L-ambjent ta’ madwarna qiegħed jinbidel: it-temp qiesu xi kultant ‘jiġġennen’.
Illum il-ġurnata il-bidla fil-klima jew kif nafuha ahjar ‘climate change’ saret frażi familjari ma’ kulhadd. Il-gassijiet u dħaħen li t-teknoloġiji tradizjonali jitfgħu fl-arja tagħna jaf dwarhom kulhadd u nafu fejn ser iwassluna.
Malta, bħala pajjiż żgħir, jipproduċi biss persentaġġ żgħir ħafna minn dawn l-gassijiet, imma xorta nhossu l-effet tad-dħaħen li jipproduċi ħaddieħor.
Fuq livell personali kulħadd għandu jagħti sehemu fil-ġlieda kontra l-bidla fil-klima. Min-naħa tagħna individwalment ukoll nistaw naghtu kontribut, affarijiet żgħar: bħal nitfu bozza meta ma hemmx bżonnha, jew ma naħlux ilma u nużaw bozoz li jaħlu inqas.
Apparti dawn il-passi żgħar, li kulħadd jista jieħu, għandna bżonn nieħdu ukoll passi akbar bhala pajjiz.
Il-gvern diġa beda jaħseb f’dan r-rigward u grazzi għal-Ministeru għar-Riżorsi u Affirijiet Rurali u l-Uffiċju tal-Prim Ministru diġa ġie ffurmat progett interministerjali biex jaħdem fuq din it-tema. B’mod kawt u kuxxjenzjuz qegħdin niksbu riżultati tajbin anke fuq livell internazzjonali.
Ma’ dan ma nistawx ninsew proposti dwar produzzjoni ta’ enerġija alternattiva bħal dak ta’ l-imtieħen proposti fuq is-Sikka l-Bajda. B’dawn il-Gvern qiegħed jagħti sinjal ċar li l- bidla fil-klima qegħda fuq quddiem fl-aġenda ta’ pajjizna u li qieghed jsir kulma jista’ jsir biex Malta tilħaq livell sodisfaċenti fi zmien qasir.
Hemm bżonn li Malta tkun magħquda f’vuċi waħda ma’ ‘kor’ ta’ pajjiżi ikbar biex b’hekk leħinha jinstema’ wkoll fil-kamp internazzjonali. L-Unjoni Ewropeja qegħda toffrilna din l-opportunita’ fejn Malta qegħda membru fl-iktar blokk li jinsab fuq quddiem fil-ġlieda ghal ambjent aħjar.
Il-pajjiżi tal-unjoni f’Diċembru 2008 ftehmu fuq pakkett ta’ proposti biex isaħħu l-proċess li bih ser jitnaqqsu mill-arja dawn il-gassijiet li qegħdin jheddu l-ħajja tal-ġenerazjonijiet ta’ warajna. F’dan il-pakkett ġie propost u maqbul unanimament mill-pajjiżi tal-Unjoni Ewropeja, li sal-2020 dawn il-gassijiet iridu jitnaqqsu b’għoxrin fil-mija fuq il-livell li kien ikalkulat ghal-1990.
B’hekk l-UE qegħeda tiftaħ t-triq biex l-ulied tal-Ewropa stess, fosthom uliedna l-Maltin, jkunu jistagħu jikbru b’moħħhom mistrieh li ta’ qabilhom ħasbu fl-ambjent li huma ħa jqattgħu l-aqwa ta’ hajjithom fih.
Biex tagħmel dan l-UE qed toħloq fond apposta biex pajjiżi bħal Malta jkunu jistaw jibbenefikaw u jmexxu l-quddiem proġetti li jzidu l-effiċjenza, inaqqsu d-dipendenza fuq iż-żejt u jħajru aktar proġetti ta’ enerġija alternattiva bħal mir-riħ jew x-xemx.
Ir-rappreżentanti ta’ Malta fil-Parlament Ewropew għandhom jkunu dik il-vuċi soda ta’ dan il-pajjiż fi ħdan l-familja Ewropeja, biex inkunu nistaw naraw pajjiżna dejjem mixi l-quddiem, minkejja d-diffikultajiet kollha u ċ-ċirkostanzi partikolari tiegħu.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Respect for the environment, respect for myself
From the Independent on Sunday 19th April 2009
by Edward Demicoli
Respecting the environment is a matter of self-respect. Our size and lack of resources and, frankly, lack of commitment in the 1970 and 1980s has led to the environmental scene in Malta becoming one that threatens our very well-being.
Since the mid-1990s, consciousness has developed and in the current era organisations such as the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) and the various interested NGOs have continued to play their part.We all know however, that we still have quite a way to go.Space management has always been an extra challenging task for islands the size of Sicily let alone for virtual micro-states like Malta. It is a matter of history that it has always been the PN in government that sought to regularise development: the excesses of the 1970s and 1980s when anyone could build anything practically anywhere, which was not that long ago, should never be forgotten.
The creation of the Planning Authority, now Mepa, an organisation that is not universally loved, is evidence, if evidence is needed, of a commitment to at least try to impose a structure and procedure in the planning context.Mepa is in the process of restructuring itself under the direct guidance of the Prime Minister. With certain sections of our media being what they are, and certain vested interests having the influence they have, I am under no illusion that criticism of Mepa will continue and the way it will be changed. Nonetheless, those of us who are not blinded by self-interest but are guided by self-respect will willingly give it a chance.
Waste management, a different but closely related subject, was non-existent up to a few years ago. Anything was dumped in the available sites (even in valleys and by the road side!) with no consideration for toxic gases resulting from mixture of waste, damage to water table, and so on.
Now, however, we can finally speak and not just dream about a zero waste society and a waste management strategy that tackles the vast bulk of waste locally without distress to residents. The days of mattresses and fridges by the roadside should be a thing of the past because the amenities are there. What’s next is all of us being responsible enough to use them.
We now have to consolidate and seek avenues for further developing the waste management situation to be able to tackle also those categories of waste that still need to be exported and/or very expensive processing.Ways have to be found to lessen the strain placed on the shoulders of consumers, although these, at the end of the day, are also producers of waste.
Measures taken are rarely popular when they are introduced and, combined with the natural aversion to change many people have, there will always be those who grumble about further burdens and costs. Nevertheless, it is the government that introduced these changes that was re-elected, evidence that people accept that our living space and our environment is our collective responsibility.
In a wider context, we are currently seeing a public consultation on a document that will give Malta safe foundations for climate change control initiatives. We are aiming to reach targets without increasing burdens or pandering to populist notions of how things should be done but which ignore realities or practicalities.
All in all, I think I’m allowed to dream that my children are going to live in a cleaner and brighter world than the one in which I grew up.
I also believe that I can help make that dream become a reality if I have your trust in the European Parliament elections come June.
by Edward Demicoli
Respecting the environment is a matter of self-respect. Our size and lack of resources and, frankly, lack of commitment in the 1970 and 1980s has led to the environmental scene in Malta becoming one that threatens our very well-being.
Since the mid-1990s, consciousness has developed and in the current era organisations such as the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) and the various interested NGOs have continued to play their part.We all know however, that we still have quite a way to go.Space management has always been an extra challenging task for islands the size of Sicily let alone for virtual micro-states like Malta. It is a matter of history that it has always been the PN in government that sought to regularise development: the excesses of the 1970s and 1980s when anyone could build anything practically anywhere, which was not that long ago, should never be forgotten.
The creation of the Planning Authority, now Mepa, an organisation that is not universally loved, is evidence, if evidence is needed, of a commitment to at least try to impose a structure and procedure in the planning context.Mepa is in the process of restructuring itself under the direct guidance of the Prime Minister. With certain sections of our media being what they are, and certain vested interests having the influence they have, I am under no illusion that criticism of Mepa will continue and the way it will be changed. Nonetheless, those of us who are not blinded by self-interest but are guided by self-respect will willingly give it a chance.
Waste management, a different but closely related subject, was non-existent up to a few years ago. Anything was dumped in the available sites (even in valleys and by the road side!) with no consideration for toxic gases resulting from mixture of waste, damage to water table, and so on.
Now, however, we can finally speak and not just dream about a zero waste society and a waste management strategy that tackles the vast bulk of waste locally without distress to residents. The days of mattresses and fridges by the roadside should be a thing of the past because the amenities are there. What’s next is all of us being responsible enough to use them.
We now have to consolidate and seek avenues for further developing the waste management situation to be able to tackle also those categories of waste that still need to be exported and/or very expensive processing.Ways have to be found to lessen the strain placed on the shoulders of consumers, although these, at the end of the day, are also producers of waste.
Measures taken are rarely popular when they are introduced and, combined with the natural aversion to change many people have, there will always be those who grumble about further burdens and costs. Nevertheless, it is the government that introduced these changes that was re-elected, evidence that people accept that our living space and our environment is our collective responsibility.
In a wider context, we are currently seeing a public consultation on a document that will give Malta safe foundations for climate change control initiatives. We are aiming to reach targets without increasing burdens or pandering to populist notions of how things should be done but which ignore realities or practicalities.
All in all, I think I’m allowed to dream that my children are going to live in a cleaner and brighter world than the one in which I grew up.
I also believe that I can help make that dream become a reality if I have your trust in the European Parliament elections come June.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Changing the face of local politics
By Edward Demicoli
The decision by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi to nominate George Abela as the next President is one that will leave an indelible mark on the political landscape of this country. It is a bold, unprecedented decision that shows that Lawrence Gonzi belongs to that rare breed of politicians that are capable of putting the national interest before the interest of their own party.
Let’s face it, the boldness of the decision is also reflected in the fact that the majority of the people were genuinely surprised by the news. For most, it was a pleasant surprise. I can also understand that for some people, including people that belong to the Nationalist Party, it is not easy to stomach the fact that a Nationalist Prime Minister has taken the initiative to nominate as President, a significant political figure, someone from the opposite camp. Not any someone, but someone who was the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, a long serving lawyer to the General Workers Union, a consultant to the then Prime Minister Alfred Sant and a person who a few months ago contested the leadership of the Labour Party. In a truly objective leadership contest, George Abela could arguably have been Lawrence Gonzi’s main political opponent today.
There is another equally important side to the Prime Minister’s nomination of George Abela as the next President and that is the fact that Dr Gonzi involved the Leader of the Opposition in the process. Dr Gonzi did not need to do this, he could have nominated anyone without seeking the consensus of Joseph Muscat.
I genuinely believe that George Abela has the right credentials to be an excellent President. He is charismatic, intelligent, astute, experienced and liked. He is a person that can further build on the courageous decision taken by Dr Gonzi to put the national interest first and contribute to a better political climate in the country.
The boldness and vision of Prime Minister Gonzi has been tried and tested. But one cannot reach the same conclusion on Joseph Muscat. It is not a bold move for a Labour leader to accept a proposal by a Nationalist Prime Minister to nominate a former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party for the Presidency. Joseph Muscat’s boldness and vision will be tested if, in the weeks, months and years to come, he will be able to treat national issues in an objective way and stop the tactic, typical of Labour Party leaders, to try and score political goals on national issues and in sensitive cases where Labour shouldn’t be playing games, let alone scoring goals. Joseph Muscat has still to pass this test.
Edward Demicoli is a Nationalist Party candidate for the European Parliament Elections.
The decision by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi to nominate George Abela as the next President is one that will leave an indelible mark on the political landscape of this country. It is a bold, unprecedented decision that shows that Lawrence Gonzi belongs to that rare breed of politicians that are capable of putting the national interest before the interest of their own party.
Let’s face it, the boldness of the decision is also reflected in the fact that the majority of the people were genuinely surprised by the news. For most, it was a pleasant surprise. I can also understand that for some people, including people that belong to the Nationalist Party, it is not easy to stomach the fact that a Nationalist Prime Minister has taken the initiative to nominate as President, a significant political figure, someone from the opposite camp. Not any someone, but someone who was the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, a long serving lawyer to the General Workers Union, a consultant to the then Prime Minister Alfred Sant and a person who a few months ago contested the leadership of the Labour Party. In a truly objective leadership contest, George Abela could arguably have been Lawrence Gonzi’s main political opponent today.
There is another equally important side to the Prime Minister’s nomination of George Abela as the next President and that is the fact that Dr Gonzi involved the Leader of the Opposition in the process. Dr Gonzi did not need to do this, he could have nominated anyone without seeking the consensus of Joseph Muscat.
I genuinely believe that George Abela has the right credentials to be an excellent President. He is charismatic, intelligent, astute, experienced and liked. He is a person that can further build on the courageous decision taken by Dr Gonzi to put the national interest first and contribute to a better political climate in the country.
The boldness and vision of Prime Minister Gonzi has been tried and tested. But one cannot reach the same conclusion on Joseph Muscat. It is not a bold move for a Labour leader to accept a proposal by a Nationalist Prime Minister to nominate a former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party for the Presidency. Joseph Muscat’s boldness and vision will be tested if, in the weeks, months and years to come, he will be able to treat national issues in an objective way and stop the tactic, typical of Labour Party leaders, to try and score political goals on national issues and in sensitive cases where Labour shouldn’t be playing games, let alone scoring goals. Joseph Muscat has still to pass this test.
Edward Demicoli is a Nationalist Party candidate for the European Parliament Elections.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Labouring to deceive
Times of Malta
Saturday, 21st March 2009
Edward Demicoli
After five years of consistent hard work by Maltese diplomats in Brussels, the European Commission has agreed to allow Malta to permanently keep a derogation allowing our country not to charge VAT on food and medicines. This was no easy task.
During our negotiations for entry into the European Union, Malta had worked hard to try and get a derogation from this rule and, at the time, managed to obtain a temporary reprieve until 2010.
When compared to Cyprus's attempt to negotiate the same derogation, this was considered a victory, especially since Cyprus had to accept a shorter period of adjustment and today has introduced VAT on food and medicines. Malta did not.
This little island of 400,000 inhabitants, the smallest in the EU, said no. We continued arguing our case post-membership, we took a stand, we made our point, we showed Europe that we import all our food and medicine, that we have increased costs, that economies of scale work against us. We were relentless in pursuit of our right and we could do this because we believe that we can make a difference.
The Labour Party (PL) does not believe this. It is as simple as that. The PL never believed in Europe and never believed that we can make a success of Europe. Even though today they talk the talk on Europe, they cannot walk the walk because they do not know how.
It is ironic that, while the government was relentlessly pursuing Malta's interest, the PL leader was trying to make us believe that Malta was paying more to Europe, that we are contributing to Europe and not benefiting. In a nutshell, what Joseph Muscat is saying, with just a minimal effort of reading between the lines, is that Europe was a bad idea and that himself, Alfred Sant and Sharon Ellul Bonici were right. We should not have joined as we are contributing more. Dr Muscat is trying to say: "I told you so!"
The truth though is different. Labour is once more labouring to deceive on Europe as it did in the years prior to the referendum.
I remember those years well. It was my task to inform the public on Europe. On the issue of VAT on food and medicines, we had told the public that the government was negotiating on this issue. The PL was scaring everyone into believing that the prices of food and medicines are going to explode because of VAT, that the Sicilians will take our jobs, that we will not have an EU Commissioner, that we will lose our overtime, that the Maltese will never be an official EU language that... the list goes on.
The truth is simple. Dr Muscat was and still is wrong. He was wrong six years ago and he was wrong the other day. He was also wrong 18 months ago when he said that we should wait before joining the euro. His party was wrong when it said we should devalue the lira before joining the eurozone. Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Everyone can see that today because the facts have shown that the PL was, and please allow me to repeat myself once again, wrong.
The sad thing is that Dr Muscat does not accept these facts. Instead of admitting that his calculations on the funds Malta received were off the mark by some €200 million, he had Charles Mangion write an article trying to patch things up and not succeeding at all, one might add. Instead of telling everyone that, had we listened to his advice on Europe and on the euro, we would be so much worse off, all Dr Muscat has to say is that we are now members of the EU and there is nothing more to say. Matter closed, says he.
Well, I beg to differ. On all the important decisions this country had to make, the PL was wrong. It can admit it was wrong and start afresh, a real new beginning. It has to tell us so that next time an important decision is to be taken we can look at the PL's track record and compare it to that of the Nationalist Party.
And therein lies the difference between the two parties. Whenever our Prime Minister was convinced that an alternative course of action was more viable he changed course.
It is the mark of a true leader to recognise one's mistakes and to have the maturity to change tack. In persisting in the error of his and his predecessor's ways, Dr Muscat is showing us he has a long way to go to be considered in the same league.
Mr Demicoli is a Nationalist Party candidate for the European Parliament elections.
Saturday, 21st March 2009
Edward Demicoli
After five years of consistent hard work by Maltese diplomats in Brussels, the European Commission has agreed to allow Malta to permanently keep a derogation allowing our country not to charge VAT on food and medicines. This was no easy task.
During our negotiations for entry into the European Union, Malta had worked hard to try and get a derogation from this rule and, at the time, managed to obtain a temporary reprieve until 2010.
When compared to Cyprus's attempt to negotiate the same derogation, this was considered a victory, especially since Cyprus had to accept a shorter period of adjustment and today has introduced VAT on food and medicines. Malta did not.
This little island of 400,000 inhabitants, the smallest in the EU, said no. We continued arguing our case post-membership, we took a stand, we made our point, we showed Europe that we import all our food and medicine, that we have increased costs, that economies of scale work against us. We were relentless in pursuit of our right and we could do this because we believe that we can make a difference.
The Labour Party (PL) does not believe this. It is as simple as that. The PL never believed in Europe and never believed that we can make a success of Europe. Even though today they talk the talk on Europe, they cannot walk the walk because they do not know how.
It is ironic that, while the government was relentlessly pursuing Malta's interest, the PL leader was trying to make us believe that Malta was paying more to Europe, that we are contributing to Europe and not benefiting. In a nutshell, what Joseph Muscat is saying, with just a minimal effort of reading between the lines, is that Europe was a bad idea and that himself, Alfred Sant and Sharon Ellul Bonici were right. We should not have joined as we are contributing more. Dr Muscat is trying to say: "I told you so!"
The truth though is different. Labour is once more labouring to deceive on Europe as it did in the years prior to the referendum.
I remember those years well. It was my task to inform the public on Europe. On the issue of VAT on food and medicines, we had told the public that the government was negotiating on this issue. The PL was scaring everyone into believing that the prices of food and medicines are going to explode because of VAT, that the Sicilians will take our jobs, that we will not have an EU Commissioner, that we will lose our overtime, that the Maltese will never be an official EU language that... the list goes on.
The truth is simple. Dr Muscat was and still is wrong. He was wrong six years ago and he was wrong the other day. He was also wrong 18 months ago when he said that we should wait before joining the euro. His party was wrong when it said we should devalue the lira before joining the eurozone. Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Everyone can see that today because the facts have shown that the PL was, and please allow me to repeat myself once again, wrong.
The sad thing is that Dr Muscat does not accept these facts. Instead of admitting that his calculations on the funds Malta received were off the mark by some €200 million, he had Charles Mangion write an article trying to patch things up and not succeeding at all, one might add. Instead of telling everyone that, had we listened to his advice on Europe and on the euro, we would be so much worse off, all Dr Muscat has to say is that we are now members of the EU and there is nothing more to say. Matter closed, says he.
Well, I beg to differ. On all the important decisions this country had to make, the PL was wrong. It can admit it was wrong and start afresh, a real new beginning. It has to tell us so that next time an important decision is to be taken we can look at the PL's track record and compare it to that of the Nationalist Party.
And therein lies the difference between the two parties. Whenever our Prime Minister was convinced that an alternative course of action was more viable he changed course.
It is the mark of a true leader to recognise one's mistakes and to have the maturity to change tack. In persisting in the error of his and his predecessor's ways, Dr Muscat is showing us he has a long way to go to be considered in the same league.
Mr Demicoli is a Nationalist Party candidate for the European Parliament elections.
Il-ħarsien tal-annimali
Kif il-bniedem iġib ruħu ma' kelb jew qattus hija riflessjoni tas-soċjetà li ngħixu fiha. Kif persuna tħares lejn annimal, kif persuna tittratta annimal, huwa mera ċara tar-ruħ ta' dak il-persuna.
Din il-ġimgħa għadna kemm rajna episodju ieħor li spiċċa fil-media tagħna, episodju li juri biċ-ċar il-mod li ċerti persuni jħossuhom komdi jittrattaw klieb b’mod tal-mistħija. Jien dan l-aġir iqabbadni rabja kbira. Ma nistax nifhem kif hawn nies kapaċi jagħmlu hekk lil annimal daqshekk fidil u leali bħall-kelb. Però sfortunatament dawn in-nies jeżistu.La jeżistu rridu naraw li s-sistema legali tagħna tkun waħda li verament tikkastiga lil dawn in-nies u li verament isservi ta’ deterrent ħalli dawn l-affarijiet ma jsirux aktar. Il-politiċi, il-pulizija u l-qrati għandhom ilkoll ikunu katina waħda sabiex verament nipproteġu annimali li jisfaw vittmi ta' nies bla kuxjenza.
L-Ewropa wkoll għanda x’titgħallem f’dan il-qasam. L-Unjoni Ewropea għandha liġijiet li jipproteġu lill-annimali, imma dawn ġeneralment huma indirizzati lejn annimali tal-irziezet jew annimali li huma wirt komuni Ewropew bħall-għasafar tal-passa. F’dawn l-aħħar għaxar snin kemm ili involut fil-qasam Ewropew kienu ħafna li staqsewni, u bir-raġun, għaliex l-Unjoni Ewropea ma titkellimx fuq il-mod krudili li jinqatel it-toru fi Spanja? Għaliex qatt ma tkellmet fuq il-mod li jitqatta' biċċiet il-volpi meta jkun ikkaċċjat bil-klieb fil-kampanja Ingliża? Ir-raġuni għal dan hija li kull pajjiż għandu l-liġijiet tiegħu però naħseb li wasal iż-żmien li nibdew naħsbu ftit f’qafas ta' liġijiet komuni.Fil-Parlament Ewropew jeżisti digà grupp ta' membri parlamentari minn partiti politiċi differenti li qegħdin jaħdmu għal dan il-għan. Il-European Parliament Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals ilu mwaqqaf sa mill-1983. Minħabba n-numru limitat tad-Deputati Maltin fil-Parlament Ewropew, sal-aħħar laqgħa f’Novembru tas-sena l-oħra, ma kien attenda l-ebda Malti f’dan il-grupp. Jien tkun prijorità għalija li nagħti kontribut f’dan il-grupp għax sinċerament nemmen li l-issue tad-drittijiet tal-annimali għandha tingħata ferm aktar importanza.
F’dan il-qasam għad hemm ħafna x’irid isir. L-ewrogrupp għall-annimali huwa l-vuċi għall-għaqdiet li jaħdmu fil-qasam tad-drittijiet tal-annimali. Fil-proposti tagħhom għall-partiti li qegħdin jikkontestaw għall-Parlament Ewropew, dawn qegħdin jagħmlu ħames proposti. Li l-annimali fl-irziezet ikunu miżmuma aħjar, li jonqsu l-esperimenti fuq l-annimali, li tiżdied il-protezzjoni tal-annimali domestiċi u l-pets, li jiġu kkonservati u rrispettati l-fawna u l-flora u li jiġu infurzati l-liġijiet li jeżistu. Dawn il-ħames proposti huma lkoll validi u importanti. Illum il-ġurnata żdied it-traffikar tal-annimali u minkejja li hemm trattati li jħarsu dan, xorta waħda qed issir moħqrija lill-annimali minħabba dan il-kummerċ. Il-mod li qegħdin jiġu mrobbija l-ġriewi tal-klieb għall-bejgħ ukoll għandu jiġi mħares. Irridu naraw li jkun hemm sostenn qawwi ħalli aktar annimali jiġu msewwija. Il-lista ma tispicca qatt!
Irrid nagħlaq billli nfaħħar lil dawk kollha li jagħmlu ħidma voluntarja fl-għaqdiet non-governattivi li jaħdmu fil-qasam tal-ħarsien tal-annimali. Ilkoll kemm aħna għandna obbligu lejn dawn in-nies. Dawn ilhom jaħdmu snin twal sabiex f’pajjiżna l-annimali jiġu trattati aħjar. Wasal iż-żmien li dawn in-nies jiġu megħjuna ħalli l-annimali f’pajjiżna jiġu verament imħarsa kif jixirqilhom. Bdejt dan l-artiklu billi għedt li l-mod kif inħarsu l-annimali tagħna huwa riflessjoni tas-soċjetà. Ejjew inkunu kburin b'dak li naraw f’din ir-riflessjoni.
Edward Demicoli...biex inkompli nservik fl-Ewropa
www.edwarddemicoli.eu
Din il-ġimgħa għadna kemm rajna episodju ieħor li spiċċa fil-media tagħna, episodju li juri biċ-ċar il-mod li ċerti persuni jħossuhom komdi jittrattaw klieb b’mod tal-mistħija. Jien dan l-aġir iqabbadni rabja kbira. Ma nistax nifhem kif hawn nies kapaċi jagħmlu hekk lil annimal daqshekk fidil u leali bħall-kelb. Però sfortunatament dawn in-nies jeżistu.La jeżistu rridu naraw li s-sistema legali tagħna tkun waħda li verament tikkastiga lil dawn in-nies u li verament isservi ta’ deterrent ħalli dawn l-affarijiet ma jsirux aktar. Il-politiċi, il-pulizija u l-qrati għandhom ilkoll ikunu katina waħda sabiex verament nipproteġu annimali li jisfaw vittmi ta' nies bla kuxjenza.
L-Ewropa wkoll għanda x’titgħallem f’dan il-qasam. L-Unjoni Ewropea għandha liġijiet li jipproteġu lill-annimali, imma dawn ġeneralment huma indirizzati lejn annimali tal-irziezet jew annimali li huma wirt komuni Ewropew bħall-għasafar tal-passa. F’dawn l-aħħar għaxar snin kemm ili involut fil-qasam Ewropew kienu ħafna li staqsewni, u bir-raġun, għaliex l-Unjoni Ewropea ma titkellimx fuq il-mod krudili li jinqatel it-toru fi Spanja? Għaliex qatt ma tkellmet fuq il-mod li jitqatta' biċċiet il-volpi meta jkun ikkaċċjat bil-klieb fil-kampanja Ingliża? Ir-raġuni għal dan hija li kull pajjiż għandu l-liġijiet tiegħu però naħseb li wasal iż-żmien li nibdew naħsbu ftit f’qafas ta' liġijiet komuni.Fil-Parlament Ewropew jeżisti digà grupp ta' membri parlamentari minn partiti politiċi differenti li qegħdin jaħdmu għal dan il-għan. Il-European Parliament Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals ilu mwaqqaf sa mill-1983. Minħabba n-numru limitat tad-Deputati Maltin fil-Parlament Ewropew, sal-aħħar laqgħa f’Novembru tas-sena l-oħra, ma kien attenda l-ebda Malti f’dan il-grupp. Jien tkun prijorità għalija li nagħti kontribut f’dan il-grupp għax sinċerament nemmen li l-issue tad-drittijiet tal-annimali għandha tingħata ferm aktar importanza.
F’dan il-qasam għad hemm ħafna x’irid isir. L-ewrogrupp għall-annimali huwa l-vuċi għall-għaqdiet li jaħdmu fil-qasam tad-drittijiet tal-annimali. Fil-proposti tagħhom għall-partiti li qegħdin jikkontestaw għall-Parlament Ewropew, dawn qegħdin jagħmlu ħames proposti. Li l-annimali fl-irziezet ikunu miżmuma aħjar, li jonqsu l-esperimenti fuq l-annimali, li tiżdied il-protezzjoni tal-annimali domestiċi u l-pets, li jiġu kkonservati u rrispettati l-fawna u l-flora u li jiġu infurzati l-liġijiet li jeżistu. Dawn il-ħames proposti huma lkoll validi u importanti. Illum il-ġurnata żdied it-traffikar tal-annimali u minkejja li hemm trattati li jħarsu dan, xorta waħda qed issir moħqrija lill-annimali minħabba dan il-kummerċ. Il-mod li qegħdin jiġu mrobbija l-ġriewi tal-klieb għall-bejgħ ukoll għandu jiġi mħares. Irridu naraw li jkun hemm sostenn qawwi ħalli aktar annimali jiġu msewwija. Il-lista ma tispicca qatt!
Irrid nagħlaq billli nfaħħar lil dawk kollha li jagħmlu ħidma voluntarja fl-għaqdiet non-governattivi li jaħdmu fil-qasam tal-ħarsien tal-annimali. Ilkoll kemm aħna għandna obbligu lejn dawn in-nies. Dawn ilhom jaħdmu snin twal sabiex f’pajjiżna l-annimali jiġu trattati aħjar. Wasal iż-żmien li dawn in-nies jiġu megħjuna ħalli l-annimali f’pajjiżna jiġu verament imħarsa kif jixirqilhom. Bdejt dan l-artiklu billi għedt li l-mod kif inħarsu l-annimali tagħna huwa riflessjoni tas-soċjetà. Ejjew inkunu kburin b'dak li naraw f’din ir-riflessjoni.
Edward Demicoli...biex inkompli nservik fl-Ewropa
www.edwarddemicoli.eu
Thursday, February 19, 2009
L-MEPs Laburisti ħadmu kontra u mhux favur l-interessi ta' pajjiżna
Għal darb'oħra l-Membri Parlamentari Ewropew (MEPs) tal-MLP użaw il-preżenza tagħhom fil-Parlament Ewropew biex ħadmu kontra u mhux favur l-interessi ta' pajjiżna. Il-Kandidat tal-PN għall-elezzjonijiet tal-Parlament Ewropew Edward Demicoli qal dan fi stqarrija b'referenza għal vot fil-Parlament Ewropew mill-MEPs Laburisti biex pajjiżna u l-pajjiżi l-oħra tal-Unjoni Ewropea jaċċettaw terroristi mill-Ħabs ta' Guantanamo Bay wara li dan jingħalaq. Dan sar mingħajr l-ebda konsultazzjoni mal-poplu Malti.
Edward Demicoli fakkar kif anke dak li llum hu l-Mexxej Laburista Joseph Muscat kien ipprova juża' l-pożizzjoni tiegħu fil-Parlament Ewropew ħalli Malta ma tingħatax fondi mill-UE u b'hekk tgħin ħalli l-problema tal-iskart tissolva. Demicoli qal li l-għeluq tal-Ħabs ta' Guantanamo Bay hu pass ta' min ifaħħru. Madankollu, kwistjonijiet marbutin mad-detenzjoni ta' dawk suspettati b'terroriżmu huma ta' interess nazzjonali u m'għandhomx ikunu trattati fuq livell Ewropew.
'Bait' for liberals?
He comes straight out of the PN’s ‘broad church’. But is the party stretching itself beyond its limits by fielding anti-Spring hunting and pro-divorce Edward Demicoli?
It was a Nationalist government which applied for a derogation from the Birds Directive, the EU’s law against Spring hunting, under the terms of Article 9. This right was specified in the Accession Treaty on Malta’s insistence in 2003.
Now that the European Commission has started infringement procedures against Malta, for its breach of the Birds Directive by derogating from the ban on spring hunting without having justified it in the first place, the same Nationalist government has vowed to defend the derogation permitting hunting for quail and turtle dove in Spring, at the European Court of Justice.
But Edward Demicoli, a former officer for the Malta EU-Information Centre, and now assistant to Joanna Drake, former PN candidate for the European Parliament and today the head of representation for the European Commission, will not use his seat in the European Parliament to defend the government’s and his party’s stance on Spring hunting.Indeed, if a resolution is tabled in the European Parliament calling for the abolition of Spring hunting in Malta, he will “certainly vote in favour”.
Demicoli insists his call to abolish spring hunting is a personal opinion and has nothing to do with the government’s case in the European Court of Justice. “This is my personal opinion. I do not believe Spring hunting is sustainable.”Why didn’t he express this opinion before?
“I did so on the first occasion I had to express my personal opinion. I was not a politician before I announced my candidature.”
Demicoli’s stance on hunting has not only earned him the rebuke of the Hunters’ Federation, whose secretary Lino Farrugia has ordered a boycott against him; but also that of Nationalist MP Philip Mifsud, who reminded Demicoli that the promise made to hunters “should be honoured, till the end, and by everyone within the party... even by newcomers like Mr Demicoli.”
But Demicoli insists that he remains free to express his views within the party. “I am proud of contesting with the PN because they don’t put a gag on your mouth by putting a €15,000 fine on your head,” a snide remark at the PL’s decision to fine any MEP candidates that don’t abide by party directives.
Demicoli was deputy head of the MIC for the four years prior to the EU referendum, having consistently offered the derogation from the Birds Directive as a lifeline for hunters. But had the MIC been too economical with the truth when it told hunters that Spring hunting will remain if Malta joins the EU?
“Not at all… we were correct. On Spring hunting we were simply there to tell the people what was negotiated. That is exactly what was negotiated. We could not foretell that three years later there would be a reinterpretation because of the Finnish court case in 2005.”
Even on divorce, yet another untouchable issue for Nationalists, his position deviates from that of the party’s establishment. Demicoli states he will “surely vote in favour” in a referendum on divorce, even if he prefers divorce to be introduced through a free vote in parliament. “This is not a matter which should be decided through a referendum. A serious analysis of the situation should be made and on the basis of this, the necessary measures taken by parliament.”
He also qualifies his support for divorce by advocating measures aimed at strengthening families. “There is no single solution to the problem of marital breakdown. But I believe that divorce is one of the solutions. But apart from introducing divorce we have to take measures which strengthen the family. For example people, who opt for a civil marriage should also be offered marriage preparation courses.”
Although the European parliament has presently no jurisdiction on moral matters like divorce and gay marriages, it often votes on resolutions urging member states to introduce gay marriages. And both PN MEPs David Casa and Simon Busuttil have voted against these resolutions.
While favouring the recognition of same sex partnerships, Demicoli opposes gay marriage. “Discrimination based on sexual orientation is unacceptable in all cases. But the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman should remain. On the other hand all couples who live together including same sex couples should enjoy the same civil rights.”Despite all the rhetoric we hear on balancing work and family duties, Maltese MEPs have been united in defending Malta’s opt-out from the working time directive which limits working time to an average of 48 hours during a 12 month period. Demicoli says he will not break ranks with this ‘united front’, even if he recognises that the directive is not as draconian as many in Malta make it out to be.
Demicoli points out that the directive does not limit any extra number of hours of part-time work. And workers can work more than eight hours of overtime in particular months, if they work overtime in other months. “Practically one can work all the overtime hours allowed by the law in the summer months. It leaves leeway.”
He also recognises that the law was introduced to protect workers. “One cannot disagree with the intention behind it. But one has to look at the local context where a large number of people depend on overtime… the opt-out for our country is the best solution. Even the trade unions want the opt-out to remain. Ultimately it is a good thing that workers determine how much overtime they make.”
Demicoli does not stray too far from public opinion on the sensitive issue of illegal immigration, opposing any reduction of the 18 months’ detention period while calling for more “burden sharing” between member states.“I agree with 18-month detention periods. Our country’s problems are what they are. Of course they should be treated humanely but we should not make it easy for those coming here. A deterrent is necessary.”
Yet he does not mince his words describing those proposing that immigrants should not set foot in Malta as crazy. “Whoever says these things does not know what he is saying. Such statements are crazy.”
So what is the solution advocated by Demicoli?
“While immigrants who have no right to stay should be repatriated to their country of origin Malta should only take a percentage of those granted protection or refugee status, while the rest are shared with the other member states.”
Demicoli defends the agreement reached between member states, which foresees the voluntary relocation of migrants to those countries who are willing to do so. “Don’t tell me that we can in any way go to the United Kingdom forcing them to take 50 immigrants. But if a country starts taking migrants on a voluntary basis others will be encouraged to do so.”He lambastes Azzjoni Nazzjonali and the Labour Party for making a fuss about this issue. “The truth is that neither Joseph Muscat nor Josie Muscat can force anyone to take migrants from Malta.”
And he is also aware that there is no way in persuading some European countries to share Malta’s burden. “Some countries simply do not care about Malta. Countries like Denmark insist that they have their own problems and will never take immigrants from Malta.”
Most opposition to burden sharing comes from the right-wing parties, some of which are represented in the European People’s Party. Does he see this as a problem? “Not really. The main obstacles to burden sharing are not raised in the European Parliament but in the European Council by member states.”
Nor does Demicoli have any qualms in singling out Libya as a major cause of Malta’s immigration problems. “The real problem is Libya. We have a neighbour which refuses to abide by international law. Spain does not have the same problems with countries like Senegal.”
The Maltese also can do their part by not employing illegal migrants illegally. “This only serves to attract more irregular migrants attracted by the prospect of employment in Malta as immigrants do not distinguish between legal and illegal employment.”
On the other hand Demicoli believes that those who have a right to stay should be offered legal employment to avoid the exploitation of cheap labour. “In reality we did not experience any surge in unemployment since immigrants started coming over to Malta. Our unemployment remained low.”
Demicoli sees his candidature for the EU parliament as a continuation of his EU-related career, which now has spanned a decade. He served four years as Simon Busuttil’s deputy in the Malta EU Information Centre. “They were four very difficult years in which we were explaining to the general public all the issues at a time when many were scared and apprehensive.”
Demicoli’s relationship with MEP Simon Busuttil goes a long way, to the time when they worked together in Radio 101. “We are now certainly competitors but we are still good friends. It is a friendly rivalry.”
In the past four years, Demicoli occupied the post of press and political officer at the European Commission’s representation in Malta. His work consists in informing the general public on what Brussels is doing and giving feedback to Brussels on what the general public is actually feeling.
Is there a big gap between EU institutions and the citizenry? “Certainly there is a gap which has to be bridged. Sometimes Brussels does not understand the reality of a small island. Most of my work in the past four years centred on making sure that they understand the specific realities of this island. All EU laws are basically good as nobody makes laws to harm people. But one cannot apply these laws in Germany, and in the same manner in Malta.”
The European Parliament is often criticised for being a very expensive gravy train with very little effective powers. Demicoli acknowledges that most power lies in the hands of the European Council, where member states are represented. But he sees a great role for MEPs both as legislators and also a peg between NGOs, small businesses and European institution. “MEPs have an important role in networking,” says Demicoli.
Demicoli is not deaf to criticism levelled against the so-called “travelling circus” between Brussels and Strasburg, which sees some 5,000 people, as well as 20 tonnes of documents make the monthly trek between the two parliaments. Estimates suggest the set-up costs around €200 million a year. “The amount of money and carbon emissions being wasted is crazy. This is something which no MEP likes. Unfortunately it was in the treaty when France wanted one of the institutions, and even today although there is a big movement against it, it still insists on retaining the Strasburg parliament.”
Demicoli has no doubts that Brussels should serve as the sole location of the European parliament. “It is the place where all the networking takes place. One cannot have a place in the middle of nowhere like Strasbourg. Pressure has to be applied on France to give up this blessed place they have.”
Will people be voting for the party or for the person in next June’s election? “Surely most people will vote for the party they support. But this election gives a greater leeway for people to vote for the person they like.”
Edward’s father Charles Demicoli is also directly involved in the Nationalist Party strategy core. Recently his name was revealed in the recipients of an email sent by party secretary-general Paul Borg Olivier to party insiders, which accidentally found itself in the Labour general secretary’s inbox.
Is this an advantage for the younger Demicoli?
“My father has been involved in the party for a very long time and this is something which I am not ashamed of,” he says, saying he is proud of his father’s role as leader of the PN’s frontline activists back in the turbulent 1980s, the so called ‘Tal-Gakketta Blu’.
“I cannot say that my surname does not help. Many ask me ‘are you Charles Demicoli’s son’? It’s a good icebreaker, especially with those who worked with my father before 1987 when the country suffered its worst times.”
It was a Nationalist government which applied for a derogation from the Birds Directive, the EU’s law against Spring hunting, under the terms of Article 9. This right was specified in the Accession Treaty on Malta’s insistence in 2003.
Now that the European Commission has started infringement procedures against Malta, for its breach of the Birds Directive by derogating from the ban on spring hunting without having justified it in the first place, the same Nationalist government has vowed to defend the derogation permitting hunting for quail and turtle dove in Spring, at the European Court of Justice.
But Edward Demicoli, a former officer for the Malta EU-Information Centre, and now assistant to Joanna Drake, former PN candidate for the European Parliament and today the head of representation for the European Commission, will not use his seat in the European Parliament to defend the government’s and his party’s stance on Spring hunting.Indeed, if a resolution is tabled in the European Parliament calling for the abolition of Spring hunting in Malta, he will “certainly vote in favour”.
Demicoli insists his call to abolish spring hunting is a personal opinion and has nothing to do with the government’s case in the European Court of Justice. “This is my personal opinion. I do not believe Spring hunting is sustainable.”Why didn’t he express this opinion before?
“I did so on the first occasion I had to express my personal opinion. I was not a politician before I announced my candidature.”
Demicoli’s stance on hunting has not only earned him the rebuke of the Hunters’ Federation, whose secretary Lino Farrugia has ordered a boycott against him; but also that of Nationalist MP Philip Mifsud, who reminded Demicoli that the promise made to hunters “should be honoured, till the end, and by everyone within the party... even by newcomers like Mr Demicoli.”
But Demicoli insists that he remains free to express his views within the party. “I am proud of contesting with the PN because they don’t put a gag on your mouth by putting a €15,000 fine on your head,” a snide remark at the PL’s decision to fine any MEP candidates that don’t abide by party directives.
Demicoli was deputy head of the MIC for the four years prior to the EU referendum, having consistently offered the derogation from the Birds Directive as a lifeline for hunters. But had the MIC been too economical with the truth when it told hunters that Spring hunting will remain if Malta joins the EU?
“Not at all… we were correct. On Spring hunting we were simply there to tell the people what was negotiated. That is exactly what was negotiated. We could not foretell that three years later there would be a reinterpretation because of the Finnish court case in 2005.”
Even on divorce, yet another untouchable issue for Nationalists, his position deviates from that of the party’s establishment. Demicoli states he will “surely vote in favour” in a referendum on divorce, even if he prefers divorce to be introduced through a free vote in parliament. “This is not a matter which should be decided through a referendum. A serious analysis of the situation should be made and on the basis of this, the necessary measures taken by parliament.”
He also qualifies his support for divorce by advocating measures aimed at strengthening families. “There is no single solution to the problem of marital breakdown. But I believe that divorce is one of the solutions. But apart from introducing divorce we have to take measures which strengthen the family. For example people, who opt for a civil marriage should also be offered marriage preparation courses.”
Although the European parliament has presently no jurisdiction on moral matters like divorce and gay marriages, it often votes on resolutions urging member states to introduce gay marriages. And both PN MEPs David Casa and Simon Busuttil have voted against these resolutions.
While favouring the recognition of same sex partnerships, Demicoli opposes gay marriage. “Discrimination based on sexual orientation is unacceptable in all cases. But the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman should remain. On the other hand all couples who live together including same sex couples should enjoy the same civil rights.”Despite all the rhetoric we hear on balancing work and family duties, Maltese MEPs have been united in defending Malta’s opt-out from the working time directive which limits working time to an average of 48 hours during a 12 month period. Demicoli says he will not break ranks with this ‘united front’, even if he recognises that the directive is not as draconian as many in Malta make it out to be.
Demicoli points out that the directive does not limit any extra number of hours of part-time work. And workers can work more than eight hours of overtime in particular months, if they work overtime in other months. “Practically one can work all the overtime hours allowed by the law in the summer months. It leaves leeway.”
He also recognises that the law was introduced to protect workers. “One cannot disagree with the intention behind it. But one has to look at the local context where a large number of people depend on overtime… the opt-out for our country is the best solution. Even the trade unions want the opt-out to remain. Ultimately it is a good thing that workers determine how much overtime they make.”
Demicoli does not stray too far from public opinion on the sensitive issue of illegal immigration, opposing any reduction of the 18 months’ detention period while calling for more “burden sharing” between member states.“I agree with 18-month detention periods. Our country’s problems are what they are. Of course they should be treated humanely but we should not make it easy for those coming here. A deterrent is necessary.”
Yet he does not mince his words describing those proposing that immigrants should not set foot in Malta as crazy. “Whoever says these things does not know what he is saying. Such statements are crazy.”
So what is the solution advocated by Demicoli?
“While immigrants who have no right to stay should be repatriated to their country of origin Malta should only take a percentage of those granted protection or refugee status, while the rest are shared with the other member states.”
Demicoli defends the agreement reached between member states, which foresees the voluntary relocation of migrants to those countries who are willing to do so. “Don’t tell me that we can in any way go to the United Kingdom forcing them to take 50 immigrants. But if a country starts taking migrants on a voluntary basis others will be encouraged to do so.”He lambastes Azzjoni Nazzjonali and the Labour Party for making a fuss about this issue. “The truth is that neither Joseph Muscat nor Josie Muscat can force anyone to take migrants from Malta.”
And he is also aware that there is no way in persuading some European countries to share Malta’s burden. “Some countries simply do not care about Malta. Countries like Denmark insist that they have their own problems and will never take immigrants from Malta.”
Most opposition to burden sharing comes from the right-wing parties, some of which are represented in the European People’s Party. Does he see this as a problem? “Not really. The main obstacles to burden sharing are not raised in the European Parliament but in the European Council by member states.”
Nor does Demicoli have any qualms in singling out Libya as a major cause of Malta’s immigration problems. “The real problem is Libya. We have a neighbour which refuses to abide by international law. Spain does not have the same problems with countries like Senegal.”
The Maltese also can do their part by not employing illegal migrants illegally. “This only serves to attract more irregular migrants attracted by the prospect of employment in Malta as immigrants do not distinguish between legal and illegal employment.”
On the other hand Demicoli believes that those who have a right to stay should be offered legal employment to avoid the exploitation of cheap labour. “In reality we did not experience any surge in unemployment since immigrants started coming over to Malta. Our unemployment remained low.”
Demicoli sees his candidature for the EU parliament as a continuation of his EU-related career, which now has spanned a decade. He served four years as Simon Busuttil’s deputy in the Malta EU Information Centre. “They were four very difficult years in which we were explaining to the general public all the issues at a time when many were scared and apprehensive.”
Demicoli’s relationship with MEP Simon Busuttil goes a long way, to the time when they worked together in Radio 101. “We are now certainly competitors but we are still good friends. It is a friendly rivalry.”
In the past four years, Demicoli occupied the post of press and political officer at the European Commission’s representation in Malta. His work consists in informing the general public on what Brussels is doing and giving feedback to Brussels on what the general public is actually feeling.
Is there a big gap between EU institutions and the citizenry? “Certainly there is a gap which has to be bridged. Sometimes Brussels does not understand the reality of a small island. Most of my work in the past four years centred on making sure that they understand the specific realities of this island. All EU laws are basically good as nobody makes laws to harm people. But one cannot apply these laws in Germany, and in the same manner in Malta.”
The European Parliament is often criticised for being a very expensive gravy train with very little effective powers. Demicoli acknowledges that most power lies in the hands of the European Council, where member states are represented. But he sees a great role for MEPs both as legislators and also a peg between NGOs, small businesses and European institution. “MEPs have an important role in networking,” says Demicoli.
Demicoli is not deaf to criticism levelled against the so-called “travelling circus” between Brussels and Strasburg, which sees some 5,000 people, as well as 20 tonnes of documents make the monthly trek between the two parliaments. Estimates suggest the set-up costs around €200 million a year. “The amount of money and carbon emissions being wasted is crazy. This is something which no MEP likes. Unfortunately it was in the treaty when France wanted one of the institutions, and even today although there is a big movement against it, it still insists on retaining the Strasburg parliament.”
Demicoli has no doubts that Brussels should serve as the sole location of the European parliament. “It is the place where all the networking takes place. One cannot have a place in the middle of nowhere like Strasbourg. Pressure has to be applied on France to give up this blessed place they have.”
Will people be voting for the party or for the person in next June’s election? “Surely most people will vote for the party they support. But this election gives a greater leeway for people to vote for the person they like.”
Edward’s father Charles Demicoli is also directly involved in the Nationalist Party strategy core. Recently his name was revealed in the recipients of an email sent by party secretary-general Paul Borg Olivier to party insiders, which accidentally found itself in the Labour general secretary’s inbox.
Is this an advantage for the younger Demicoli?
“My father has been involved in the party for a very long time and this is something which I am not ashamed of,” he says, saying he is proud of his father’s role as leader of the PN’s frontline activists back in the turbulent 1980s, the so called ‘Tal-Gakketta Blu’.
“I cannot say that my surname does not help. Many ask me ‘are you Charles Demicoli’s son’? It’s a good icebreaker, especially with those who worked with my father before 1987 when the country suffered its worst times.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
