up its act before claiming any right to wear the suit of shining armour.

In another context, it was former PN Finance Minister Tonio Fenech who made the most appropriate statement earlier this week in the Malta Independent. Answering his own rhetorical question as to what the Nationalist Party stands for, Tonio Fenech replied: “The only true answer I can give is, I don’t know”.

And so say all of us.

published in the Malta Independent on Sunday – 18 June 2017