Foreign Minister Tonio Borg is on semi-official study leave as he prepares for next month’s grilling by MEPs to complete his new appointment as European Commissioner.
Tonio should give his personal views and be careful not to step into a hornet’s nest- Joe Borg
A spokesman told The Sunday Times that until November 13, Dr Borg will be reading reports and preparing for the “exam”.
He will be assigned the Consumer Affairs and Health portfolio, vacated by John Dalli in the wake of an investigation by the EU’s anti-fraud office.
Dr Borg has three weeks to understand the portfolio and prepare replies to unrelated pertinent questions that could prove tricky.
Malta’s first European Commissioner, Joe Borg, knows all about the hearings. In his first six-month stint under the Prodi Commission between May 2004 and November, he had fielded questions about abortion.
He was assigned with the Commissioner for Development Aid and his views on abortion featured prominently during the grilling session.
“It was abundantly clear that if I was to retain the same portfolio under the Barroso Commission MEPs were going to go for the jugular,” he recalls.
Joe Borg was eventually assigned the maritime and fisheries portfolio and the grilling focused more on his knowledge of the subject matter.
The same sensitive issues unrelated to Tonio Borg’s portfolio may crop up again and both the Socialist and Green groups have given notice of this.
For the second time in a week yesterday Labour leader Joseph Muscat pledged his party’s support for Dr Borg but warned the going will not be easy. He ruled out abortion as a thorny issue and pointed towards certain declarations Dr Borg made some years ago about gay rights.
“He needs to reply in a way that does not unduly upset certain quarters in the European Parliament,” Joe Borg said.
He advised his former Cabinet colleague to stick to the official line of the European People’s Party – the political home of the Nationalist Party – where the bloc has a common position.
“On issues where the political blocs might not necessarily have common positions, Tonio Borg should give his personal views and be careful not to step into a hornet’s nest.”
Otherwise, the grilling will boil down to the subject matter of Tonio Borg’s portfolio and Joe Borg feels the Foreign Minister has enough “ministerial experience and intelligence” to master the subject.
But Joe Borg also expects MEPs to ask about the John Dalli case: “In the aftermath of the John Dalli case I would expect questions on how Tonio Borg intends taking the tobacco directive forward. He will also be asked what he thinks of the affair but I am sure Tonio has the ability to answer well.”
As Dr Borg gets to grips with voluminous reports and technical briefs, it still has to be seen whether the November grilling will be the sternest challenge of his political career.
ksansone@timesofmalta.com
Potential plusses
A clean politician
Dr Borg has a good hand to play here.
Throughout his political career he has never been tainted by allegations of corruption and fraud or accused of shady dealings.
This means MEPs will not be distracted by administrative misgivings from Dr Borg’s past, which is crucial at this stage for the Commission to restore its credibility.
Dr Borg also has no commercial interests or links to big business that may be of concern.
Human rights champion
Dr Borg was one of a crop of human rights lawyers in the 1980s who fought against the institutional abuse of human rights by the Labour administration of the time.
He formed part of the legal team that successfully challenged in the European Court of Human Rights Parliament’s right to sanction anybody who was deemed to have breached its privilege.
Charles Demicoli, the former editor of a satirical newspaper in the 1980s, was accused of breaching parliamentary privilege by the Government of the time and hauled in front of MPs for sanctioning that also included a prison term.
The Strasbourg court found that Mr Demicoli’s human rights were breached and the landmark decision is considered until this day important course material for anybody studying human rights.
This aspect of Dr Borg’s legal career may be an important element in light of the core values that underpin the EU.
Potential negatives
The gay offence
Gay rights may be a sticking point for some of the Socialist MEPs, particularly statements Dr Borg made during a parliamentary debate on rent law reform in 2009.
Dr Borg had disparaged a proposal by the Labour Party to include reference to same-sex couples in the law.
“That’s all we need now! After we’ve finally decided to limit inheritance to married couples and children, now we are expected to extend this protection to those who decide to go and live with someone of the same sex,” he had said in Parliament.
However, three years later Dr Borg was also part of the same Cabinet that approved a Bill to regularise cohabitation, offering a registered civil partnership arrangement for unmarried individuals, including same-sex couples.
The Bill is pending in front of Parliament.
Eritrean deportation
The Green group in the European Parliament has indicated that a particular case involving the deportation of Eritrean migrants in 2002 is a source of concern.
At the time Dr Borg was Home Affairs minister and responsible for the Government’s immigration policy. In the autumn of 2002 the Government ignored warnings by Amnesty International on the dangers faced by 220 Eritrean migrants who were to be deported to their country.
The Government went ahead with the process and two years later in a damning report Amnesty International said that on arrival, the Eritreans had faced torture and punishment.
When news of the torture emerged Dr Borg appointed Magistrate Abigail Lofaro to conduct an inquiry into the Government’s handling of the affair.
The three-month-long inquiry concluded the Government had not infringed any directions issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or Amnesty International.
It added that the decision taken was legally correct.
The inquiry established that the Maltese authorities had urged the Eritreans, who had arrived illegally by boat, to apply for refugee status, which they then refused to do.