The Malta Independent
The general conference of the Malta Labour Party that should conclude its business this weekend is forced to deal with an abstract agenda.
This being the first meeting following the election defeat of last April (the special conferences of May were purely for the election of the leadership) the general conference should be discussing the analysis report which the Party executive commissioned to an autonomous working group` Ever since the working group handed in its analysis report this has been treated with strict confidentiality. It was rapidly buried in the Party`s darkest vault.
The conference delegates collectively form the Party`s highest organ. They have not been allowed to get the slightest glimpse of the analysis report.` They are not being given the opportunity even to air their views in demanding accountability as to why the election victory they were assured was close at hand, in fact resulted so far off. Instead they are being forced to take sides between the present and past leadership in a two-versioned motion on the Party`s future EU policy which ought to leave as much room for discussion as yesterday`s weather.
If the Party is to bring itself in the mainstream of the electorate`s thinking it really has no option but to accept that Malta has decided to seal its future as an EU member and that this is an irreversible step that leaves no room for further discussion. KMB`s motion to keep open the possibility of renegotiating the accession treaty is far less practical than dismantling the Delimara power station he had vehemently objected to and rebuilding it at Benghajsa where he seemed to prefer it. Certain things that happen cannot be made to unhappen.
The wonder of wonders is why has the Party administration allowed, indeed stoked up,` the confrontation with KMB to mature into a full blown debate at general conference level when what KMB is proposing could be accepted in spirit but without the commitment to renegotiate the Treaty.` As events unfold inside the EU, opportunities will present themselves to re-interpret or move away from certain negative aspects of the treaty in deals where we trade our consent on other matters where our vote would carry weight. Inside the EU this happens quite regularly and we have to learn to do it.` Recently Italy got the OK for a long standing dispute on milk quotas in exchange for lifting its objection to endorse a totally unrelated EU savings directive.
One gets the impression the Party administration was not at all displeased to allow the KMB debate to escalate the way it did. Debating the issue with KMB on a third party media bears witness of the wish to stoke up rather than kill the issue. It offers a very effective diversion from the compulsion to demand accountability for last electoral defeat. Had the conference delegates not been alienated by the confrontation with KMB they would probably demand an answer from the Leader and the outgoing administration to very simple questions.
Why did Labour have to lose an election to change its view on EU membership? Why were genuine Labourites forced to vote against their own party when they were offered a choice between Malta as an EU member or Labour in government? Why was Labour`s non-EU membership policy considered so sacrosanct before 12th April as worth losing an election for? Why the rigidity on EU policy before the election and now this flexibility after condemning the party to an overstay in opposition?
I have repeatedly asked these questions. I never got any reply if not in the form of an admonishment that my questions were harming the Party. Indeed these questions bear no answers that will not place the burden of Labour`s electoral defeat right at the door of those championing the pro-EU resolution. By rubbishing KMB they can avoid being held accountable to the general conference. On the other hand KMB et al continue to damage the party not only by trying to keep it out of the mainstream of modern political thinking but also by giving a pretext to the leadership and the administration to use their stance as a diversion from the real issues that the conference` should be discussing.
Meanwhile the government continues to break every electoral pledge with impunity as the country suffers not only from a fatigued government but also from an opposition that seems more bent to protect individual positions rather than collectively positioning itself as an alternative government.
The general conference agenda is an abstract one indeed!
The general conference of the Malta Labour Party that should conclude its business this weekend is forced to deal with an abstract agenda.
This being the first meeting following the election defeat of last April (the special conferences of May were purely for the election of the leadership) the general conference should be discussing the analysis report which the Party executive commissioned to an autonomous working group` Ever since the working group handed in its analysis report this has been treated with strict confidentiality. It was rapidly buried in the Party`s darkest vault.
The conference delegates collectively form the Party`s highest organ. They have not been allowed to get the slightest glimpse of the analysis report.` They are not being given the opportunity even to air their views in demanding accountability as to why the election victory they were assured was close at hand, in fact resulted so far off. Instead they are being forced to take sides between the present and past leadership in a two-versioned motion on the Party`s future EU policy which ought to leave as much room for discussion as yesterday`s weather.
If the Party is to bring itself in the mainstream of the electorate`s thinking it really has no option but to accept that Malta has decided to seal its future as an EU member and that this is an irreversible step that leaves no room for further discussion. KMB`s motion to keep open the possibility of renegotiating the accession treaty is far less practical than dismantling the Delimara power station he had vehemently objected to and rebuilding it at Benghajsa where he seemed to prefer it. Certain things that happen cannot be made to unhappen.
The wonder of wonders is why has the Party administration allowed, indeed stoked up,` the confrontation with KMB to mature into a full blown debate at general conference level when what KMB is proposing could be accepted in spirit but without the commitment to renegotiate the Treaty.` As events unfold inside the EU, opportunities will present themselves to re-interpret or move away from certain negative aspects of the treaty in deals where we trade our consent on other matters where our vote would carry weight. Inside the EU this happens quite regularly and we have to learn to do it.` Recently Italy got the OK for a long standing dispute on milk quotas in exchange for lifting its objection to endorse a totally unrelated EU savings directive.
One gets the impression the Party administration was not at all displeased to allow the KMB debate to escalate the way it did. Debating the issue with KMB on a third party media bears witness of the wish to stoke up rather than kill the issue. It offers a very effective diversion from the compulsion to demand accountability for last electoral defeat. Had the conference delegates not been alienated by the confrontation with KMB they would probably demand an answer from the Leader and the outgoing administration to very simple questions.
Why did Labour have to lose an election to change its view on EU membership? Why were genuine Labourites forced to vote against their own party when they were offered a choice between Malta as an EU member or Labour in government? Why was Labour`s non-EU membership policy considered so sacrosanct before 12th April as worth losing an election for? Why the rigidity on EU policy before the election and now this flexibility after condemning the party to an overstay in opposition?
I have repeatedly asked these questions. I never got any reply if not in the form of an admonishment that my questions were harming the Party. Indeed these questions bear no answers that will not place the burden of Labour`s electoral defeat right at the door of those championing the pro-EU resolution. By rubbishing KMB they can avoid being held accountable to the general conference. On the other hand KMB et al continue to damage the party not only by trying to keep it out of the mainstream of modern political thinking but also by giving a pretext to the leadership and the administration to use their stance as a diversion from the real issues that the conference` should be discussing.
Meanwhile the government continues to break every electoral pledge with impunity as the country suffers not only from a fatigued government but also from an opposition that seems more bent to protect individual positions rather than collectively positioning itself as an alternative government.
The general conference agenda is an abstract one indeed!
No comments:
Post a Comment