While the government has, so far, kept its cards very close to its chest on its selection of Malta’s next European Commissioner, one thing is for certain: whether a current minister is nominated for the job or not, the government needs to undertake a Cabinet reshuffle.
The appointment of a government minister to the European Commission, a move that would also require the approval of the European Parliament, would automatically trigger a Cabinet reshuffle, and that could be just the card the government needs to play.
A little over a year and a half into the current legislature, and after a razor-thin, and generally unexpected, electoral victory for the Nationalist Party, public opinion of the government’s performance is at a low ebb. That was the Nationalist Party’s third consecutive victory at the general election polls and the ensuing Cabinet reshuffle created a smaller Cabinet but one with larger portfolios, some of which are cumbersomely large and in need of either a redistribution of responsibilities or, at the very least, the appointment of more parliamentary secretaries so as to render the larger portfolios more manageable.
In terms of public perception, true, there are a lot of developments in store for next year, with 2010 expected to be something of a watershed year in which EU funding is to be put to use through a lengthy list of public projects catalysing employment, business activity and possibly the sorely needed general feel good factor the country is so clearly lacking.
The government’s communication of the bigger picture is poor to say the least, and when some point out what the government – so wary of being accused of resorting to populist gimmicks – has in store, they are accused of pandering to the government.
These are national issues that deserve a national context and the avoidance of delving deep into the real issues that truly matter to the country, although politically convenient and advantageous, is a travesty.
A bombardment of public projects, however, may not be enough to regain ground the governing party has lost over the last year.
If it to restore public confidence in the administration of the country, which, by all accounts, appears to be ailing, it direly needs to reshuffle its deck before playing its next hand.
A paltry budget debate
When the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were billed to face off against each other on Friday to debate the budget on the radio, many of us waited with bated breath for a sparring match on the government’s vision for the economy and the country’s direction out of the recession.
That, unfortunately, did not materialise. What took place instead was a protracted discussion on the price of electricity and the running of Enemalta and its power stations.
What could have otherwise been a very healthy and beneficial budget debate, and indeed a debate about the country’s future, was consistently side-tracked in favour of talks about the price of electricity, or, as pointed out last week, the finance minister’s deeds or misdeeds depending on how one views news reports on the issues, was seriously misplaced.
The country and its people deserve a more educated discussion about the direction of the economy and its workforce. It needs to hear a real discussion about the country’s future and how it could be best positioned to make the most of the post global recession scenario, and not be misled to the smaller picture as it has been by the tone of political debates.
Of course, higher utility bills could mean the make or break difference for a great number of people, but one would imagine that the employment prospects of a family’s breadwinner, or breadwinners as is increasingly becoming the case, should be of much greater concern.
The utility prices are the Opposition’s battle cry and the government is being successfully cornered almost every time by the debate over the situation. There is so much more at stake within the wider context that warrants real, valid public discussion.
Number 10
When the announcement came on Wednesday afternoon that the United Kingdom had signed on to the European Commission’s voluntary burden sharing programme for resettling some of Malta’s asylum seekers, the initial public reaction was a sigh of relief. That was until one read that the number of refugees to be relocated to the UK was a measly 10.
While the number itself is nominal, it speaks volumes and it is the significance of the step that must be borne in mind, as well as the other forms of assistance offered such as help to return failed asylum seekers to their countries of origin.
It would have been foolish of Malta if it had expected the country’s woes to be solved by the stroke of a pen, or even by the stroke of 26 pens. Any such move to alleviate the burden of another country at the expense, however small, of the country in question is always politically controversial.
The situation is a sensitive one and no European government could realistically be expected to put its head on the chopping block over the issue. In fact, only six EU countries – France, Luxemburg, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and now the UK – have done so.
But with the exception of those six countries, lobbying by the European Commission and Malta has fallen on deaf ears in 20 of Malta’s fellow EU member states. The pilot burden sharing project, through which Malta expects to resettle some 2,000 of its resident migrants with legal status, is off to an uninspiring start but the momentum could very well pick up with the considerable weight of the UK having been thrown behind it.
In reality, the request is not such a tall order. Breaking the figures down with simple arithmetic, Malta’s aim to see some 2,000 asylum seekers resettled in the EU works out to a mere 77 refugees for each of the other 26 member states – not an unreasonable number across a bloc of 450 million people.