EU divorce changes - 'Malta living in 16th century' - Socialist MEPs

[Ederico]

The Times & The Sunday Times, Malta

EU divorce changes
'Malta living in 16th century'
Ivan Camilleri

Malta was yesterday labelled a 16th century country by a Spanish MEP
over its stand on divorce.

The remark was made during a meeting of the European Parliament's Civil
Liberties Committee which debated an EU proposal to streamline divorce
procedures in cases involving cross border marriages.

The Maltese government has asked for an opt-out if the proposed rules
come into force, given that Malta has no divorce law.

The Maltese position was singled out during what was a first exchange
of views on the Commission's proposal before the European Parliament's
opinion on the issue is drafted by Socialist MEP Evelyne Gebhardt.

MEPs who intervened in the debate referred to Malta and Sweden as the
"two extremes" in a collage of divorce regimes across EU member states.
In this matter Sweden is considered as the most liberal country, where
a couple can obtain a divorce in a matter of weeks. Malta, on the other
hand, is the only EU member state where divorce is not allowed.

Swedish Socialist MEP Ingel Segelstrom expressed her concern that the
proposal might somehow lead to Swedish law on divorce becoming less
liberal. She also expressed concern that, as things stand today, a
Swedish couple residing in Malta may not obtain a divorce.

But Spanish liberal MEP Ignasi Guardans Cambò was the most scathing.
He said that Maltese judges should come out of the 16th century and be
told to grant divorce. He expressed concern that Malta continues to
hold out against divorce and said that foreigners residing in Malta
should be able to have access to divorce.

Intervening, Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil said this proposal was
currently the subject of much debate in Malta.

He said that the proposal raised some legal problems that needed to be
resolved, regardless of whether one was in favour or against divorce.

He pointed out that, as it stood, the proposal may lead to a situation
in which Maltese courts, which cannot grant divorce to Maltese couples,
would be required to grant divorce orders to foreigners residing in
Malta. This created a legal ambiguity which needed to be addressed.

The proposal, he said, also struck at the very heart of the question of
whether the EU had the competence to require Malta to introduce
divorce. Since the EU had no such power, the proposal had to be changed
to reflect Malta's specific situation, he argued.

The debate was concluded by the rapporteur, Ms Gebhardt, who said that
after having been responsible for the Services Directive last year she
never thought that there could be anything more difficult.

She said she would be preparing a working document taking into account
all the questions raised in the debate. This would be followed by a
report in the second half of this year, but she did not think the
German presidency would be in time to conclude this dossier by June.

[Marulus]

...and even 16th century is better than this degenerate 21st century.

A question for Spanish members of this board: Isn't it that mr. Shoeman (Zapatero) wanted to equate the "human" rights of apes to the human rights of humans? (I heard about it about half a year ago) What came out of it?

Zapatero's government (which legalized gay-marriages and gay-adoptions) has no right to interfere into interior business of another country that has decided to keep some traditional morality. In today's Europe it has become almost easier to divorce than to marry, abortion has become almost more socially acceptable than giving birth to a child...a total inversion of values...as a result of which the birth rates are plummeting.

It is really terrible how perverse Masonic Socialists are trying to impose this degeneracy to the whole Europe. To them it is progress, to me it is monstruous social-engeneering...

MALTESE, DO NOT GIVE IN!

[Menydh]

If you are trying to find out a pattern of logics behind any of the words or actions of the Socialists in Spain (or in Sweden or anywhere else), you are wasting time.

They call it progresismo (progressism), I call it palurdismo (slobbism).

[Milesian]

'Malta living in 16th century'

Lucky Maltese!

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

If you are trying to find out a pattern of logics behind any of the words or actions of the Socialists in Spain (or in Sweden or anywhere else), you are wasting time.

They call it progresismo (progressism), I call it palurdismo (slobbism).

I call it babbeismo and we'll stop with that term.

This test is very important for Malta, if the PN Government gives in due to any pressure it might even be a bigger hit for the upcoming elections. PN, although once a truly glorious nationalist party is now mostly a centre-left Christian Democrat organisation having exponents with various tendencies from the liberal to the conservative, from the Catholic to the secular or atheist, from people known for harbouring sympathy even towards communist ideologies to others being effectively conservative and right-wing. The traditional vote of PN however, has always been the conservative middle-class without neglecting any other socio-economic classes (early and integral PN had quite a definite social programme mostly based on the principles of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum). If the government gives in on this one, their traditional and most ardent supporters would probably tell them to forget the vote (and many are already doing this for many other reasons).

The man in my avatar was the leader from arond the early 1920s to his death in 1950. Now he was a nationalist, the 1947 PN electoral programme concluded with the phrase "NAZIONALISMO PER SEMPRE!" ("Nationalism for ever!"). Nowadays he would probably have told the EU that we are not anyone's slaves as much as he used to tell that to British authorities. Today, the party with all resources, is spiritually and ideologically a sad excuse for its glorious traditional past.

Let us see if they stoop even lower by giving in on this one.

[Revolutionary]

Indeed, we Maltese are still living in the 16th century because, after 500 years we're still fighting the Muslim invasion lol

That Spanish fellow should remember 1565 when we spent 3 months fighting off an Ottoman siege while we waited for reinforcements from Spain. In the thick of battle for the salvation of Europe you'll always find little old Malta fighting for its life even after its old allies betray it.

[Menydh]

You mean the Siege of Malta in 1565?

Ottoman Commander: Baja Mustafa Piali
Troops: 45,000 men
Artillery: 70 pieces
Casualties: 30,000 soldiers
Casualties: 3000 soldiers + 7500 civilians

Catholic Commanders: Grand Duke of Alva and Grand Master of the Order of Malta La Valette
Infantry: 15,000 men (5,000 Maltese + 700 Spanish soldiers)
(reinforcements: 9,000 men from the Spanish Tercios)
Cavalry: 200

In 1565, the Ottoman Sultan decides to conquer the strategical island of Malta. The defense of the island was in charge of the Order of St. John and consequently the Catholic King of Spain took in his hands the defense of the island. At the siege, the Order of St. John had 500 knights, 4,500 militia men and 500 soldiers of the Spanish Tercio of Sicilia. Quickly, the king sent 200 Spanish infantry soldiers and 100 Italian cavalry in addition. During 4 months, these men resisted against the assaults of the Turks with big losses on their side (to take Fort San Telmo, the Turks needed 30 days and they lost 6,000 men). In September 1565, King Felipe II of Spain organized an army of 9,000 (from the Spanish Tercios of Nápoles, Córcega and Lombardía) in 60 fast ships to reinforce the defense of Malta. The troops were quickly disembarked and they started the attack on the Turks. After a brief resistance, Mustafa decided to withdraw. That was the en of the Siege of Malta.

Or did you mean the Battle of Lepanto which dispelled the threat of the Ottoman hegemony in the Mediterranean? Or the many fights against the Berberiscs, included the capture of Tunis?

If you have a little decency left you should withdraw those infamous and ungrateful words which are proper of the most ignoble and lowest life form.

The one accusation of betrayal by a Grand Master of the Order was against Napoleon, the man that you revere, for violating the neutrality of the island and usurping the power of the Grand Master. The behaviour of the Napoleonic troops was such that the Maltese rebelled against the occupation. But you are typically of those who revere their invaders.

[Revolutionary]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Or did you mean the Battle of Lepanto which dispelled the threat of the Ottoman hegemony in the Mediterranean? Or the many fights against the Berberiscs, included the capture of Tunis?

Dispelled the threat of Ottoman Hegemony in the Mediterranean? Dear fellow, the Ottomans remained a threat until the middle of the 18th century. It was only after 1748 that the fear of an Ottoman invasion subsided in Malta.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

If you have a little decency left you should withdraw those infamous and ungrateful words which are proper of the most ignoble and lowest life form.

Withdraw? haha... La Vallette had asked for reinforcements from Spain months before the siege started but only received a handful of men and a lot of promises until the fighting was almost over. The fresh troops simply mopped up what was left of the Turks.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The one accusation of betrayal by a Grand Master of the Order was against Napoleon, the man that you revere, for violating the neutrality of the island and usurping the power of the Grand Master. The behaviour of the Napoleonic troops was such that the Maltese rebelled against the occupation. But you are typically of those who revere their invaders.

The neutrality of the island was only undersigned by the French monarchy which was no longer in power in 1798, the Republic never undersigned any agreement which sustained such a status. Therefore, power was not usurped but earned by right of conquest. By the way, the troops were not Napoleonic, but Republican... tsk tsk

To conclude, yes, I am a Bonapartist and proud to be one. There is no reason why I cannot be a Maltese patriot and an admirer of Napoleon Bonaparte and France. Europe rejected the ideas of the Revolution and Napoleonic France for many decades but in the end they were accepted as it was clear that they were paving the way for a better future.

If from a few posts you believe that you can understand who I am and what I fight for then it shows that you have a lot to learn.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary

Dispelled the threat of Ottoman Hegemony in the Mediterranean? Dear fellow, the Ottomans remained a threat until the middle of the 18th century. It was only after 1748 that the fear of an Ottoman invasion subsided in Malta.

Yes, it dispelled the thread of Ottoman hegemony in the Mediterranean. The Ottoman fleet was rebuilt but it wasn't the same anymore. Attacks from Berberiscs allied of the Sultan continued, and so did the policing of Spanish vesels against them.

Withdraw? haha...

Only if you had any decency left. You insult those who helped Malta there by calling their help a betrayal. I've seen Moors with more decency than you.

La Vallette had asked for reinforcements from Spain months before the siege started but only received a handful of men and a lot of promises until the fighting was almost over. The fresh troops simply mopped up what was left of the Turks.

What did you expect? The Turks and the Berberiscs had destroyed the Spanish fleet only 5 years earlier and the Spanish forces were being rebuilt. Not to mention the other war scenarios in Europe.

Oh! Betrayal! They didn't come swimming!

Not to mention that the soldiers who were inside Fort St. Elmo, together with the knights, and who resisted for 4 months a force of 40,000 Turks were the Spanish.

The neutrality of the island was only undersigned by the French monarchy which was no longer in power in 1798, the Republic never undersigned any agreement which sustained such a status. Therefore, power was not usurped but earned by right of conquest. By the way, the troops were not Napoleonic, but Republican... tsk tsk

Does it matter? It was on Napoleon's orders.

To conclude, yes, I am a Bonapartist and proud to be one.

There is nothing unique in a farm handboy pretending to be snobbish.

If from a few posts you believe that you can understand who I am and what I fight for then it shows that you have a lot to learn.

What you are you have shown it with your insult to those who went to help your country. Shame on you. And farewell, Bonapartista.