In 2016, the European Parliament endorsed a resolution calling for the setting up of an EU mechanism to safeguard democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights across Member States. PN MEP Roberta Metsola tells Keith Micallef this mechanism is needed now more than ever.
What is the reason it is only now that you are stepping up the pressure for the European Commission to adopt this proposal?
This debate has been going on for some time. The EU is not just an economic bloc but a political one harbouring certain fundamental values like democracy, liberty, equality and the rule of law. Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder has exposed even more the lack of an EU mechanism to cater for situations when such values are not being upheld by certain Member States. At present it seems as though EU members are no longer kept in check once they become part of the bloc. There is a gap between the values enshrined in the EU Treaty and their effective safeguarding in real life.
The timing, however, has fuelled suspicion that your move is part of a ploy to score political points against the Labour government through the backdoor. Is this the case?
The government’s systematic attacks against PN MEPs will not intimidate us. The European Parliament is the home that we strived to be part of, where fundamental values must be respected. If a Member State is riding roughshod over these fundamental rights, I would be doing a disservice to the Maltese people if I failed to flag the situation.
The proposed mechanism will not be a sort of political weapon but a means to safeguard core standards. Such a mechanism is already in place in certain sectors, like for example the justice scoreboard.
What’s the use of having the best laws in the world without being able to enforce them? What happens if it transpires that the police are not investigating serious reports? What if journalists are threatened by foreign companies to remove critical content about them, also known as SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation)?
Who is spearheading this proposal?
The European Parliament adopted a formal resolution in which it requested the European Commission to establish the mechanism in 2016. The murder of Ms Caruana Galizia and recently that of a Slovak journalist reignited this call as they exposed clear democratic lacunae in two Member States. There are no political motives behind the wish to establish this mechanism but a desire to have a group of independent experts enjoying unanimous trust to compile a report on every Member State.
The ball has been in the European Commission’s court for two years. What else can the EP do to exert further pressure?
Following the murder of the Slovak journalist, it was agreed that an EP fact-finding mission from the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (Libe) will visit this Member State on the same lines as had happened in Malta following Ms Caruana Galizia’s killing. In the latter case, a report had been drawn in which the EP had expressed serious doubts on the rule of law in Malta. We will be stepping up the political pressure on the Commission to act, and will be inviting Commission vice president Frans Timmermans to debate the matter next week, in our quest to have the mechanism in place by the end of this year.
But who would head this mechanism?
The proposal is to have a group of experts appointed with the approval of all EU institutions. We want to adopt a model similar to the EU justice scoreboard, in order to safeguard the independence of important institutions like the police force, across all Member States without distinction. Such an initiative must not be perceived to be a form of punishment but an impetus to keep the highest standards.
Prior to the Labour Party’s election to government in 2013, such concerns never cropped up and my duty is to flag the situation. I will strive to ensure that standards in Malta are maintained.
Will it be just an academic exercise or will it lead to further consequences?
At present the only mechanism is the so-called ‘nuclear option’ – Article 7 of the EU Treaty which may result in the expulsion of a Member State from the EU. We need a sort of intermediate measure to empower the Commission to take political, legal and administrative action and force a Member State to take action if certain values safeguarded in their national Constitution are not respected. We want to have a government that is accountable to the same standards it adhered to when it first joined the EU.
There is a gap between the values enshrined in the EU Treaty and their effective safeguarding in real life
What sort of measures are you envisaging?
No Member State would want to be on a list of EU countries flouting core values. A flagrant breach would result in consequences. We tabled our request to the Commission but the details will be up for debate between Member States themselves at Council level. A case in point is that of Poland, whereby EU governments expressed regret that the issue on the independence of the judiciary in that country has already dragged for three years and should not have reached the extreme point of debating the possibility of invoking Article 7.
Is the suspension of funds being mooted?
That would be one of the worst things that could happen. The aim of this mechanism is to draw attention before it is too late, safeguard the citizens of the Member State in question, and give enough time to the country’s authorities to rectify the situation. My wish is to have such a mechanism serve as a deterrent.
During the peak of the financial crisis in 2008, Member States had agreed to oblige themselves to submit their annual Budget to the Commission. While at the time there had been criticism that the measure was denting the national sovereignty, experience has shown that this was not the case. On the other hand this measure ensured more discipline in public finances.
Will the suspension of funds be a real possibility or just a remote possibility?
I reiterate that the objective is to alert a Member State and give it enough time to remedy the situation. We want to avert situations whereby the only possible measure is Article 7. Winning a general election does not empower a government to steamroll over everybody including institutions. If a government keeps ignoring warnings, every consequence is possible. But expelling a Member State would be a punishment against the same people who had assiduously campaigned for their country to join the EU.
Would not this be tantamount to direct interference by Brussels in domestic affairs?
I refute that accusation for the simple reason that all Member States are party to the decisions being taken. That is a populist argument being used by fascist parties. Contrary to the fears fuelled prior to Malta’s accession, we have not been swallowed up by Brussels. While we have to support all the good work the EU is doing, we also have a duty to flag those things which are not right. Failing to speak up, as the Labour Party wants us to do, would be tantamount to abdicating from our responsibility as MEPs.
How would you rank Labour’s second term so far? What is the best/worst measure they have carried out?
As an MEP my greatest criticism is that the Labour government refuses to listen to any form of criticism. Its only argument is that having won the general election it has the right to do as it pleases. Following Labour’s re-election, PN MEPs are increasingly coming under attack from every level of society. The political leaders of this government must shoulder responsibility for this.
The last time that we expressed our concern on the situation in Malta at the EP, the Prime Minister’s reaction to the media was “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen”. Elsewhere, Dr Muscat, who is a former MEP himself, is also on record saying that he only listens to other prime ministers. Such arrogance from the leader of a democratic country is unacceptable.
However, Ms Caruana Galizia’s murder has overshadowed everything else. So far the only action taken is the controversy which has erupted over the Great Siege Monument, which is being used by her followers as part of their campaign to seek justice.
Your statement is incorrect as three people have been charged over her killing, albeit the masterminds are still at large.
I wish to be in a situation whereby I could be in a position to say that everyone is doing their duty to hunt down those who wanted to get rid of her.
What about the positive measures taken by the Labour government?
The unanimous decision between government and Opposition to lower the voting age to 16 was a positive move. We believe that youths must be given the strongest democratic tools. Our mission is to empower them to make the best decision on which party has the best vision for the country and that whose only interest is to look after the Prime Minister’s inner circle.
How would you describe the state of the PN at present following Adrian Delia’s election as leader?
Necessary changes have been made and others are still under way. Everybody is being given the opportunity to express themselves, even to air alternative dissenting views from those of the party as part of our work in our respective portfolios or roles. This process will enable the Opposition to adopt a formal position and draft its policies.
We want to have a government that is accountable to the same standards it adhered to when it first joined the EU
Despite being touted for the leadership you opted not to throw your name in the hat. Why?
Whilst thanking those who had encouraged me to run for the leadership, I decided against taking such step in view of my family commitments. I still have a young child to look after. As a PN MEP I am very proud of my existing role which I will strive to carry out to the best of my capabilities, and reciprocate the trust shown to me both by the electorate and the party.
Would you exclude running for the party leadership in future?
I am very proud to be an MEP but cannot say what will happen in future. It is my duty to respect the electorate’s decision.
Next year’s MEP election is being deemed crucial for the PN. Is the party’s target to retain its three seats, despite the increasing gap between the two major parties?
Yes, electing three MEPs is a realistic target. If it was achievable in 2014 it must be in next year’s election as well.
But opinion polls are showing that the PN is currently trailing the PN by an even larger gap than at the last general election.
This means we have to work harder. I am hopeful that with a strong line-up of candidates and a good manifesto the PN can keep its three seats. It will be an uphill struggle but if the party is united this is within reach.
You emphasised the need for unity. Do you fear a backlash from party activists who have not embraced Dr Delia as leader?
When faced by such concerns my response is to sit down with them and look into their doubts, in an attempt to address them either myself, or through a member of the parliamentary group or Dr Delia himself. This is the beauty of politics. Being an MEP means that my constituency comprises all Maltese citizens.
My mission right now is to listen to the people and strive to convey their feedback to the party.