The Council of Ministers would do well to accept Leo Brincat’s nomination as a member of the European Court of Auditors. Brincat was nominated by a legitimate government, and he happens to be decent and capable. His merits also secured him the support of the European Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee.
That said, it is worth looking into the politics of the matter. The two important facts are, first, that Brincat just about made it through the committee hearing and, second, that a majority of MEPs (including the EPP Group) voted last Tuesday to recommend to the council that his nomination be rejected. Not a very good showing, then.
The main sticking point was Panama. It was Panama that robbed Brincat of a stronger vote at the committee hearing. For its part, the EPP Group voted against Brincat’s nomination on account of the Maltese citizenship sale – and, of course, Panama. The case against was that Brincat, who was a government minister when the scandal broke, had a share in the collective responsibility. Certainly it mattered that he voted against the no-confidence motion in Parliament.
Brincat’s defence was feeble. He told the committee that he thought Mizzi ought to have resigned, but that Malta’s parliamentary system meant that he (Brincat) had had “no choice” but to toe the party line and vote against. When asked whether he had himself considered resigning, his answer was that to resign was to be a hero for a day and out in the wilderness ever after.
The second bit is not based on a legitimate rationale. A resignation or otherwise should not make reference to the future fortunes of the individual but rather to the principle of political integrity. Bluntly put, we don’t care whether Brincat the politician is on the way to the wilderness or to a very cosy place.
The first part would have been a reasonable defence, had Brincat taken the trouble to properly explain. There is such a thing as a party whip who acts on the instructions of the party leader. Labour MPs were not given a free vote. Which means that Brincat was justified in voting with his party, even if he really thought that Mizzi should have resigned. The reference point of the whip system is ultimately the integrity of a party and its general principles.
I don’t suppose that MEPs would have had trouble following the logic, because that’s exactly what the EPP Group members did last Tuesday: they voted as a group. If that vote made sense, I don’t see why Labour MPs (including Brincat) should be faulted for having voted in much the same way.
Even as Brincat is hanged, drawn and quartered, the real culprits get to play with scale models of ships and to look very jolly doing so
The other point that’s doing the rounds is that the matter shows Malta in bad light (‘iħammeġ isem Malta’). Labour tells us that the Nationalists betrayed Malta in the EP, the Nationalists that Labour corruption darkened Malta’s good name. I find this ruck most unproductive, for three reasons.
First, because it lends itself to endless tit-for-tat. Hunting provides a good analogy. Hunters have often accused Birdlife of betraying the national interest by exposing instances of poaching in the international press. Birdlife’s retort is that its job is to tell the truth, and that it is actually the poachers themselves who show Malta in bad light. Not a wildly exciting debate, truth be told.
Second, the belief that Malta’s virtue is constantly on the line is so much small-minded hyper-nationalist nonsense. It’s on every year at the Eurovision song contest, which apparently makes or breaks Malta’s reputation. I really don’t think that the street markets of Europe are all agog over whether or not Panama will break Malta’s virgin knot.
Third, even if we assume that such a scandal could indeed undo our good name, the argument would be irrelevant. That’s because, as I said earlier, the ultimate reference point of a clean bill of health is the principle of political integrity – not the country’s name or anything else.
The other thing that bothers me in this whole business is the inconsistency of EU institutions. Let’s leave aside the detail that the EP’s ‘Panama Papers’ inquiry committee has yet to look into what happened in Malta. The fact remains that relatively small fry like Brincat are serving as a theatre where the spectacle of righteousness can be played out.
Thing is, even as Brincat is hanged, drawn and quartered, the real culprits get to play with scale models of ships and to look very jolly doing so. Arnold Cassola said on Tuesday that Brincat paid for the shameful behaviour of Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri. He didn’t say why the projection was at all necessary. If Panama is so bad, the least the EU institutions could do is get to the point and have a word with the right people.
Only nothing of the sort has happened. I’m not under the impression that Malta is regarded as a pariah state. Quite the contrary in fact. The Prime Minister, for example, is given the warmest of welcomes at EU meetings, and I’m sure Malta’s Presidency of the Council next year will bring with it endless rounds of the heartiest of handshakes. Panama? Think nothing of it.
It is wrong to bill the Brincat matter as a stand-off between European standards and the corrupt nature of a Labour government. What it really is, is much more complicated than that. It’s something that’s immersed in a morass of lobbying, power games and double standards. The Europe of Cain and that of Abel are as much a myth now as they were then.
mafalzon@hotmail.com