In order to discredit their political opponents, certain PN exponents selectively extrapolated random facts from the complex process of the European Parliament vote, so as to mislead public opinion ”
The title may say it all, and I will be returning to it in greater detail. But today I would like to delve into the PN’s latest tactic: economising on the truth in order to confuse the electorate.
There have been many occasions of this tactic from day one, but the latest one has been the dishonest spin with regards to granting voting rights to immigrants. In order to discredit their political opponents, certain PN exponents selectively extrapolated random facts from the complex process of the European Parliament vote, so as to mislead public opinion.
The PN are misleading when giving the impression that illegal and irregular migrants will be given the right to vote. Wrong. It is only legal migrants, with regular residence permits, after living a number of years in the country, who would be given the right to vote.
The PN are misleading when they suggest that migrants would vote at national elections. Wrong. Legal migrants would be allowed to vote only at local elections and not at national elections.
The PN are misleading when they give the impression that our country would be forced to give the above-mentioned voting rights. Wrong. Each country would decide individually whether to implement this recommendation or not.
One must also mention that, last Monday, the Greens in the European Parliament last Monday voted in the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament to revise the Dublin regulation so that countries like Malta, which are facing disproportionate migratory pressure, benefit from a legally-binding responsibility sharing mechanism, which would allow for the reallocation of immigrants among EU countries. This will ensure that burden sharing is mandatory and not voluntary.
All Green MEPs on the committee, Jean Lambert, Johannes Voggenhuber and Margaret Auken, were present to vote in favour of this measure. One must recall that it was Ms Lambert, in her first parliamentary report on the subject around a year and a half ago, that brought up the need of a revision of the Dublin Convention, following consultations with Alternattiva Demokratika.
On the same day, the Civil Liberties Committee also approved Ms Lambert’s report on the setting up of EASO (European Asylum Support Office). The aim of the setting up of EASO is to provide the necessary expert assistance to help in the delivery of a consistent and high quality Common European Asylum Policy.
Thanks to Ms Lambert, things will change. In her report she has deleted the original reference to the “voluntary” nature of burden or responsibility sharing. Member States will benefit through the introduction of a new support office, not least in the development of mutual confidence and sharing of responsibility with smaller states like Malta.
It is still sad however to see how this migration issue is being handled by some politicians in the Nationalist Party, mostly through wilful transmission of this misleading information for a handful of votes.
I am very disappointed at the fact that the PN has shown no qualms in sowing the seeds of racial hatred in our country, and is playing with fire when undermining the general unity shown by democratic parties with regards to the immigration problem, while showing itself ready to sacrifice our country’s social stability to the egoistic needs of the party.
http://www.alternattiva2009.eu
