corruption

The ghosts of politics past

ghosts_akkuzaThe French news world was rocked this morning with the news that former President Nicolas Sarkozy was placed under “garde a vue” pending investigations into possible “trading in influence” that he might have engaged in during his presidency. Those more familiar with Italian political jargon would call a garde a vue an avviso di garanzia (indictment). What it means is that the person receiving the order is deprived of his freedom pending investigation by a judiciary authority.

European politicians (at least European politicans) would do well to look closely at the events leading to this state of affairs. Investigations had originally concentrated on Sarkozy’s 2007 electoral campaign – yes, the original Flimkien kollox possibbli or as the French would have it Ensemble tout est possible.  Sarkozy and his electoral team were suspected to have received funding from – of all people – Colonel Muammar Gaddhafi in return for future favours and considerations from and for Libya’s government. While listening in into conversations related to this investigation, the investigators noticed that Sarkozy kept a secret phone registered under a false name.

It later transpired that this second phone was being used to “trade influence” with judicial authorities in order to favour Sarkozy’s situation in another hot affair – known in France as the Bettencourt Affair (another case of trading in influence and corruption). Sarkozy would allegedly use his network to get important information about investigations into the Bettencourt Affair – particularly any information that would draw him into the case. This network involved high-end magistrates and police officers, or as Le Monde puts it: “ les enquêteurs pensent avoir mis au jour un « réseau » d’informateurs, au sein de la police et de la justice, susceptible de renseigner les proches de l’ancien président de la République dans les procédures judiciaires pouvant le menacer.” (the investigators have uncovered a network of informers at the heart of the police and the justice system that might have informed persons close to the former president with regards to judicial procedures that could be threatening to him). 

Quite a network there. From electoral funds and favours linking Sarkozy to a dictatorial regime to meddling in the judicial and police system in order to protect ones own interests. This is a strong warning signal to politicians – given a functioning system of checks and balances there will always come a time when past mistakes and abuses will come back to haunt you. Such events also highlight the importance of the rule of law and of institutions of review that allow for independent monitoring of the political elite.

Simon Busuttil at the helm of the PN’s storm tossed ship is surely aware of the dangers of the errors of the past committed by others coming back to haunt him. It makes his task of changing the direction of the ship and shedding that image all the more difficult. Sadly the people’s habit of thinking in terms of guilt by association – so often milked by past PN administrations and its sympathisers will not help this particular ghost vanish too quickly.

Joseph Muscat on the other hand is currently running the show of government without making too much of an effort to hide not so tenuous links with authoritarian governments. His main political moves during the first year of his legislature were obviously dictated by and dependent upon agreements with such governments or their people; three obvious cases spring to mind: (1) the Chinese influence on the power station; (2) the huge question marks hanging around the process of attribution of Malta’s passport scheme and those who would ultimately benefit from it; (3) the hopelessly short-sighted dealings with transient Libyan governments over the provision of petrol (and subsequent use of Maltese resources to provide “security” to unknown persons).

Add to all that the bumbling interventions in the army, the sorry state of affairs of the police, the current spats with the Ombudsman, the hideous conniving to postpone a judge’s impeachment – and you begin to see a ghost in the making for Muscat’s band of politicians.

En garde à vous!

The Barter Parties

It’s all happening in the PAC committee. The latest politicians to come under fire from the state’s evidence provider’s revlations are Austin Gatt and Manwel Mallia. It is good that the PAC committee is digging into the evidence in relation to “corruption scandals” but we must be forgiven if we remind all and sundry that the committee is in the end made up of members of our two political parties and that the sort of corruption that is being looked into is one that deals with dealing in influence – power broking of the kind that involves the sort of thinking that goes: “I’ll think of you today and you think of me tomorrow”.

Notwithstanding pre-electoral promises, our laws might at first glance still seem to be ill-equipped to deal with this kind of corruption. A very good reason is that the laws are drafted by our political parties who tend to create glaring exceptions whenever a law has to deal with them.

Take Manwel Mallia’s defence of “professional secrecy” – a quick look at the professional secrecy act will show that the obligation of professional secrecy can be lifted in the case of such crimes as money laundering but no such exception will apply to “corrupt practices”. In other words a lawyer who is confronted with a client who is knowingly laundering dirty money is divested of his obligation of secrecy but not one who comes to know of corrupt practices. Which does not explain whether or not Mallia used such information to his party’s advantage in any case (whether or not he was a minister does not matter).

In the run up to the last election we heard many times the party apparatchiks claim that their commercial arrangements are arranged on a barter system. Obviously columns such as this one that push the “PLPN” line of thinking are often discredited as though this were some conspiracy obsession but the fact of the matter is that this “barter” system admission was a very clear and open admission that parties are used to “trading their influence”. It is institutionalised corruption.

Those of a taghnalkoll persuasion might gleefully point their fingers at Austin Gatt’s reception of the €2,000 party donation but they would not do themselves any good if they ignore that such donations occur naturally across the whole party lines. The party “barter” system cannot vanish without the parties themselves vanishing along with it. That, my friends, is the unpalatable fact about the PLPN style of politics.

We saw how the loss of government influence strongly devalued PN’s “trading” power in the barter system – turning it into a bankrupt party overnight.

We also saw how the PL pie-grabbing exercises mean that the core party structure will survive another round simply by shifting its costs (and incomes) to government resources.

In the meantime the general public will act as indignant citizens and depending on which side your bread is buttered you will snort and denounce the “hnizrijiet” committed by the other side. We said it before and will say it again… you reap what you sow… and there seems to be no light at the end of this tunnel.

Below the gallery is a selection of old posts by J’accuse dealing with this barter and corruption issue.


 

On the Infamous JS List

Return of the JS List (August 18 2010)

(Evarist Bartolo) is insinuating that huge companies in Tokyo and Copenhagen had more than a hand in the assignation of the BWSC contract (remember that hot potatoe). The name dropping is not on the scale of ENRON style scandal but by Maltese standards it is big. There is an alleged web of intertwined interests that lead to linking the tenderor and the tenderee on the energy contract. There’s more. Bartolo does not shy back from implying that KPMG auditor to many of the parties involved served as a bridge between all the parties and government. And all this to lead to where? it’s not clear Who, What, When, Why or How but the conclusion is that:

“The PN has a system of fundraising where companies win government contracts and donate money to the PN. They are all part of the PN’s JS list,” Bartolo said, referring to the so called list named after former PN treasurer Joe Stellini.

Which is one hell of a whopper. From DimechGate to JS-Gate. Only, as I have been lamenting all the while, we need more tangible proof. We need cases before the Public Services Commission. It’s not a problem that the allegations surface on a newspaper – the newspaper is only attempting to perform its duty as part of the fourth estate – but there must be a follow up using the full strength of our democratic institutions. In a way there was never a shadow of doubt that contractors in various markets benefited from their contacts with the PN and that they performed services or investments in return. We just needed someone to get talking about them as a first step to something more direct being done about it. We do not have a magistratura in Malta as they do in Italy so do not expect a flurry of avvisi di garanzia very soon.

On Party Donations

From Business as Usual (April 25 2011)

Parties ask everyone for donations

Thus spake contractor Nazzareno Vassallo while celebrating his having survived 65 years in the dog-eat-dog world of Maltese building contractors. Were we surprised? No. Of course not. Would we wonder why his “well-known Nationalist sympathies have often worked against him when bidding for a contract.” Well yes. What does that mean exactly? Why does he bother funding both parties if his sympathies can work against him? How can he get away with frankly admitting that contracts ARE awarded on the basis of political considerations? Nazzareno is not the first to have claimed the “I oil both parties” approach. Sandro Chetcuti famously claimed it was important to have a pocket for every party (thank Mercury we only have two that count in the tendering business aye) and Vince “Holier than Thou” Farrugia has swung around the world of parties with better tempo than a grandfather clock’s pendulum.

(…)

Related:

Herrera alleges “rampant nepotism in financial sector” : one wonders if he’ll still be singing the same tune once it’s his party’s turn to milk the cow.

On Party Funding

From Funding Fundamentals (5 February 2013)

Idiots – that’s you the voters – are supposed to be carefully measuring the different proofs of liaisons that each party has with big business and throwing onto their homemade scales the various calculations as to who spent how much and where the money has come. Idiots (that’s still you) will then be expected to vote for the lesser evil. That, I guess (but I’m no idiot myself), will be the one with less ties to business and less I.O.U.’s hanging around in the pockets of various contractors and other men who can practically foot a blank cheque in times of need.

You do have to be an idiot though not to see past the protestations of both parties. On the one hand you have the ridiculous nationalist party “barter” concept. You see, the PN barters with companies like MFCC and in return for the use of their tents it gives them…. erm… See I’m stuck there. What the hell could the PN be offering to barter? It’s not like air time on its debt-ridden stations is free? Allocating a million euros of air time (in exchange for a tent) would mean perforce that that air time is lost from other who might have actually paid for the service.  Cardona also presented Beppe with a court case – Europrint vs MediaLink. Now that’s sweet. MediaLink owes Europrint half a million. Where will they get that from?

Labour on the other hand also have a hunch that we are all idiots. Their campaign CANNOT have been funded by the telethons. Igloos don’t grow on  trees Chris and you can have many many volunteers with ideas that you think are great but you cannot barter ideas for material in much the same way that Borg Olivier is not bartering ideas for tents. And while we are at it enough with this bullshit about the parties publishing their accounts. First of all Labour walked out of the committee for democratic reform (Select Committee on the Strengthening of Democracy) that not only put an end to the hope of electoral reform but also to any issue on party financing.

see also Grabbing the Iced Buns

 

The Messenger

Just as all the oohs and aahs were beginning to gain momentum, the government has made it abundantly clear that the Dalli Mater Dei report does not represent an official government position. It might, on the face of it, seem strange that the government is distancing itself from what is definitely turning out to be a damning report of “bad practices under GonziPN”. It is not strange however when you step back and look at it in the general order of how the Taghna Lkoll government functioned – both when in opposition and now that it is in government. Muscat tends to prefer the non-committal policy which is really a non-policy. What happens is that the Labour party gains time acting like some kind of all-encompassing party (Musumeci’s ridiculous concept of “moviment”) and then when it has sussed out what popular opinion is on the subject it goes ahead and claims some kind of ownership of the idea – or ditches it as someone elses.

Taghna Lkoll is still learning that this kind of modus operandi does not always work – just look at the passport for sale fiasco: the turnaround occurred too late since the law had already been enacted and the egg was splashed all over the government’s face and reputation. Dalli’s report, loaded as it is with innuendos of personal vendettas and burdned with the unfinished business in Brussels might still turn out not to be such a smoking gun that does any good to Labour’s purposes. Already the nurses are up in arms (whether rightly or not is another issue) so what does Muscat do? Well, via his metatron the Health Minister he declares that the Dalli report is “not the government’s position”. Next we will have two boards examining the report itself – it’s beginning to sound like an administrative nightmare.

Muscat will not ask you not to shoot the messenger. He’s actually quite happy to put the messenger high on a pedestal and have him as a prime target… deflecting attention from whatever position he may eventually end up taking. What is important is that there is a new spin trying to breathe new life into the idea of “the wastage and corruption under the nationalists”. Still governing by opposition, still unable to actually print that roadmap we heard of so often in the run up to last election.

messenger_AKKUZA

Grabbing the iced buns

Iced buns are quite the talk of the town thanks to Muscat’s very unique interpretation of meritocracy. Norman Hamilton’s appointment as High Commissioner in Britain is the latest in a long line of appointments that have absolutely nothing to do with merit and much to do with “partitocracy”. Taghna Lkoll’s labour are not reinventing the wheel, we’ve been there before but never with such brazen partisanism. It’s as though the only reason Labour wanted to get elected was to dig its teeth in a huge cake and there seems to be a sense of urgency in all this – as though the cake might finish tomorrow.

It’s across the board. Across the boards actually. Nothing is spared. Justice, environment, diplomacy, culture… you name it the’ve got a board, directorship, charimanship or some other magic chair to fill. There is absolutely no direct correlation between the person nominated and the job in question – which is where Labour is actually going out on a limb. There is no attempt to colour the nominations with any semblance of competence or adequacy, the only justification spouting from the acolytes of the TaghnaLkoll creed is that “now it is our turn” or that “you can only trust our own”.

Such a parody of a political system defies comment through its very existence as a real life caricature. Everyone can see how naked the Emperor is it’s just that they still cannot get over how brazen he is about his nudity. Meanwhile the consequences of a more subtle iced bun distribution network gone wrong are being felt among the opposition. The horse-trading that went on behind the scenes in the nationalist party camp had already been partially exposed thanks to the Borg Olivier gaffes about his “barter” system. Businesses and commerce would have been quite happy with preferential treatment and a rather generous credit system “mal-partit” if their workings were facilitated by the party in power. Lose the power, lose the credit.

Before you know it l-istamperija is history. You know, the stamperija is the kind of place that allows the PLPN parties to conduct multimillion print and poster campaigns without batting an eyelid. Obviously right now the Labour side of credit must be basking in sunlight. No closing time for the Labour equivalent of stamperija yet because Labouris now in the driving seat of the iced bun business. Sure, Labour will bumble it much faster than any amount of PN sugary pastry scheme could – simply by way of the inability to moderate its hunger for power – but yes we are still very much in the field of same, same but different.

The biggest problem with Labour’s idea of managing the iced bun business is that Labour seems to have even less of an appreciation of the fragility of the whole power system. The Labour Horde of pretenders to iced buns have been unleashed on a Castille Palace that must seem to them what the witche’s Candy House seemed to Hansel and Gretel. The tentacles of the Labour orgy have spread into sensitive areas such as justice and diplomacy. That is very dangerous territory. Meanwhile a civil service that was very much constructed to work the EU machine is being slowly dismantled to allow inexperienced pretenders to take their places in various directorships… expect a ticking time bomb there – not because of any sabotage by nationalist civil servants but simply because the lock stock change being imposed by the iced bun brigade is simply unsustainable.

In short, the Iced Bun system is simply a progressive increase on what was already there in another form. That does not make the new Iced Bun system any more acceptable than the previous one. But it seems that in the world of PN vs PL all that it takes to be ahead is to be “same, same but different”.

Thank you very much PLPN.

The Barrel’s Bottom

Did you ever wonder where we got the expression “scraping the bottom of the barrel”? Why the barrel? What’s wrong with the bottom? Well it comes from the time when fruit – apples for example – were stored in barrels and the apples that would be left at the bottom of the barrel would be bruised and not the best quality. Hence “scraping the bottom of the barrel” or choosing from what is left. Choosing from among the worst because you have no other choice. Yep, you can see where I am going with this but I cannot help it can I?

Here we are getting ever closer to E-day (that’s election not ecstasy) and the level of political discourse has descended into predictable levels of exchanges of circum tauri (that’s bullshit in the vernacular). Do you remember those early halcyon days when we all yearned for political programmes/manifestos to be published so as to see what the parties have to offer or criticise? Well they came and went in a flurry of billboards, buzzwords and bull. We are now left with the dark side of politics doing the works.

The gullibility gene is not very common in my family and therefore I insist on looking at what  the parties have to offer with a critical eye that is above any partisan impulse – much to either side’s chagrin of course. So, at this point, what do the parties have to offer to the arms-length observer? Nothing. Well, not nothing really but an exchange of accusations and finger-pointing that are meant to point out to us that “the other side” is up to its neck in corruption.

Joseph’s Labour is high on a wave of enthusiasm. It has mastered the “unity” con to perfection. Hi party spent five years spinning the yarn that Malta is the pits and practically in need of salvation with half the country (or more) living in appalling conditions and who cannot afford the slightest bit of distraction let alone luxury. Built on the platform of the expensive utilities, wrought around the eccentricities of Franco Debono’s earthquakes and decorated with the stucco of “the face of change” complete with new logo and the  practical disapparition of the political party, Joseph’s movement spun it’s own fairytale where the inevitable conclusion would be a brighter future under what would supposedly be a government for all.

Underneath all the rhetoric lie a ramshackle set of populist measures and a team that is far from promising for the future. Yet the plan sells. It sells mainly because the build up fed what Maltese know how to do best and that is be generally dissatisfied and grumble. It also sells because the other lot have proceeded down the slippery slope to mediocrity and have become an easier target than ever.

In fact, speaking of the other lot, what were they thinking? The blue and red faces from the latest billboard must win the prize for the worst premeditated electoral gaffe ever. The nationalist don’t only seem to have lost it but they are also forming committees trying hard to find out what “it” is and how to possibly bring “it” back. For one time too many they have fallen in this false trap laid by Joseph’s minions – playing into the role of “evil divisive party”. They don’t even seem to understand the fallout of this “blue or red face” business in real terms. “Look beyond the rhetoric” they tell us. Sure. We’re trying but there’s nothing, nowhere.

The truth is out there but nobody seems to be bothering to look for it. The panem et circenses of the parties’ criminal spin has reached new heights of popularity. Labour are trying their damnedest to link the PN (and particularly Minister Gatt) to the oil scandals. Joseph keeps dropping hints that are supposed to “raise eyebrows” but end up being intellectual demi-farts that can only be fawned upon by a journalistic class that has been trained to ask “How high?” whenever he says “jump”. Truth is there is nothing linking the PN or government to the oil commissions. It is definitely a corrupt web that has been uncovered but a web that could have existed under any government.

Then the PN comes along and brings out its undercover recordings. Sure we have documented evidence of dirty business in party clubs being covered up by high level party members – a deputy leader and now possibly a leader to boot. It’s bad. Very bad. But something tells me that party clubs across the island are not exactly hosting M.U.S.E.U.M. meetings as the nationalist party pole dancing club proved back in 2010. Then again there’s another point to be made here. Why did the PN bring out 2010 recordings now? Was it ok to sit on them for so long?

The tired spin is now going to extremes. We are in what I call a Magritte moment – you are slammed with a pipe right in front of you and then you are told “This is not a pipe”. What I find is that the more time passes the more the enthusiastic carcading voters are willing to believe the words that are being channelled into their head and not the big picture that is being painted so clearly before them.

In a normal world the picture would tell them a very clear message: that not everything (if anything) is right in both the houses. Yes, I will take the arrogant position and judge voters by accusing them of ignoring the possibility of an alternative vote. While both parties scrape the bottom of the barrel we should be dismissing them as an option. At least those of us who refuse to have our intelligence insulted. We should not be carried away by the simple puerile motivation of “they’ve been too long in power” or “they haven’t changed one bit”. Instead of letting the filth cancel each other out and returning to our instinctive partisan bias we should be rejecting the idea of abetting the return of the PLPN hegemony to power one more time.

There are no more excuses not to vote different. No amount of baseless accusations about “wasted vote” or “responsible voting” should stand in the way of a nation that desperately deserves much more than this barrel-bottom politics that it so gullibly accepts every five years or so.

This time round you could really make the difference. It’s either that or more of the usual shit guaranteed.

 

 

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.