The Nationalist Party MEPs have been accused of being unpatriotic for voting against Leo Brincat’s nomination to the European Court of Auditors. Kurt Sansone asks whether this criticism is valid.
Leo Brincat was rejected with a 152-vote difference by the European Parliament, which made the decision of three Nationalist MEPs to oppose his nomination hardly relevant.
But here in Malta the decision by the PN MEPs to oppose Mr Brincat’s nomination was immediately branded unpatriotic, with former Prime Minister Alfred Sant going so far as to call it an act of “great infamy”.
The PN MEPs “broke the golden rule” that Maltese MEPs should not vote against fellow Maltese nominations, Dr Sant said in the aftermath of the vote.
He said the Opposition could flog to death the issue of the Panama Papers in Malta. “But pushing it into a European forum in this unscrupulous way simply amounts to a highly geared political opportunism. It undermines the national interest. It is inviting retaliation of the type an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
His view reflects the thinking of many, who believe Maltese should stick up for fellow Maltese in international forums.
The Labour Party practised this belief when previous PN administrations nominated contentious figures like Louis Galea and John Dalli for posts in European institutions.
I respect Leo, but the fact that he only gained the support of 30 per cent of MEPs not only makes the PN MEPs’ votes irrelevant but tells you there was something fundamentally wrong- Henry Frendo
Understanding this golden rule, however, requires travelling back in time. The defence of the patria (motherland) is a colonial legacy, according to historian Henry Frendo.
“Although defending Malta at all costs has lost much of its lustre since independence, it continues to be used for political gain every now and then,” he says.
But he also believes the patriotic discourse has to do with the insular mentality of a small island State.
PN MEPs have insisted that the vote against Mr Brincat was a question of principle, given his support for Minister Without Portfolio Konrad Mizzi during a vote of no confidence in the Maltese Parliament over the Panama Papers scandal.
It is undeniable that Mr Brincat’s candidature was always going to be hampered by that scandal, despite his criticism of Dr Mizzi’s actions before the MEPs.
In the current climate, where tax avoidance and money laundering are frowned upon by politicians in countries hard-hit by austerity, the Panama affair provided the perfect backdrop for Mr Brincat’s rejection.
Prof. Frendo says simple mathematics puts the Brincat debacle in its proper perspective and renders the patriotic argument puerile.
“I respect Leo, but the fact that he only gained the support of 30 per cent of MEPs not only makes the PN MEPs’ votes irrelevant but tells you there was something fundamentally wrong,” he adds.
Prof. Frendo says former French finance minister Jérôme Cahuzac is being admonished and faces a possible jail term after being caught stashing cash in secret offshore tax havens despite promising transparency.
“These are not issues that can be easily dismissed, especially by MEPs living on a continent where tax avoidance and financial fraud have become hot topics,” Prof. Frendo argues.
However, Dr Sant points towards what he describes as the European People’s Party’s “hypocrisy” over the matter.
He says the EPP, to which the PN MEPs belong, has stonewalled all motions in the European Parliament to censure European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s record as Luxembourg’s former Prime Minister.
It was during Mr Juncker’s term in office that deals were struck between Luxembourg and multinational corporations for the payment of less tax, as revealed in Lux Leaks last year.
Where does this leave the PN MEPs?
Well, they have argued that it is the Prime Minister’s obstinacy to keep his chief of staff, Keith Schembri, in office and Dr Mizzi in Cabinet that goes against the national interest and not their vote.
Their defence is strengthened by the line of questioning adopted by some MEPs in the Budgetary Control Committee on the Panama Papers link to Malta. Mr Brincat only managed to scrape through the committee stage and was not spared criticism from some MEPs from the Socialists and Democrats group, to which the PL belongs.
It undermines the national interest. It is inviting retaliation of the type an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth- Alfred Sant
But Desmond Zammit Marmara, a Labour councillor and educator, disagrees with the way the PN MEPs acted.
He says the vote jars because Mr Brincat had no personal involvement in the Panama Papers and expressed his views clearly on the matter in Malta and abroad.
“He was punished for his loyalty to the party, which is a value to be cherished,” Mr Zammit Marmara says.
He admits the Panama Papers affair had a negative impact on the country and could have been handled better by the government but insists the position adopted by PN MEPs simply perpetuates the damage. “It’s not like Konrad Mizzi was the nominee.”
With the government intent on pushing through Mr Brincat’s nomination at the Council of Ministers, the question of national interest has again cropped up.
Will such a move be in Malta’s best interest or will it dent the country’s image?
Prof. Frendo takes a broader view and believes that overturning an absolute majority of the European Parliament, although legal, does not augur well for the existence of EU institutions.
There have been precedents, some as recent as April, when the Polish nominee for the Court of Auditors failed to make it from the committee stage and got a resounding thumbs down from the MEPs, yet Poland pressed ahead with the nomination. The Council eventually approved the Pole, overturning the MEP vote.
But instances like this, according to Prof. Frendo, raise the question of who is sovereign: the people, as represented by the only elected body in the EU, or the politicians?
The answer is not straightforward and cuts deep into the essence of what EU leaders are trying to do when they speak of crafting a changed, post-Brexit union.
What is straightforward though, is that at Council level, there will be no PN representatives to target for ‘unpatriotic’ behaviour.
kurt.sansone@timesofmalta.com