No one expected much to come out of the visit to Malta by Martin Schulz, president of the European Parliament. It was a formality, but that did not deter Simon Busuttil, Opposition leader, from sending Schulz back to Brussels carrying a few uncomfortable truths.
Busuttil spoke for millions of European citizens when he said the EU pokes its nose into unnecessary areas while it shies away from speaking about things that matter to them. Two such areas are migration and corruption.
Faced with a question about the Panama Papers revelations and whether these cast doubt on Malta’s ability to push through EU anti-money-laundering laws, Schulz’s answer was that Malta’s presidency will not be hampered by the revelations and added that “it was common for European institutions to have separate opinions to those of national governments and the island was cooperating with the European institutions in matters related to the fight against tax evasion”.
What precisely Schulz was talking about is difficult to say. It is not an opinion that a minister of the Malta government, Konrad Mizzi, and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Keith Schembri, opened secret accounts in Panama. These are established facts, so much so that Mizzi was supposed to have been punished by the Prime Minister by depriving him of his health and energy portfolios.
It is also a fact that another account in Panama was opened at the same time bearing the name Egrant Inc, and no one is convinced in Malta that the Prime Minister is not aware of its ownership. Schulz opted to muddy the waters. The European Parliament considers the Panama Papers revelations as serious facts that deserve a thorough investigation.
There is nowhere to hide in today’s digital world
Schulz’s assurance that the island (meaning the government, one presumes) was cooperating with the European institutions in matters related to the fight against tax evasion calls for reflection. As accounts in dubious financial jurisdictions are tied up with tax evasion and, in many cases, money laundering, are we not entitled to know if this cooperation amounted to an assurance by our government that it will sing from the same hymnal during the Malta presidency and push any EU legislation in this area?
In which case, Malta’s presidency would be saying to the whole of the EU: do what we say, not what we do.
Corruption, as Busuttil told Schulz, is not being talked about enough in the EU. There are countries in the EU where corruption in the form of commissions or bribes to politicians is rife. If corrupt governments in the EU are left untouched by the highest European institutions, how do we expect to bridge the deficit in credibility in politicians among many generations of European citizens?
Schulz’s use of the words “separate opinion” of European institutions to those of national governments makes it look as if corruption is allowed to fester in local governance while the EU stays silent. The EU, particularly in the eurozone, has done a lot of good and difficult work in promoting economic convergence, so why not make an equally needed effort to achieve convergence in clean governance throughout the EU?
Our country is on the eve of assuming the European presidency, and some of us who worked hard to see us where we are today have a twinge of regret that Joseph Muscat, who did all he could to keep us out of the EU, will be basking in the glory of the presidency.
However, his own glory is tarnished from the very start, as he will take with him wherever he goes the putrid smell of corruption that has engulfed his government from the very start of his premiership. The Panama Papers dragged Malta’s name into the mud and will continue to do so for a very long time. And that, for many of us, is totally regrettable.
There is still time to save Malta’s reputation. The Prime Minister must immediately dismiss Mizzi and Schembri, allow the police to investigate freely their involvement in setting up accounts in Panama or, even better, order a judicial inquiry, reveal the name of the owner of the third account, name the owners of the companies who are now owners of three hospitals in Malta and Gozo, dismiss any person of trust appointed by his government who has been involved in any shady dealings and, finally, sort out any corrupt practices, which are already vitiating forthcoming election results.
A tall order indeed, but nothing less than what the EU itself hopes to achieve during Malta’s presidency. There is nowhere to hide in today’s digital world.
What happened in Schultz’s own Parliament when, overwhelmingly, MEPs rejected Leo Brincat as Malta’s candidate for the European Court of Auditors for voting twice in Parliament in support of Mizzi stood out as a beacon of hope, a warning that might have signalled a need to change Malta’s way of tolerating tax evasion on a big scale by a select few.
The warning fell on deaf ears. Schulz had the opportunity to say a few words here in Malta to express disquiet at the turn of events, but he failed to notice the elephant in the room, and it had to be spelled out to him by Busuttil.
Schultz betrayed his own Parliament while being a guest of the Maltese Parliament.