May day for May!

If for Julius Caesar the aides of March marked a grim milestone for Theresa May that milestone in political terms is set to be the aides of November. If the Chequers Agreement marked a troubled period for May and her Tories, the draft withdrawal agreement between the UK and EU is nothing short of a full-blown typhoon.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Theresa May has quite simply failed to deliver on what where some very crucial promises. Theresa May promised the UK a deal that would give the UK full sovereignty; a deal that would take all the power away from Brussels and return all the power back to London; a deal which at the same time would retain many of the perks and plusses of EU membership in terms of trade and commerce; a deal that would see the UK enjoy the best of both worlds. It was always a tall order; if not an outright impossible one.

What Theresa May has delivered instead is an agreement which basically reaches none of the above aims. The UK will still have to follow the EU’s cue if it wants to have any realistic chance of having a decent trade arrangement with the bloc. The arrangement would also not feature many of the perks and plusses of EU membership but would instead leave the UK out in the cold in the decision-making process thus reducing the UK to a mere rule accepter.

In fairness to May, the problem did not lie with Theresa May alone. It lay with the very foundations of Brexit. A Brexit that was founded on concepts of grandeur and British imperialism that in the modern-day world is quite simply no longer reality. A Brexit whose gist was the very essence of wanting the cake and wanting to eat it.

It was also a Brexit built on a Tory party that has not been deserving of government for a very long time. Indeed, the last principled Tory at Number 10 was John Major and he’s been out of politics for quite a few generations now. The Tory’s grapples with the European question have indeed now become the UK’s grapples. The volcano of the European question has now erupted and unless the Tories come to terms quickly it could quite simply be the Tories version of Pompei.

As May keeps losing minister after minister, having a majority in the Commons is looking ever less likely. May thus has only one honourable solution; resign as Prime Minister and leader of the Tory party and call a fresh General Election. A General Election which would decide once and for all whether the UK should persist in the cul-de-sac that Brexit is turning out to be or whether the UK should reverse the decision and make the best of EU membership.

I must say I don’t envy the UK voter; having to pick between the non-option that are the Tories, the disorganised shambles that is British Labour led by the unrealistic and cut off from reality Jeremy Corbyn or the impotent Lib Dems is liking asking someone whether he’d prefer to be on a sinking ship or an aeroplane set to clash.

Il-Ponta taż-Żonqor u s-suċċess Amerikan

Fl-aħħar jiem inkiteb u ntqal ħafna dwar l-hekk msejħa Universita’ Amerikana ta’ Malta (AUM). Ħarġet l-aħbar li din l-hekk msejħa universita’ kienet attirat biss numru limitat ferm ta’ studenti. Ħarġet ukoll l-aħbar li din l-universita’ fl-aħħar jiem kienet ukoll keċċiet xi staff akkademiku minn ħdanha. Bejn aħbar u oħra, ħaġa ħarġet ċara; il-proġett ta’ l-Universita’ Amerikana ta’ Malta għadu l-bogħod milli jkun wieħed b’suċċess ċert u madwaru għad hemm bosta mistoqsijiet.

Din l-istess AUM kienet ingħatat konċessjoni ta’ art f’Baċir Numru Wieħed f’Bormla u fil-Ponta taż-Żonqor. Dwar il-konċessjoni f’Baċir Numru Wieħed f’Bormla forsi d-dibattitu qatt ma’ kien wieħed ferventi għaliex f’din l-art ma’ sar ebda żvilupp insostennibli b’riżultat ta’ din il-konċessjoni. Iżda dwar il-Ponta taż-Żonqor intqal ħafna u għadu jintqal ħafna.

Intqal ħafna għaliex meta nitkellmu dwar il-Ponta taż-Żonqor qegħdin nitkellmu dwar biċċa art verġni; art li s’issa għadha mhijiex żviluppata u li permezz ta’ din il-konċessjoni ser tiġi radikalment mibdula għaliex ser tiġi żviluppata. Din mhux kwistjoni li wieħed ikun kontra l-iżvilupp jew kontra l-bini għaliex hawnhekk qed nitkellmu mhux fuq sempliċi żvilupp jew bini imma bidla radikali ta’ art verġni għal medda kbira ta’ art żviluppata.

Li kieku tali bidla ser iseħħ għal xi interess nazzjonali jew almenu xi interess bi gwadann soċjali u ekonomiku ċar għal pajjiż allura wieħed jista’ forsi jiddibatti u jargumenta favur b’xi mod. Imma f’dan il-każ din il-bidla radikali ser issir għal proġett li s’issa kienet biss fl-aħbarijiet għal raġunijiet ta’ mistoqsijiet u dubji dejjem jikbru.

Kemm huwa għaqli li nitilfu il-Ponta taż-Żonqor darba għal dejjem meta l-istess proġett s’issa għadu l-anqas kiseb il-potenzjal sħiħ li kellu jikseb f’Baċir Numru Wieħed f’Bormla? Kemm huwa għaqli li nitilfu l-Ponta taż-Żonqor għal proġett li bħal donnu ma’ kull jum li jgħaddi qed jiżdiedu d-dubji kemm ser irendi benefiċċji soċjali jew ekonomiċi għal pajjiż?

Din mhijiex u m’għandiex tkun kwistjoni ta’ pika politika. M’għandhiex tkun kwistjoni ta’ min kellu raġun u min ma’ kellux. Din mhijiex battalja kontra l-iżilvupp; anzi għandu jkun ċar li din mhijiex xi battalja kontra l-iżvilupp. Din hija kwistjoni li pajjiżna ser jitlef din l-art verġni mill-isbaħ u bħal donnu m’hemm ebda traċċa ta’ loġika ta’ għaliex pajjiżna ser jitlef din l-art.

Huwa għalhekk li kull min hu ta’ rieda tajba għandu jgħati l-appoġġ tiegħu għal możżjoni mressqa li ssejjaħ sabiex din il-konċessjoni, f’dan l-istadju, tiġi rtirata. Ġa la darba l-Universita’ Amerikana ta’ Malta tikseb suċċess f’Baċir Numru Wieħed f’Bormla allura mbgħad forsi wieħed ikun jista’ jgħaddi sabiex jiddiskuti l-pass li jmiss.

Oprah Winfrey
Din il-ġimgħa segwejt b’interess id-diskors ta’ Oprah Winfrey waqt il-Golden Globes. Diskors li ħafna ddeskrivew bħala s-soft launch ta’ Winfrey għal kampanja Presidenzjali fl-elezzjoni Presidenzjali Amerikana li jmiss. Bħal donnu hemm minn ma’ tgħallem xejn mill-esperjenza Trump. Bħal donnu hemm min jixtieq li l-Partit Demokratiku flok jitgħallem mill-iżball tar-Repubblikani, jagħmel eżatt bħalhom billi jitfa’ lil Winfrey fuq quddiem. Oprah Winfrey hija preżentatriċi ta’ abilta’ kbira; personalita’ tal-media bi storja mill-aktar b’saħħitha; ispirazzjoni għal kif mara għandha tiġġieled sabiex ikollha vuċi. Kollha attribwiti pożittivi u li kullħadd ċertament jammira. Iżda ċertament żgur mhumiex attribwiti li waħedhom għandhom jinkurunaw persuna President ta’ l-Istati Uniti. Trump ukoll għandu storja interessanti kif bena l-imperu kummerċjali tiegħu; ukoll kien personalita fuq il-media iżda kullħadd qiegħed jara b’għajnejh x’qed isarraf il-Presidenza Trump.

The United States of Europe

“Let us create a new and better Europe! I want a new constitutional treaty to establish the United States of Europe. A Europe that is no threat to its member states, but a beneficial addition.

A convention shall draft this treaty in close cooperation with the civil society and the people. Its results will then be submitted to all member states. Any state that won’t ratify this treaty will automatically leave the EU.”

German Socialist leader and former European Parliament President Martin Schulz yesterday posted the above comment on his official Facebook page. Given a number of current issues currently dominating both the local and international scene I don’t expect this post by Mr. Schulz to gain much public attention. On a global level issues such as the status of Jerusalem and Brexit negotiations will definitely continue to dominate whilst on a local level, issues such as the ongoing investigations and legal proceedings regarding the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia will continue to dominate the scene. That having been said Mr. Schulz’s post deserves some thinking. 

The proposal to have a United States of Europe is neither new nor innovative. Suffice to say that the subject has been debated from well before the European Union itself ever came to fruition. On that front thus Mr. Schulz’s proposal for a United States of Europe can only best be described as a regurgitation of an age old debate which tends to resurface from time to time. 

The idea is also not too innovative in terms of the convention drafting a treaty and submitting the said treaty to all member states. In the history of the European Union 2004 is remembered as the year when the spotlight went on the ‘Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’. The treaty, commonly referred to as the European Constitution, had been met with skepticism in a number of member states from day one. Ultimately the process ground to a halt following referenda in France and Holland where the No vote emerged victorious. 

The propose the same idea, all be it in an even sharper form, after just ten years would normally perhaps be described as risky. To do so in a context where Euro skepticism is sadly on the rise and where the European Union is having to deal with its first member state exit can only be described as being out of touch with reality. To further propose a take it or leave it approach where those not in agreement are simply chucked out the club is nothing short of absolute arrogance. 

Mr. Schulz’s proposal shall only serve to add fuel to the fire in terms of the fertile ground being used by Euro-skeptics to drum up all sorts of horror stories about the EU. Rather than looking to forge ahead with the idea of changing what is essentially a union of sovereign national states into a federal state, the more prudent approach would be to first see to it that the citizens of the said national states are convinced that we should be in a union to begin with. 

The biggest threat to European integration is the sharp rise of Euro-skepticism. Euro-skepticism will not be defeated by acting in the manner it so colorfully criticizes; the bulldozer approach where the bureaucrat holds little regard for the general public opinion. Euro-skepticism will be defeated by taking notes with regards to any constructive criticism it has to offer, limited as it may be, and building on that constructive criticism to demonstrate that European integration is in the best interest of every European. 

Mr. Schulz’s proposal thus at this stage is at best premature and ill-thought and at worst undemocratic, arrogant and completely out of touch with reality.