Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1509870
12 EWROPEJ maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 18 OCTOBER 2023 WHAT a coincidence! Just a cou- ple of days ago, I wrote an article about how certain European pol- iticians – alluding chiefly, but not exclusively, to EP President Rob- erta Metsola – have a tendency to 'shoot first, and ask questions later'. That is to say: their knee-jerk reaction to any new develop- ment, is always to blurt out the first (seemingly 'appropriate') sound-bite that springs to mind; "without ever pausing to consid- er what the rest of the European Union might actually have to say, about the matter…. before com- mitting the entire bloc to adopt- ing certain positions that it may well later come to 'regret' (if not 'sheepishly retract, altogether'.)" And, oh look: just three days later, Metsola had to issue a 'clar- ification' of her previous declara- tions on the Israel-Hamas con- flict… after facing criticism from (among many other quarters) PSD leader Iratxe García, who said: "Both Ursula von der Leyen and Roberta Metsola were right to show Europe's solidarity and absolute condemnation for Ha- mas' terrorist attacks. However, as chief representatives of the EU and its institutions, they had the duty to represent the position of the Union as a whole, including its Member States. With their visit to Israel they failed, uphold- ing an unacceptable bias that can only cause harm…" All the same, however: that's not the coincidence I was ac- tually talking about, in my first sentence. For like I said in that earlier article: "Roberta Metsola is very far from being the only ex- ample', in this regard. And what I should have added (but didn't), was that this whole 'shoot first, ask questions later' pattern is BY NO MEANS limited to just the 'European/international stage'. In fact, you could almost argue that European politicians are ac- tually amateurs, when it comes to flatly contradicting themselves in the space of a few days (or even, in some instances, within a few seconds). And not only that: but the home-grown examples al- ways tend to be… let's just say, more 'amusing' than their inter- national counterparts (even be- cause – thankfully – their conse- quences do not usually amount to 'a heightened level of terror-alert, throughout Europe…') So without further ado… let's pause to admire one of the most spectacular (and hilarious, if you ask me) 'shoot first, ask questions later' moments, that this country has ever witnessed. This time, the 'gunslinger-poli- tician' is a certain Justin Schem- bri – not a household name, per- haps; but still a Nationalist MP (and Opposition spokesman for 'Education', no less!) – who was very 'quick-on-the-draw', when it came to sharing his own personal reaction to government's 'May- or-at-16' bill, on Facebook. For those may have been hiding under rock, these past few days: I'm referring to the Parliamenta- ry bill entitled 'Act on Local Gov- ernment', tabled last Wednesday, which provoked a furore of on- line controversy… by proposing to lower the age-restriction for becoming mayor, from 18 to 16. Justin Schembri's reaction? Well… to be fair, it was no dif- ferent from pretty much every other reaction I've seen or heard, ever since (including, by the way, those of a not-small number of 13-15-year-olds, with whom I happened to discuss this very subject a few days ago). It may, admittedly, be just an impression of mine; but it seems to me as though everyone and his dog is 100% in agreement, with Schembri's observation that: "[This is] the most senseless thing that could happen. Sorry, but 16-year-old teenagers do not have the experience to administer a town or village… they might not even be able to sign off on certain decisions, seeing as they are not yet 18 years of age…" Ah… but it's a little like the opening line of every Asterix and Obelix adventure, isn't it? '"The year is 50 BC, and all Gaul is oc- cupied. All Gaul? NO! One small village of indomitable Gauls still holds out against the invaders…' Only in this case: it's 'two small villages', not one. For it turns out that – apart from the Labour government – the Nationalist Opposition is also part of the mi- croscopic Maltese minority (esti- mated at only 4%, by a Times on- line poll) that actually AGREES with this 'senseless' proposal, wholeheartedly. Not only that: but the Nation- alist Party also claimed 'owner- ship' of the same idea: with par- ty spokesman Darren Carabott reminding us that the PN had included an identical scheme in its own local government policy, published last June. The upshot? Just as quickly as Justin Schembri had 'drawn his gun, and pulled the trigger'… he was forced (not unlike Metsola before him) to 'sheepishly retract' his knee-jerk declaration. But this only brings us to the most amusing part. Never mind, for a moment, that Justin Schem- bri is himself a Nationalist MP (and as such, he is about to em- bark on a Parliamentary debate, on this very motion)… … and yet, he seems entirely un- aware of what his own party's po- sition on the issue even IS, begin with (not to stress too fine a point on it, but: you do need to know your own party's policies… if you ever intend to actually implement them, that is...) Leaving all that side, however: I mean, you've got to just mar- vel at the resulting irony, haven't you? Even if – like all good iro- nies – this one's a little hard to, well, 'iron out' (if you know what I mean). OK, let me try this approach: on one level, I fully sympathise with Justin Schembri, because - even if he should really have known bet- ter, in this instance – his reaction was nonetheless entirely in synch, with the traditional Nationalist Party Opposition hand-book (en- titled: "How to Oppose Absolute- ly Anything and Everything, For No Other Reason Than It Was Proposed By A Labour Govern- ment"). And let's face it, folks: in prac- tically any other scenario, Jus- tin Schembri would NOT have been forced to retract any such 'knee-jerk' comment, at all. Be- cause you can rest assured that – if we were talking about, say, a Parliamentary bill to 'improve the health and safety standards, of women's reproductive rights' (like we were, in this country, until a few months ago) – the PN would surely have done what it always does, in such cases: and opposed it, purely 'for the sake of opposition'. In this case, however? For once, we had a situation where the La- bour government was proposing something that an overwhelming majority, in this country, found instantly 'objectionable' and 'de- plorable'– on grounds that are IDENTICAL to Schembri's ob- jections, above – and… what happens? Why, suddenly the two par- ties are '100% in agreement', of course! That's right, folks: the same Na- tionalist and Labour parties that somehow never, EVER, manage to reach any form of 'consen- sus', on practically anything un- der the sun… somehow, manage to instantaneously find com- 16-year-olds running the country? Maybe it's not such a bad idea, after all… Raphael Vassallo