Malta’s six-month presidency of the Council of the European Union was as eventful as it was successful.
There was the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the EU migration summit held here and the official triggering of Brexit by the UK government. Then, a general election campaign was launched two-thirds of the way through, when government ministers should have been totally focused on pushing the EU’s legislative agenda forward.
Finally, last Tuesday, when Prime Minister Joseph Muscat was invited to give an account of the presidency to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, was involved in an extraordinary and unseemly spat with the Parliament’s president Antonio Tajani.
The object of Juncker’s ire was the fact that only 30 MEPs showed up to listen to Muscat speak. Where were the other 721 deputies? His rebuke – “The European Parliament is ridiculous, very ridiculous” – made headlines around the world.
Tajani defended the Parliament, saying it controlled the Commission, not the other way around, and implored Juncker to adopt a more respectful tone. Juncker was unchastened: “There are only a few members here to control the Commission. You are ridiculous,” he repeated. “I wanted to pay tribute to the Maltese,” the former prime minister of the EU’s second smallest population insisted, before going on to commend the “excellent job” done by Malta’s Prime Minister and its civil servants.
The incident sent minor shock waves through Brussels. A public attack like this by one EU institution on another is practically unheard of. The global headlines that it made and the video of Juncker gesticulating towards the deserted hemicycle embarrassed the Parliament.
This is hardly the first time that a head of government has been faced with empty seats when invited to address the plenary – a similar thing happened at the end of Slovakia’s presidency six months ago. Indeed, the problem of poor attendance has long been recognised, and Tajani himself has asked leaders of the political groups to tackle the issue. The busy once-a-month Strasbourg week presents logistical problems for MEPs, who have many other commitments to attend to. Some of them are very hard-working indeed, as some of our own MEPs demonstrate.
On the other hand, the one place they should have been on Tuesday was in the chamber, when they were called to discuss some of the major issues that arose during the presidency, such as migration, a major concern for the Parliament.
The truth is – Juncker’s main point – that the poor attendance did come across as disrespectful towards a small member State which has performed admirably. Malta, with no previous experience, rose to the occasion. The fact that the presidency went smoothly was an achievement in itself. This was truly a milestone episode for Malta.
Its achievements included keeping the EU27 united in their response to Brexit, brokering positions on two pieces of the EU’s 2020-2030 energy and climate framework, finalising a deal between the Council and the Parliament on rules to revive the EU’s securitisation market, reaching a visa deal that allows access to the Schengen area for certain nationals, and another on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, hammering out new anti-dumping rules and adopting a regulation reinforcing controls at external borders.
There were also blots on the Maltese presidency: on two occasions Estonian ministers had to stand in for their Maltese colleagues caught up in the election campaign, while the presidency’s relationship with the Parliament was strained: recall Muscat’s arrogant response when questioned on a previous occasion by MEPs about the Panama Papers and the rule of law.
In that light, the poor attendance on Tuesday may be seen as a justified, if non-deliberate, snub to Muscat. But the whole incident has, perhaps inadvertently, projected a tribute for a presidency job well done to a global audience. The government and all its officials who worked so hard during those six months richly deserve it.