[attach id=586376 size="medium"]Tony Zarb drew all the attention to himself with his talk of traitors and obscene innuendos. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi[/attach]

What a difference nine months make. Nationalist MEPs David Casa and Roberta Metsola are today being branded traitors by the Labour machine for not being ultra-nationalist enough. You may have missed, however, that last year Labour was accusing them of betraying the national interest by – read this slowly – not being European enough.

In September, Leo Brincat’s nomination to the European Court of Auditors was reaching its crucial stage. His nomination risked being rejected like that of the nominee he replaced, Toni Abela. Brincat had already been skewered in the European Parliament for his vote of confidence in Konrad Mizzi in the national parliament.

A European auditor who expresses confidence in a minister with a Panama company is a contradiction in terms – European terms, anyway. But, on September 16, Glenn Bedingfield’s blog carried a guest post, called ‘Simon: A Political Pawn’. It was a fascinating take on the interests in play:

“Simon has failed to realise that he and his MEPs are being used by the European nationalists as political pawns to further their purpose of undermining Brussels and possibly dismantling the EU.”

Simon Busuttil – an unwitting tool in the service of the European far right? Labour – saying that undermining Brussels is non-patriotic? Wait, it gets better.

Remember that this was barely three months after the Brexit vote. Europe was braced for possible electoral victories by the far right in the Netherlands and France. In case we missed the point, the guest post spelled it out:

“Opposing the Maltese nomination twice is their way (that is, the right-wing nationalists) of hitting out at Joseph Muscat whose position in favour of a strong EU is hurting them.”

This week, Bedingfield’s blog is again referring to the MEPs as traitors. This time, however, it’s because they didn’t stick up for Muscat when he faced a grilling over his refusal to take action against Konrad Mizzi and his chief of staff, Keith Schembri.

Today, ‘undermining Brussels’ is not the issue. Now, aligning yourself with a wide range of politicians – centre-right, socialist, Green – is a vice, not a virtue. You serve Malta’s national interests by proclaiming that staple slogan of right-wing nationalism: “My country, right or wrong!”

What’s changed since September? Three things, essentially.

Then, Muscat was heading into the European presidency. Claiming he stood for a stronger Europe against the far right, when critical elections were coming up, helped buy him support. Now, the presidency is all but over.

Next, it’s difficult to continue to claim you’re in favour of a stronger Europe when, in the meantime, your own chief of staff has treated the EP’s Pana committee with contempt, casting doubt on its warrant.

Finally, Mizzi has appeared before the committee and failed to persuade it that he wasn’t involved in a textbook case of money-laundering.

Since then, several reports by Malta’s own anti-money-laundering agency have been leaked and published. The fresh facts enumerated there – and the additional news that the police chief had the reports but didn’t act on them – have only strengthened everyone’s worst suspicions.

Given this context, there is no way that Muscat could have put up a good showing when he faced the EP last week. And, indeed, he didn’t. It was a poor performance by him and a bad day for Malta.

It was a poor performance by Joseph Muscat and a bad day for Malta

Let’s define what a good showing would have been. It has nothing to do with smirking in the face of your critics and slipping out of answering their questions. That’s what Muscat did and it would have been a good showing if the event was merely a piece of political theatre, where it’s only the optics that count.

But the crucial issue here was something else. Panamagate, and Muscat’s retention of Mizzi and Schembri, is being linked to criticism of Malta’s financial services industry – by its competitors.

Panamagate is being cited to show that, despite the rules, in practice Malta takes a lax attitude to due diligence and financial oversight. The laxity affects all our institutions and goes right to the top.

Muscat’s task should have been to address these concerns. The national interest would have been served if he could have assured the MEPs of Malta’s rigour.

Instead, he left MEPs seething – across the political spectrum. Instead of reassuring them, he goaded them.

Asked why he took no action against Mizzi and Schembri, he gave a highly misleading answer. He suggested action was being taken – when he was referring to inquiries instigated by others and not quite covering the same ground, either.

That answer might have got him through that particular encounter. But in the longer run it will make it more difficult for Malta to claim it is to be trusted.

The accusation that the Pana committee is playing prosecutor, judge and jury will not wash in Europe, either. The committee isn’t deciding on criminal guilt. It’s deciding on political responsibility.

In France, this week, a close friend of the new French President, Emmanuel Macron, resigned his ministerial position simply because he is under a preliminary investigation. That’s what responsible politicians do to safeguard the reputation of their government.

In Malta, this didn’t happen despite the great reputational damage. Nor did the Prime Minister sack Mizzi and Schembri.

On the contrary, what has happened is something extraordinary.

Instead of the politicians resigning to protect the institutions, we had the government criticising the institutions to protect the politicians.

One of the main arguments made by Muscat in Brussels concerned the autonomy and strength of the supervising institutions (including the offices of the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman). However, his own finance minister has cast doubt on the probity of the antimoney-laundering agency, suggesting its reports on Schembri and Mizzi were politically motivated.

And, given that Muscat taunted his critics by urging them to “dig deeper”, we must hope they don’t.

Otherwise, they might find out that one other incumbent senior minister, Evarist Bartolo, has been harshly critical of the current chairman of our financial services authority.

And that another minister, Michael Falzon, has accused the Office of the Auditor-General (at a time when its head was the current Ombudsman) of partisan investigations.

That’s right. Muscat’s own cabinet ministers have cast doubts on the probity of the FIAU, the MFSA and the Auditor General’s office. Muscat himself didn’t take the necessary action to protect Malta’s reputation.

But then we’re supposed to get all indignant when other people question our reputation and don’t trust our institutions to do the right thing.

You have to hand it to Tony Zarb. He’s drawn all the attention to himself with his talk of traitors and obscene innuendos.

He’s got everyone discussing whether he’s being overzealous in defending Malta. And no one’s discussing how weakly Muscat has defended the national interest.

ranierfsadni@europe.com