With the St John’s Co-Cathedral issue firmly in mind, I can safely say that never before has a cathedral been centre stage in a political saga since the days when Archbishop Thomas Becket was assassinated in Canterbury Cathedral in 1170. The memories of TS Elliot’s poetic drama ‘Murder in the Cathedral’ are still as vivid as those of the Peter O’Toole/Richard Burton movie ‘Becket.’

I am in no way implying that there is any murderous plotting afoot in the former case, but in both cases the underlying motivation of the two separate dramas were an all hands on deck approach to anything that could undermine the stability and the state power of the ‘rulers’ of the day.

I am sure that my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister will allow me to conclude as Joseph Muscat did in the House last week, that he actually misled the House when he claimed that the PN had been prodded into moving their draconian procedural motion on how the House should conduct its business by our withdrawal of the pairing arrangement.

This is nothing but a perversion of the truth.

Our decision to say ‘goodbye’ to pairing was only announced by Joseph Muscat during his impressive two-hour concluding address to the party conference days after the PM had already tabled and publicised the authoritarian-like motion regarding House business.

Notwithstanding the looming economic crisis, and the self-induced economic problems created as a result of the government’s and the MRA’s mishandling of the steep utility rates issue, I am of the opinion that the Prime Minister is far more concerned about his own internal problems than the problems impinging on society at the moment.

The last few weeks have seen various interesting media reports surface.

They ranged from claims of PN MPs disagreement on the St John’s project to disclosures that the St John’s Co-Cathedral Chapter had taken a secret vote on the controversial extension to the cathedral museum whereby they are reported to have expressed their outright disagreement with the plans. One particular newspaper even quoted one particular member of the chapter, Mgr Prof. Carmel Cassar as having warned of ‘irreversible damage’ that might be caused if the project goes ahead as planned.

The general feeling is that ‘our’ Prime Minister seems far more interested in shoring up Richard Cachia Caruana rather than in protecting the splendour of our impressive Co-Cathedral.

Many are still baffled as to what the real motivation could be, why our permanent representative to the EU could be pushing so hard for the Co-Cathedral’s extension.

The easiest way out for the PM would have been to halt the whole process. But no... instead he chose to opt for a hastily called parliamentary group meeting that was reported to have been convened to discuss a counter motion moved by the PM to neutralise the Opposition Leader’s motion against the proposed underground extension.

If this was just another issue related to allocation of EU funds why was so much pressure reported to have been brought to bear on the NGO Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar to change or even possibly soften their position? Is it true that even RCC buddies in the NGO ‘world’ were brought on board to try and muzzle and gag the energetic lady at the helm of the said NGO?

If there is anything that really sticks in the mind in Joseph Muscat’s motion it is the strong argument that it is untenable for our Permanent Rep in Brussels to be engaged in such a project at all. If he had been involved before his appointment in Brussels decency would have dictated that he should have stepped down from his role in the Foundation with immediate effect.

The PM was so short of ideas and panicky that at one moment he claimed that the Foundation was an independent body. Give us a break! Is it true or not that a number of its board members are directly nominated by the government itself? This smacks of the MEPA board which is meant to be an independent body and yet has so many people representing or nominated by the government on its board and committees.

Without wanting to, due to the ‘political impotence’ allegedly forced upon him by RCC’s pivotal cabinet post and influential role in the corridors of power, the PM has so far not only had to face vociferous resistance from PN backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando but allegedly even others who were reported to have joined the chorus – primarily Ninu Zammit, Jesmond Mugliett and Robert Arrigo.

It is an open secret that dissent has been growing within the PN ranks, particularly at a Parliamentary group level and through his incompetent and helpless approach to this issue the PM only led to its growing faster and festering more than he would have ever imagined or dreamt of.

Whether other MPs silently oppose these plans is at this stage a matter of pure conjecture.

One does not have to be a technical person to reach certain conclusions. I am neither an architect, nor a specialist in cultural or heritage issues but I cannot but share the sentiments allegedly expressed by former Cabinet member Jesmond Mugliett when he is reported to have failed to understand how the project managed to get so much funding when other projects could have been more deserving.

I have seen many technical reports about the potential damage that could be done by the Foundation’s proposal to extend the museum by excavating the new exhibition space beneath the Cathedral primarily to house a series of tapestries which are based on sketches by 17th century artist Peter Paul Ruebens.

The outcry from several quarters has moved from fears that it could jeopardise the very structure of the cathedral to worse fears that it could weaken the structures of the PN parliamentary group itself.

How the PN MPs will vote on the day itself is not my concern. We shall wait and see. At this stage it is almost irrelevant.

Leaving the process entirely up to MEPA when this institution is known for its lack of transparency and accountability sowed even more doubts about the credibility of the whole process.

I look forward to having access to the geological studies carried out as well as to the plans when or rather if made available to the public.

EIAs have been suspect all along as a process as confirmed in Parliament last week when we were told that since EIAs were introduced in 1995 only 19 projects have been refused after an EIA had been conducted. The government had even refused to tell me how many of the refused, suspended and withdrawn project applications were linked to government projects.

The turn of events has merely served to show that Gonzi’s new way of doing politics is just a euphemism for stepped up arrogance.

This week he will try to reduce our treasured heritage to a chess game while last week he reduced parliamentary democracy to a tragic comedy. I hope you will all agree why I drew a comparison with the Becket drama.

e-mail: [email protected]

Leo Brincat is the Main Opposition Spokesperson on the Environment, Sustainable Development and Climate Change.