Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1057934
25 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 2 DECEMBER 2018 OPINION Far from 'unseating' Konrad Mizzi – or even remotely inconveniencing him, for that matter – PD's motion would only have ended up being a 'Uomo Del Monte' moment for Joseph Muscat STOCK TAL-GVERN MALTA GOVERNMENT STOCK Secure Investment Issue of €100,000,000 by auction Fixed Rate Malta Government Stock (subject to the over-allotment option up to a maximum amount of €50,000,000) Fixed Rate Malta Government Stock The Treasury shall be issuing by auction €100,000,000 Fixed Rate Malta Government Stock subject to an over-allotment option to increase the sum to be raised up to a maximum additional amount of €50,000,000 as follows: (i) 1.4% Malta Government Stock (Third Issue) Maturing in 2024, and (ii) 1.85% Malta Government Stock (Third Issue) Maturing in 2029, or (iii) Any combination of the above two Stocks which in the aggregate shall be €100,000,000 Applications in the form of sealed bids (competitive auction) for a minimum of €500,000 and multiples of €100,000 each open on Friday 7 th December, 2018 at 8.30a.m. and close at noon of the same day or earlier at the discretion of the Accountant General. Bids on the prescribed forms are to be transmitted by e-mail at the e-mail addresses indicated on the application form or by fax on 2596 7210 or deposited in the Treasury Tender Box in Floriana. Application forms may be obtained from all Members of the Malta Stock Exchange and other authorized Investment Service Providers or downloaded from the Treasury's website at www.treasury.gov.mt. MALTA GOVERNMENT STOCK FOR SAFE INVESTMENT AND LIQUIDITY WITH INTEREST PAID UP TO THE DAY OF RE-SALE OF STOCK SECURITY CONTINUOUS LIQUIDITY INTEREST EVERY SIX MONTHS (The value of the investment may go up or down during the tenor of the Stock) Treasury Department, Development House, Level 2-3, St. Anne Street, Floriana, Malta. Godfrey Farrugia seems to expect others to do today, what he himself chickened out of doing five years ago. Strange, but true ally have. I imagine there will be other excuses too… and to get a rough idea of what shape they might take, we need only recall Godfrey Farrugia's own excuse for voting against a no-confidence motion in the same Labour government – over the same general issue (i.e., Panama Papers) – back in 2013… when Farrugia was himself a government MP. (For yes, that's another thing: Godfrey Farrugia seems to expect others to do today, what he himself chickened out of doing five years ago. Strange, but true. Actually, wait… scratch the 'strange' part. It's just true: nothing strange about it at all.) I imagine his contribution to that debate may well return to haunt him in future. But this is what Godfrey Farrugia actually said on that occa- sion: "Malta needs the Labour government because of the economic and social progress which it is bringing about…" Roughly translated, Far- rugia's argument was that Joseph Muscat's Labour government could legiti- mately be defended – even on charges of corruption and malfeasance – on the basis of the (real or perceived) 'good' it might be doing in other departments, unrelated to the issue under discussion. That argument worked perfectly well for Godfrey Farrugia in 2016… so he, of all people, should expect it to work just as nicely for Labour MPs today. As indeed it should: after all, there are still as many reasons to subscribe to that view as there were five years ago. Applied specifically to the '17 Black' issue... Mizzi's supporters (they do exist, you know) consistently point towards his successes in other areas unrelated to the energy sector: like Air Malta, for in- stance. So if Godfrey Farrugia felt that the 'good' Labour did in 2016 was enough to outweigh the 'bad' associated with one Cabinet minister… why shouldn't Labour MPs use the same reasoning today, and argue that the 'good' Mizzi has done since should be enough to absolve him of any past misdemeanours? Meanwhile, simmering beneath the surface there remains the same toxic sludge of partisan politics that made the same decision so hard for Godfrey Farrugia himself in 2016. Then as now, any government MP who votes against his own party can only expect to be crucified by the party grassroots at the next election. One could, of course, argue that such petty considerations should not prevent MPs of mettle from 'doing the right thing', regardless of the political consequences… but then again, Godfrey Farrugia is not exactly in any position to make that argument, now is he? But in any case: by my count, that's three very compelling reasons why PD's no-confidence motion would almost certainly have been rejected by Malta's House of Representatives: with ALL government MPs – no excep- tions – voting against. Try as I might, I cannot see one possible outcome that would translate into even mild dis- comfort for the government party… still less brownie points for the Opposition. And this is the part I truly don't understand. Instead of thanking Adrian Delia for sparing them the humiliation of multiple political defeats across an entire spectrum of fronts… PD got angry with him for (temporarily) derail- ing the motion. Not to sound paranoid, or anything… but I'm beginning to suspect that PD may have some kind of interest in helping Joseph Muscat get through this dif- ficult '17 Black' episode: not only offering him a national platform through which to consolidate his party's politi- cal lead; but also providing him with all the ammunition he needs to quell any internal dissent he may indeed be fac- ing over Konrad Mizzi. Let's try putting that another way. How do you think Mus- cat (or Mizzi himself, for that matter) would have reacted to a second, failed attempt to unseat a Labour cabinet min- ister by means of a parliamen- tary vote? My guess is that he would have seized on the unanimity of his seven-seat majority to hammer home the message that parliament had given Konrad Mizzi the thumbs up…. not once, but twice. Far from 'unseating' Konrad Mizzi – or even re- motely inconveniencing him, for that matter – PD's motion would only have ended up being a 'Uomo Del Monte' moment for Joseph Muscat. The House of Representa- tives would have said 'Yes' to Mizzi, and 'no' to the Oppo- sition… and the Opposition (having so unwisely called for that vote to be taken itself) would have no option but to bow to the House's verdict, and shut up on this issue… forever. Why would an opposition party want to engineer that sort of outcome, anyway? Ooh, hang on… I think I've got it. Yes, yes, of course: why didn't I think of it sooner? There is indeed one possible interpretation that might make sense of this otherwise nonsensical motion: and it involves understanding that the real intended target was not Konrad Mizzi at all… but Adrian Delia himself. In which case… um… well, it only leaves us with yet an- other mystery to solve. Why would PD want to do that, anyway? Why would a junior Opposition party invest so much more time and energy in destabilizing its own Op- position partner… and not the government, which it is Con- stitutionally bound to oppose? Hey, you can't expect me to solve all life's mysteries at once, you know. It's high time others did some of the answering, too…