Politics

Tonio’s Non-Metamorphoses

Was it a case of “Veni Vidi Vici”? Did the Commissioner designate “sail-through” the grilling that never was last Tuesday? Has the dinosaur really convinced the trough-addicted pigs of his inveterate submission to the constitutional bible of this “sui generis” system of state collaboration? There was a telling moment during the marathon session when Tonio Borg addressed his interlocutors and reminded them that in politics “perception is important”. Indeed. Perception nowadays is a huge part of the pie and politicians are as much made or broken by the creation of a hash tag (that’s twitter talk for a subject such as #BorgEU) than by anything else.

The speed with which media will deal with a story – compounded by technological Chinese whispers – not only means that a media avatar of a politician can be created with uncanny expeditiousness but also that such avatar might morph in accordance to the predominant push of whoever is throwing the most information into the system. Tonio Borg was contemporaneously both a victim and a victor of this kind of phenomenon. The time it took Borg to study the files and dossiers relating to his new “portofolio” (sic) the liberals-in-hiding got working with their European counterparts in order to  fill them in on the “true nature” of Tonio.

What “true nature”? Well they referred to Borg’s handling of immigration affairs, to his position on IVF and on divorce, to his consorting with the Gift of Life movement and to his previous stances on homosexual rights. The spiel essentially that Borg was an uncompromising imposer of conservative values and that his political activity clearly reflected this stance. The link to the Health and Consumer portfolio was not exactly tenuous and to put it mildly there WAS a point to be made. The point though was meant to be and should have been limited to the capacity of Tonio Borg to perform his duty as a Commissioner independently of his views – unlike his performance in Maltese politics where he had no problem mixing the two.

It’s the EU Law, Stupid

And this is where Tonio Borg built his defence. It was obvious from the start who had been involved in prepping the Commissioner designate. For all his protests that he was not “thinking as a lawyer” I’m prepared to safely bet that many a night was spent in the company of Simon Busuttil and a former EU Ambassador. Nothing wrong there either. The most telling moment was Tonio’s slight hesitation in reformulating the classic description of the European Law system – many a law student would have recognised that brief moment of panic when the explanation that was just at the tip of your tongue has rushed away only to return in the form of a rehash of the original definition “in your own words”. Hence Tonio and his version of “a sui generis system of international law and an agreement between sovereign states”. (He could also have quipped a happy 50th birthday to the Van Gend & Loos case while he was at it – much more important than the International Day of Courtesy in this part of the world).

The prepping was necessary because Tonio had to use every trick in the book (better known as “the treaties”) in order to justify his speedy metamorphoses from Maltese politician to European Commissioner. In doing so he highlighted the most difficult barrier that Europe faces with regards to social harmony. For while economic barriers have come crumbling down at a faster rate than the Visigoth invasion of Rome, social mores have found the borders of old to be less permeable. Subsidiarity that great concept first brought to the world in a Papal Encyclical came to the rescue and suddenly Tonio was raising the Commissioner’s equivalent of “taking the sixth”.

You’ve seen it all so no need to dwell on it. Dr Borg could get away with packaging his national performance in a tight corner by stating that he can not and will not be able to act similarly at an EU level because the rules that apply there are different. So for the sake of argument Tonio Borg’s catholic values will have to be put in abeyance whenever he is dealing with the Commission programs to promote the use of contraceptives. He claims not to have a problem with that and I guess that his conscience will deal with the “superior orders” dilemma in its own time.

Those Shoddy Liberals

Tonio Borg did not metamorphose. He remains the same man committed to the same principles (save maybe the gaffe regarding the gender quota ) a sudden rush of arse-licking could be a most simple explanation. Or even euphoria experienced with the sudden rush of endorphins at the realisation that the Liberal Inquisition was really conducted by a bunch of pussy-footed, ill-informed bungling radicals. That last point actually really got to me. For here we were – as my friend David Friggieri puts it – with a representative of the conservative parties (yes plural) in Malta in the dock and with no real prosecutor asking the real questions.

I’d have asked a simple question to Dr Borg. What does he think of the fact that a person who is a doctor in an EU country where abortion is legal and who performs a legal abortion on a Maltese woman (who has willingly travelled to his country and consented to such an operation) is criminally liable in Malta? Simple really. In case you are wondering it’s Article 5(1)(d) of the Criminal Code in combination with article 241(1). Incidentally once said doctor is condemned to a term of imprisonment for a term of eighteen months to three years, the willing patient also becomes liable to the same punishment. But I guess that’s OK because she’s Maltese anyway.

We did not get these questions. We got questions that were obviously fed to MEPs by the type of shoddy activists who base their accusations on hearsay and conspiracy theories rather than facts. How else do you explain that Dutch liberal’s question about contraceptives in Malta that was an invitation to Tonio Borg to eat her alive (which he did with the usual classy rhetoric of a PN politician who knows he has the upper hand).

A Metamorphoses?

In the end we have what the French call a “match nul” – which means a draw but the word “nul” also means “useless”. At an EU level Borg might not really “sail through” when the voting time comes. The ALDE (liberals) and European Greens have unsurprisingly called themselves out of any support vote – they’ll be voting against. The Popular Party will back him (and also heap lauds and praise that will be hyped in the relevant media). The socialists might dilly-dally for a while and make Tonio Borg (and Tonio Fenech and Simon Busuttil) sweat a little bit more but in the end they might just give in and vote him in after having asked for more “written commitments” from his part.

Tonio Borg did not really metamorphose in the end. His was no apostasy before the baying house of atheists and agnostics. This was more of a modern Give Unto Ceasar kind of business that left many of us Maltese questioning the use of a two-tier Europe when it comes to social rights. Yes the liberals – particularly the Maltese liberals – were bitten and if you are really fond of the term then they were “defeated”. Their defeat lies in the lack of organisation and lack of clarity. It lies in the lack of identifiable leaders who could take the battle to the next level. It lies in the fact that Maltese politics rarely translates into conservative vs liberal when push comes to shove.

That is why Joseph Muscat feels comfortable standing up in parliament without any hint of irony on his face and saying “I’m a liberal” while at the same time sanctioning the PN position on embryo freezing. Joseph will continue to woo the liberal fold that have elsewhere been described as the “ex-stricklandjani” so long as his credentials are not questioned and so long as he can be contrasted to the dinosaurs that have long camped in the mainstream parties.

Unfortunately for the silent liberal movement in Malta change will never come from within any of the two parties. So long as we continue putting our eggs in their basket they’ll be happy doing what they do best – fuck all. Because as we know so well : “if we want everything to change, then everything must remain the same”. And long life to our next EU Commissioner !

Pictor has scarcely set foot in paradise when he found himself standing before a tree that had two crowns. In the leaves of one was the face of a man.; in the leaves of the other, the face of a woman. Pictor stood in awe of the tree and timidly asked, “Are you the Tree of Life?”

Read also today’s article in the Times by Ranier Fsadni.

Porcine Anatomy

Following the last presidential elections  in the United States a couple of states will be legislating the universal right to marry (including same-sex marriages) and a couple of others will be legalizing the personal use of marijuana. The French government has itself begun to debate a bill this week that if successful will pave the way for same sex marriages in the hexagon. British society is dealing with the ghosts of paedophilia while Italy is in the throes of the umpteenth attempt to “clean up”its political act.

It could be a banal exercise in comparative politics – or rather comparative hyperbole but it would only be as sensational as the Fat Moustachoed Lady at the circus. We no longer afford to, and nor are we interested in, laughing at the latest vestiges of ottocentismo that has struck our island’s politics. On Tuesday afternoon Tonio Borg is in the dock having the values in his head examined in order to see whether or not he is fit to be one of Europe’s 27 commissioners. The EU itself went into a sort of seizure the moment somebody somewhere (Is that you Mr Giscard d’Estaing?) tried to define the value heritage it incorporates. We went something between comatose and autistic as words such as Judaeo-Christian and Humanist were whispered in halls between croissants and beer. In the end we gave up and thrashed the grandiose thoughts of a Constitution for the less optimistic (but equally radical) Lisbon reforms.

So our dinosaur is getting his head bashed in Brussels by an institution that is itself at the heart of a wider system that prefers the sanitary non-controversy of non-commitment than the idealistic aspirations of a society trusting in a deity and his inspiration much like the cousins across the pond with their “In God We Trust”spiel. Still. Still our island does manage to make a hash about our approach to ideals and ideas, to principles and to values. It’s less of a question of not having them and much more of a question of how to use them.

The supposed depositories of condensed popular values have long abdicated from their duty of guiding or elucidating a combination of lesser common factors in order to make the society of ours an open one that is acceptable for those who live therein. Concerned as they are with populistic masochism they have condemned our society’s development to a series of hiccups and bumps.

Which brings me to Adrian Vassallo. Apparently in a bout of pipe-induced fury he has condemned his calumniators to forever carry the moniker of “pigs”. Their crime? Having described him and those of his ilk as “dinosaurs”. It’s all a freak show in the end. A trumped up charade designed to make us believe that these are people who would die for their principles. Vassallo will be paraded as the pariah that he is (ironically with only those such as Tonio Borg who could embrace his ideals) both within and without his party. His shenanigans and porcine vocabulary will definitely serve to fan the flames of facile satire on the web but it will serve more the likes of the leader of his party who by distancing himself from the Vassallo position will end up sounding much more progressive than he really is. Actually he isn’t. Progressive. At all.

The misfits of the current band of parliamentarians will take their last stand in this particular parliamentary session of folly. They are irrelevant. irrelevant because their voices are in representation of no one but themselves. What remains to be seen is whether the population will accept the bland non-committal positions of our two parties in such areas as are normally labelled progressive and liberal. Given that none of the PLPN lot will be tempted to corner the sty for their own the real question is how much of the voting population can be tied to the liberal vote and what will they do with it?

The divorce debate had been one great window of opportunity for the liberals of the island to break ranks from the behemoth party of dinosaurs and fence-sitters. That occasion was lost and the spearheads of that liberal campaign were soon absorbed into the fold of false propaganda and hope. This election might not be too late for the liberal vote to form a critical mass that stands up to be counted. Will they find an alternative means of expression or will they insist on biting their nose to spite their face – voting for the parties that con them year in year out only to laugh at them and their temptation to waste their vote when the time comes?

The liberal movement needs to start seriously weighing the use of its vote. It’s either that or make a pig’s meal out of it all.

Tonio in Europe

Tuesday is Tonio Borg’s big day. He faces what increasingly promises to be a grilling before a European parliament committee that is tasked to metaphorically expose the worst traits of potential Commissioners to be. They don’t always work, these grillings. Had someone in the committee bothered to ask John Dalli his opinion on having intermediaries (canvassers) interceding for his cause with potential lobbyists then I strongly doubt whether Tonio would he having his three hours of sweat tomorrow.

Tonio is outraged. To begin with I believe that he is right to be outraged by the allegations with regards to Nursultan Nazarbaev’s son-in-law and the Maltese visa. An ex-East German PM is really pushing the “southern, tin-pot, corrupt country” agenda a bit too far for anyone’s liking – enough to stir the “we are Maltese and we don’t take no shit” kind of sentiments that make the Times of Malta comment board such a funny (if not sad) read. That Borg was the relevant Minister at the relevant moment is neither here nor there. Nor is the fact that a lawyer hiked his fees because of the “difficulty in obtaining the permit”. In short, the Kazakh business is not so “yakshemash” and rather overstretched.

On the other hand the general principle behind the fact of people like Mr Nazarbaev-in-law getting visas in Malta while line after line of “immigrants” get the not so kosher treatment does fall squarely at the foot of Minister Borg’s agenda. There is a concept of responsibility lying not so vaguely around Mr Borg’s portfolio – and consequently this can be used as a measure of assessment of the man’s political non-achievements.

It is not the field (or waters) of immigration that will mostly be used as a Punch and Judy stick to beat at the former Deputy PM as though he were some huge piñata. The big words being thrown at the Commissioner-in-waiting are IVF and abortion. Particularly jarring for many was Tonio Borg’s activist stance in such campaigns as the GoL’s (Gift of Life) vain attempts to entrench anti-abortion provisions in the constitution. Borg seems to be labouring under the impression that this is some kind of “persecution” for his Catholic beliefs and values. He is after all a vociferous exponent of the confessional wing of the Christian Democrat party – whatever is left of it in this day and age of opportunistic populism.

Unfortunately the pinata has got the wrong end of the stick. Buttiglione could state that he was persecuted for his beliefs because in his case he was “punished” for his opinions and thoughts notwithstanding the fact that he had not actively tried to impose them on someone else. Not so with Dr Borg. His political track record speaks with his vote if not with his active support. From the divorce issues to the GoL campaign Borg stood squarely with the movement that would have transformed “personal opinion” into national law (and in the GoL campaign case, constitutionally entrenched law). At that point it no longer becomes a matter of personal opinion.

There is no denying therefore that political formations within the EU Parliament could have a vested interest in avoiding the “embarrassment” of a mitre-wielding lay bishop positioning himself at the helm of the Commission’s health policies. It is not a question of persecuting catholics but a question of ensuring that a the Commission does not become a medium for Catholic propagation and propaganda. There’s a Vatican for that.

So yes. Expect the Greens and the Liberals to vote as they would. Expect the Popular Party to rally behind the nationalist party candidate if only out of a sense of twisted camaraderie. Inevitably the surprise ticket upon which all the vote  hinges will be the Socialist vote. We had poker-faced Muscat claiming that he will not stand in the way of the nomination  but that he cannot guarantee the Socialists giving Borg a hard time. Which is neither here nor there – and not surprising given that it is Muscat. On the one hand he wants to ring the patriotic bell – hopefully he is aware of the amount of national reputation points at stake behind this new nomination (especially after the battering our pride got with Dalligate). On the other hand he cannot resist the tribal call that would celebrate the nomination’s failure as yet another “falliment” by GonziPN.

As for GonziPN itself. Well they have a Deputy Leadership contest to dazzle the faithful (some real challengers for the leadership have wisely called themselves out of the race – “this is not the right moment”). Come Wednesday morning Tonio Borg will either find himself a comfortable office at the Berlaymont or at sea on a tiny dinghy with not much hope that the rescuers will turn up. Which would be quite ironic. Don’t you think?

Men of the Moment

“We need a contest”. Prime Minister Gonzi apparently believes that a bit of competition would be healthy for his party. In a way you cannot blame him. The opposition is anything but good competition in that respect given how it seems to be banking solely on the concept of “victory by default”. Joseph Muscat’s schizophrenic approach (the country needs an election yesterday but we won’t tell you our plans because election time is not here yet) does little to force the debate down to practical terms and Gonzi’s team are stuck in an eternal time loop of the clichéd criticism (same faces).

We want a fight from our rightful parties

I’d love to have the parties trade blows on factual positions. Energy for example – not just highlighting what is bad and what has been done wrong but rather what will be done in the future. The same goes for a myriad other topics: water alone takes a prime place in future planning priorities – from floodings to wastage to the cost of providing water services efficiently. Health? Beyond the hospitals is there a concrete position on health care and its weight on the national budget? How do the behemoths fare on that. The nationalist party has been busy waving new “rights” in our faces – and depending on whether you believe new government appointee Antonio Ghio or IT Law Department guru Cannataci it is not clear whether we are getting this business of rights right.

Then there were the recent bandwagons such as censorship. Apparently it is dead and if you believe people like Owen Bonnici it’s thanks to the divorce debate that censorship was finally tackled. You couldn’t make it up if you wanted to (unless you were Robert Musumeci on a tautological aphorism generating trip ). The big issues lie ahead unsafely entrenched in a minefield of fence-sitters and conservative loonies. IVF, abortion (yep the big A), gay marriage, adoption by same-sex couples – don’t be amazed if we get to an election without clear positions on all these points in a manifesto (except for AD of course but they don’t count).

We want positions, we want battles over positions. Instead we get billboards. DWLLWGAF?

Dalligate and its leftovers

Did you notice how John Dalli’s moment in the international limelight petered away quietly? Oh of course, you will get your columnist in some agenda-driven papers trying to highlight the strength of the tobacco lobby or the weaknesses of some EU institution or another but in general terms Dalligate (now termed Snusgate by some) is unfolding into the two-dimensional issue that we had predicted early on. Why?

Well. On a European level Dalli finds himself with little to argue with. All his hopes seem to be pinned on a report that remains hidden from public eyes. On the other hand his random interventions before an ogling public at the height of the news items’ four days of fame have produced such gems as his justification of the use of canvassers as intermediaries for Commissioner business. That in itself negated the need of the results of the OLAF report becoming public. Put simply Dalli had confirmed with his own words that his modus operandi made him anything but unimpeachable. Ceasar’s wife was not above suspicion. We can leave the legal bickering on whether a sacking it was to his lawyers but on a political level Dalli’s way of working – though not illegal per se – was sufficient to raise enough eyebrows and get him kicked out of the Commission.

Does it really matter whether Barroso did it out of spite? Not really. What matters here is that Dalli (with Mr Zammit) left a door open wide enough to create the pretext for his elimination from the Commission. It will be up to his successors (and future Council meetings) to clear this messy state of affairs and to ensure that such situations are more clearly regulated. On a European level the pie is all over the place. A dark cloud remains on the modus operandi of the tobacco lobby, on the workings of OLAF itself, on the potential conflict of interest by some members of the Supervisory board and on the Commission (including its relations with member states). There is also no denying that Malta’s reaction as a state to the Dalli sacking would have been different had it been any other politician than the one who had burnt all his bridges with his own capital. If journalists could come up with probing questions about the iter of the sacking process then I am sure in that in the rear corridors of power a properly placed question regarding one’s own nominee would have been due.

After Dalli

After Dalli we get Borg. Another one. Was he a safe nomination? Well we can never be too sure. Let us start with the party/government that nominated him. The reasons behind the nomination are very evidently based on a mixture of self-preservation and priorities that put Maltese issues firmly above anything European. Nothing that has not happened elsewhere in Europe. Still they must be noted. I’d insist that the most ideal candidate for that position had been “burnt” thanks to the inability of the PN to control its dissenters. That too must be noted. Within Richard Cachia Caruana’s CV there will forever remain the blemish of a parliamentary vote that claims to de facto have found him guilty of having worked against Malta’s interests. No matter that the discussion and vote did anything but prove that point.

Borg goes to Brussels with a heavy baggage that no amount of excess fines can justify. His position within the ideological framework of the nationalist party has clearly been one of the hard-line christian democrat that stops just short of wearing a cassock. Although I would dare say that his views do not necessarily reflect those of the majority of persons of a nationalist persuasion (given the panoply of values that have recently been swallowed like a bitter pill for vote purposes) he still managed to throw them around forcibly like some latter day Savonarola. From the treatment of immigrants to positions on IVF, divorce and gay marriages we cannot really say that Borg is exporting a bit of liberal Malta to the Commission.

In any other time this would be neither here nor there – and this coming from a blog that still sees Buttiglione’s rejection as substantially unfair and legally incorrect. This is not any other time though. This is Malta reeling from pie on its face that results from its last nominee becoming the first Commissioner to resign individually. Even without the greens and socialists giving Borg a hard time the chances of some more pie on the face are quite high. Having said that there is also the possibility that Borg softens his hard-line approach on a European level and keeps his personal views to himself. The Commissioner role after all is about a Commission agenda and not a personal one.

The Contest

And after Borg? Well the John Dalli news must have been a godsend to PM Gonzi. As the nationalist party announces a protracted campaign for the Deputy Leader contest (practically one month including two weeks for nominations) you can see how much time can be wasted on what is essentially a pointless race. Yes, you read right. Pointless.As Tonio Fenech and Mario De Marco giggle away with reporters – “I’ll be your campaign manager” joked De Marco, “Madonna, what’s the rush” replied Fenech, prompting Mario to check if there was someone else in the room – you sense that this is yet another transparent time killing manoeuvre. Yes, this is the moment when the striker for the team that is winning in extra time notices he is about to be subbed so he rushes to the farthest point on the pitch before developing a sudden bout of walking-itis that would make for First Secretary at the Ministry of Funny Walks.

Suddenly the post of Deputy Leader has become the most important position in the universe and even the resignation of iOS6 responsible Scott Forstall pales in comparison (it doesn’t really, Apple’s turnover is many many many times larger than Malta’s economic worth). Previously this Deputy Leader business might have been considered an anointment for the future leader of the PN. Previously though there were much less strands and cliques within the party. Forget the thin veneer of a united face that is about as convincing as a Halloween mask designed by a three year old. This Deputy will be a deputy in any case. Whoever is elected will still have to face a new battle should the place for leader become vacant. I doubt that at that moment there will be any “power of the incumbent deputy” issues to deal with because chances are that “that moment” will be a time of renewal for the whole party.

So as I said. Gonzi is not lying when he says “We need a contest”. Don’t get all confused by the “we need a contest” bit though. The only benefit of this contest is that it is a welcome distraction from the “election today, election tomorrow” uncertainty and, if the rumours that Franco Debono is interested in contesting are true then there’s one hell of a distracted person that can be kept busy at least till the end of November when he will get his first reality check with the PN Councillor votes. (Last time round there were 818 of them voting).

Sandy

Hurricanes like Sandy really give us a sense of perspective. Battered by winds and water New York (and, lest we forget much of the Caribbean and East Coast) has suffered heavy damage and loss of human life. Reactions by Presidential candidates Obama and Romney just a week away from the elections should serve as a lesson to many politicians the world over. When in doubt do the most decent thing possible.

 

J’accuse will be silent over this All Hallow’s Eve, All Saints and Dia de los muertos. It’s wedding anniversary weekend and we’ll be heading to the Languedoc region hoping for the last of the sunny warmth.

Albanian Rising (Ħadd ieħor)

Dalgħodu qajmuni kmieni il-qtates. Ġew altament jaqaw iqumu mill-fatt illi kelli dritt statutorju nibqa’ rieqed u ngawdi s-siegħa żejda li akkwistajna u ippretendew unanimament illi inqum nitmagħhom bħallikieku il-Ħadd qatt ma eżista u s-siegħa invernali qatt ma tradditilna. Qomt. Tmajthom. Naddaft warajhom kif suppost u wara li aċċertajt ruħi li marti ġewwa Albjuni qiegħdha tħejji għal nofs maratona ta’ dalgħodu u wara li awgurajtilha l-ġirja l-ħienja sajjart iz-zalza “bolognese” bil-lest sabiex f’nofsinhar nintefa għall-att adulteru użwali tal-weekend, ingawdi dak id-disgħin minuta mal-maħbuba quddiem platt pasta twajjeb. Xiħa il-maħbuba imma tgħidx kemm għada ittini pjaċir (Vincere!).

Issa li kollox lest intfajt quddiem il-fuklar modern u bħas-soltu intlaqt kif kien jintefa l-(ex) Kummissarju Dalli …  jiġifieri “in listening mode” u t-telecommando waqa’ fuq France 24 (en francais). Inzertajt dokumentarju dwar l-Albanija. Donnhom waslu. Lejn Diċembru ta’ din is-sena jibdew bis-serjeta’ in-negozjati sabiex jissieħbu fl-Unjoni Ewropea. Donnhom kuntenti. Sitta u tmenin fil-mija tal-popolazzjoni tal-pajjiż ex-Komunista, orfni mhux mifhum ta’ Unjoni li qatt ma sabet ħin għalih, taqbel mas-sħubija.

Li laqatni kienu s-servizzi fid-dokumentarju. Il-pajjiż kien u għadu mifni bil-korruzzjoni u għadu mdardar bl-attivita ta’ l-iprem kriminali bejn il-Balkani u l-iStivale. Diffiċli timmoderniżża meta pajjiżek sar il-kindergarten tal-mafia, indrangheta u kull tip ta’ assoċjazzjoni a delinquere li tista timmaġina. Mindu ħeles mill-mant psewdo-komunista ta’ Hoxa l-poplu Albaniż temtem mhux ftit fil-passi tiegħu lejn id-demokrazija liberali. Ftit minna forsi jiftakru l-ewwel dgħajjes ta’ immigrati li rajna ġejjin lejn xtutna fil-bidu tad-disgħijnijiet. Dak iż-żmien kienu jkun l-Albaniżi jfittxu ħajja ġdida – u allajbierek ma kien ikollna dawk ir-reazzjonijiet moqżieża li saru komuni illum. Niftakar il-ġiżwiti telgġin u neżlin l-Albania u l-operazzjoi SOS Albania – solidarjeta ma’ pajjiż fi bżonn. Ta’ nies fi bżonn.

L-Albania ta’ llum għandha fanatiżmu politiku li jqarreb ma ta’ pajjiżna. Kollox jiġi politiċizzat. Ħalliha li l-partiti kollha (GĦALENIJA) jaqblu ma l-isħubija (m’hawnx ċwieċ hawn) imma kull kwistjoni taqsam il-pajjiż fi tnejn. Waħda mill-ikbar problemi li rajt kienet dik tal-miżbla. F’dawn l-aħħar snin il-gvern kellu idea ġenjali li jimporta ż-żibel ta’ ħaddieħor… pajjiżi membri iddisprati li jżommu ma kriterji stretti li lilna ħelsuna mill-Magħtab sabu mezz kif jesportaw ħmieġhom lil ħaddiehor. L-Italja u l-Greċja huma ħatja ta’ dan id-dumping. L-ironija hi li issa l-Albanija trid tfittex tara x’tagħmel bl-istess żibel biex hi stess tibda issegwi l-istess normi.

Sadattant qed isiru proġetti kbar bħal highways kbar bejn Pristina u Tirana – mibnija minn grupp Turk/Amerikan b’fondi ewropej. Jekk id-diplomazija tippermetti se jaslu sa Belgrad u jibdew joħolqu pontijiet fejn sekli ta’ gwerrer ma kienx irnexxilhom.

L-Albania ta’ Iskander Beg li kienet barriet lit-Torok u kienet għalhekk bastjun tal-insara trid issa tidħol fil-klabb ewropew. Trid tlaħħaq ma’ pajiżi bħal Malta li sa għoxrin sena ilu kienu jilqgħu lill-orfni tagħha. Enver Hoxha u l-ombra tiegħu bilmod ilmod qed jisparixxu. Hoxha ħallha pajjiż għarkubbtejh u b’ mentalita iżolata. L-ewwel pass biex joħorġu minn taħt dellu huma l-isforzi li qed isiru għas-sħubija. La jissieħbu ikunu jridu jżommu il-pass u jiftakru li l-isħubija hija biss l-ewwel pass u mhux il-meta.

L-istorja tgħallimna.

OLAF & Caesar’s Wife

I’ll try to to be brief on this one and avoid excessive legalisms. Yesterday, the European Anti-Fraud Office (affectionately known as OLAF) deemed it necessary to issue “a statement in order to clarify comments contained in media reports”. Allowing sufficient leeway for the dangers of inevitable multi-lingual approaches in European matters, the press statement of an “independent wing” of the Commission probably raises more questions than provides answers.

In the first instance it is interesting to see a prosecution unit that remains so pro-active within the media spheres. In a way we can understand the concern since more often than not nowadays a large part of justice matters are dealt with in the public communication spheres long before the real questions are decided in the courts of law. There was however more than a hint of anxiety and patching up in this (I presume) carefully worded missive and maybe, just maybe, we can identify the reasons for the caution.

For the first time we have a clearer indication of what the OLAF report contains with regard to both Silvio Zammit (OLAF still insists on calling him a Maltese entrepreneur) and to Commissioner Dalli. Let’s take a look at the first paragraphs of the release:

The Evidence

The OLAF investigation found evidence that a Maltese entrepreneur, who had organised meetings between Commissioner DALLI and representatives and lobbyists of snus producers, repeatedly requested a considerable sum of money from the snus industry in exchange for the adoption of a proposal for the lifting of the ban on snus, trading on the name of the Commissioner. This request was declined by the snus industry and no payment or financial transactions have taken place.

The OLAF investigation found no conclusive evidence of the direct participation of Commissioner DALLI in the operation for requesting money. In line with Regulation 1073/99, OLAF has referred the case to the competent Maltese judicial authorities, for their consideration of the criminal aspects of the actions of the persons involved.

So we have here a clear delineation of the proof that OLAF has managed to unearth. We now know for certain that Silvio Zammit’s involvement was clear and proven. The involvement includes “repeated requests for a considerable sum of money”, a clear indication that Zammit promised in exchange that their proposal for lifting the ban would be adopted and that Zammit did so in the name of the Commissioner. We also know that Swedish Match declined the request and never transferred any money.

We also know that OLAF found NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of the direct participation of Dalli in the operation for requesting money. Significantly, quite significantly I would add, OLAF’s statement then states that this case was referred to the Attorney General “for consideration of the criminal aspects of the actions of the persons involved”.

Do note that the bit relating to the “circumstantial pieces of evidence” comes later. Unless this is a result of a bad case of press release drafting by OLAF’s PR people then we have something to dwell upon. More importantly AG Peter Grech has something less to dwell upon. The provisions of our law relating to Dalligate would be the Criminal Code chapters on Abuse of Public Authority (112 et seq. with particular consideration of 115, 121(4)(c), and 121A as well as Cap 326 – the Permanent Commission against corruption act. It would also seem that Silvio Zammit’s activities as described would be sanctionable under the relevant provisions. It remains to be seen how much the proof that is now in the AG’s possession can be used to inculpate John Dalli criminally.

Parallels may be drawn to the Arrigo/Vella cases of late and in particular to the notion of knowledge of corrupt offers. At this stage our assessment cannot be more than presumptive given the lack of information about what links John Dalli damningly to Zammit’s activities. So while we can safely say that on the basis of OLAF’s declarations a strong case has been built against Zammit (and I would  add that on the basis of certain emails even Swedish Match might be liable to at least some investigation so long as it could have gone along with the auction), we have little or no certainty about Dalli’s criminal involvement.

This makes even more sense when we look at the next paragraph in OLAF’s statement:

OLAF has also concluded that there are a number of unambiguous circumstantial pieces of evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, indicating that Commissioner DALLI was aware of the activities of the Maltese entrepreneur and of the fact that this person was using the Commissioner’s name and position to gain financial advantages. OLAF found that Commissioner DALLI had taken no action to prevent or dissociate himself from the facts or to report the circumstances. In line with Regulation 1073/99, OLAF referred the case to the President of the Commission, for his consideration in light of the provisions laid down by the“Code of Conduct for the Commissioners”, C (2011) 2094.

What stuck out for me is the fact that after outlining this next set of facts OLAF explains how it referred them to someone distinct from the person who was at the receiving end of the first set of facts. In the case of the circumstantial evidence showing that Dalli was aware of Zammit’s activities OLAF specifies that these were referred to the President of the Commission for his consideration in the light of the provisions of the Code of Conduct for the Commissioners. I find this disconcerting to say the least. On the one hand I can understand that circumstantial evidence might be sufficient to prove a violation of a code of conduct but irrelevant in criminal proceedings but would that not be a call for Malta’s AG to make?

On the other hand it would explain Barroso’s swift action to oblige Dalli to relinquish his post. If Dalli will forgive me the female reference “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion” and that means that Barroso might not require anything more than circumstantial evidence in order to rid himself of an uncomfortable commissioner. OLAF might have realised that this circumstantial evidence would not hold water other than within the confines of a strictly applied code of conduct – and opted to separate the two issues.

Repercussions

It is important to stress that my above analysis is based on a press release and just a press release. Be that as it may and given the original enigmatic responses of Mr Kessler this might be a good reading of the modus operandi in OLAF’s case.

On an EU level the level of evidence required to prove that a Commissioner is blemished  is low. That may be because the Commission cannot afford to make mistakes. Before we heard of the amounts involved (€60m) a large number of journalists were still wondering what Dalli did wrong. Dalli might have had a chinese wall between himself and Zammit but the circumstantial evidence was enough for him to be considered to have stepped on the wrong side of the Commission Code of Conduct.

There is however a remote possibility (but still a possibility) that the AG’s conclusions might turn out to be surprising. Zammit seems to have no hope in hell of getting out of this. He’ll probably get the book thrown at him and more. His actions (if proven as OLAF seems to have proven them) make him fall foul of most of the provisions in the Criminal Code. Dalli? Now that all depends on the links that the AG can create based on the evidence before him. Will the proof that he was aware of Zammit’s activities be substantial? Will it suffice? The Arrigo/Vella cases might have some answers already but there might be more than that required here. It’s an open question but it might also be time for us to consider the scenario where John Dalli is not found to have committed any crime under Maltese law. The faeces might still be about to hit the rotating cooling device.

It may be far fetched but it is, as I say, a remote possibility.