The voting system at the European Parliament (unlike that at Malta's) allows for a three way vote: ayes, nays and abstentions. I think it's a good system.
A problem however arises when an MEP considers that matters being put to the vote should never at all have been placed before the House, or that they should never at all have been presented in the way they are.
In such cases, it seems to me that the best approach would be not to take part in the vote. I had to adopt this stance last week in plenary, when a resolution was put forward for the EU to sanction the Hungarian government.
All questions about the internal governance of EU member states should be considered as very delicate. Undoubtedly, certain essential values of European democracy need to be respected by one and all. Which should mean that when any problem in this field, no matter where, is being investigated, the process should be objective and totally transparent.
This is certainly not happening in the European Parliament. The investigative process rolls forward without transparency and in a politicised manner. That is what is happening with regard to Malta, against which claims about governance have also been made.
Since the process is so flawed, taking part in a vote about it, even when abstaining, would endow it with a legitimacy that it does not have.
***
FRIENDS OF TREES
Too many stories are appearing about gardens that will be destroyed and replaced by ugly apartment towers. In addition, trees are being uprooted from public places while agricultural land is being continually trimmed.
Today, animals at least, have public structures that rightly or wrongly, are geared to protect them as much as possible from cruel treatment. People are in favour of such protection and this sentiment continues to increase.
The same can hardly be said regarding the protection for trees. We only have at best, efforts are being made to protect trees as part of a framework for a serious environmental policy.
Perhaps the time has come for a society to be set up, uniquely dedicated, like in some American states, to mobilise the "friends" for the trees.
***
JUNCKER'S RECORD
It's not completely his fault, however the overall verdict regarding Jean Claude Juncker's record, and that of the European Commission he leads, is not so positive. We are approaching the end of the Commission's mandate and it is hardly likely that matters will improve drastically by its end.
True, one can hardly put the blame on Juncker for the Greek financial crisis three years ago, Brexit and the surge in immigration. However, Juncker promised to run a Commission that would be "political" rather than technocratic. In these crises, he showed he did not have the means by which to operate politically with much hope of success.
A similar conclusion applies to other areas, such as for the eurozone and the progress achieved over his other promise to boost Europe's digital economy.
It might have been the case that the commitment he continued to affirm for "more Europe", encouraged the view among member states that in a political sense, they needed to safeguard their national interests by reasserting the supremacy of the Council.