Anyone following the Nationalist media during the past few weeks will have picked up the homespun mantra that Labour claimed to accept the electorate’s verdict on EU membership out of convenience, that it was seriously considering pulling Malta out of the EU if elected and that it intended to replay its EU referendum tactics over the euro issue.

These comments were not made in isolation.

They were first made by Parliamentary Secretary Tonio Fenech, who found a perfect echo in Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s comments on NET TV’s Opinjonisti and in Edwin Vassallo’s remarks during a phone-in programme on Radio 101.

Actually, the first Nationalist front man to spread the rumour around that Labour could consider withdrawing Malta’s EU membership was none other than Euro MP Simon Busuttil – a few months back. Dr Busuttil, who has a certain degree of intelligence, should have known better!

What intrigues me most is that when Nationalist government members are abroad selling Malta’s potential as a financial services centre, or else trying to promote inward direct foreign investment, they tend to adopt a completely different approach.

This was evident during the delivery of a speech by the Mr Fenech, Parliamentary Secretary in the Finance Ministry, at a conference organised by The Banker magazine, in association with the MFSA, on Banking on Malta – Opportunities and Challenges for Inward Investment, which was held at the London Stock Exchange on 4 April this year.

On that occasion, Mr Fenech chose to play his cards differently.

When speaking on the key political and economic issues facing Malta, he said that although during the run up to Malta’s membership of the EU the MLP had strongly advocated against Malta’s accession to the European Union, the debate on Malta’s accession to the EU is now long buried, with the Labour Party contesting the European Parliament elections and clearly advocating the respect of the people’s choice and a policy of working in the best interests of Malta now in Europe.

Such antics show the political opportunism that the Nationalist Party and government resort to abroad and locally.

When they are overseas seeking to attract FDI, they try to emphasise the prevalent consensus on the EU issue, while when addressing local audiences they tend to resort to partisan politics to score cheap points as part of their scare-mongering campaign which is bound to dominate their forthcoming election campaign.

Price orders rediscovered

I vividly recall the vehement opposition encountered by a Labour government when it introduced price orders on the island.

Although initially I found it rather strange that a recent poll by another daily newspaper showed that the majority of respondents were in favour of the reintroduction of price orders – albeit on a selective basis – I soon realised that this was out of frustration at the ineffectiveness of the government’s consumer protection structures and mechanisms.

These sentiments were diligently echoed in a recent statement by the local Consumers’ Association, when it stated that the current poll indicates that the Maltese have lost faith in the above-mentioned structures.

I personally still do not think that price orders will provide the answer to the government’s problems since, as the consumers’ watchdog pointed out, even if we adopt price orders, we would still face the same old problems without achieving anything new. Price orders would still need enforcement. This was the problem in the past and we would still face the same problem in the future.

The Consumers’ Associa-tion did not mince its words when it boldly stated that “the reason is that enforcement needs two things – the political will to enforce law and order and a proactive stance by the administrative arm of the government. As we fail on both counts, price orders would not work”.

It is a pity that when I made this point by echoing these sentiments in Parliament, the parliamentary correspondents of another newspaper, that otherwise faithfully reported my speech, chose to gloss over this important point.

Is it not high time that we had an authority dealing with competition policy, similar to the British Office of Fair Trading?

A worthy initiative

Although they were almost literally brushed aside by some government ministers, the main lobbyists of Flimkien Ghall Ambjent Ahjar deserve praise for the well-researched document they presented us parliamentarians with on our way to Parliament on Monday, 7 May.

Rather than indulging in platitudes as to how we can work together for a better environment, they posed a number of direct questions regarding the current functioning of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority that need to be addressed without any further delay.

Their main focus was on Mepa’s poor track record when it came to heritage protection. They cited as an example cases where the DCC Boards of Mepa were allowed to ignore all the recommendations of Mepa’s own expert heritage and environment boards, not to mention the Superinten-dence of Cultural Heritage, NGOs and local councils, by granting permits in spite of these boards’ recommendations for refusal.

They even claimed that Mepa’s DCC Boards have issued permits which violate Malta’s police laws.

Such claims need to be investigated seriously as no self respecting citizen – whatever his political orientation – can accept a situation where Mepa gives the impression that it happens to be above the law.

Sympathy and solidarity

I would like to express my sympathy and solidarity to columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia and her family. She might not be an MLP cheerleader, but such acts of cowardice and terrorism deserve total condemnation without any reservation. As was the arson attack against Malta Today editor Saviour Balzan. Let us hope that the anti-journalist trail stops here, since this is tantamount to an attack on freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

e-mail : [email protected]