Category: Mediawatch

Categories
Campaign 2013 Mediawatch

Swing!

A long weekend away from the hustle and bustle of politics is not going to stop “everything” from happening. Try as you may to minimise access to wifi you still get whispers of the goings-on beyond the breakwater at Sète or the Place de la Comedie in Montpellier. Comedic much of it turned out to be – particularly the extension of the simulated obsession with All Things Franco. I get the nagging feeling that the obsession is “simulated” and forms part of the general distraction that has fortuitously blown in the PN government’s direction since Dalligate exploded. It’s a bit like a circus with a multiplicity of acts (if Silvio Zammit will pardon the reference) uncannily well placed to become a modern day “panem et circenses” for the easily distracted multitude.

Where to begin? The Debono-Calleja spat might have hogged the limelight of the absurdly surreal to such an extent as to rudely eclipse Malta’s feeble attempt at approximating the Obama – Romney debates. Somehow the gossip circle and the politically amateur auras that pervade Maltese savoir-faire manage to keep the likes of Franco Debono, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (and in other circles Emmy Bezzina) floating at the centre of attention in much the same manner as  undesirable pieces of excrement suddenly turn up floating close to a beach and draw the attention away from all other forms of beach-side frolic. Lest you forget J’accuse has long pronounced a verdict of “irrelevant” on the side-shows that are the backbench relics – dedicating columns of opinion space to their antics and “ideas” is just a waste of time.

Back to the “main parties” then. Yes the ones who happily insist on ignoring the blatant need for an electoral law reform and engage in Punch and Judy tactics on such issues as “voters abroad” or “balance of information in public media” while gainfully exploiting every nook and loophole designed for their greater comfort. It turns out that the Gonzi – Muscat debate was anything but a blast. The feeling I get was that the experienced PM got one better than Muscat but that this victory was achieved in much the same way as Mourinho’s stellar team would win matches – entrenched in defence in the hope that one long ball to a speedy long-legged attacker could do the trick. Apparently the long ball came early with some exchange about a Brasilian company that did or did not set up quarter in Malta.

First things first. What emerged clearly from the reporting of the debate is that both parties insist on keeping the level of discussion strictly away from presenting ideas and plans for the future and to confine the chitchat to “You are ugly” and “Your family stinks” sort of behaviour as best manifested by the billboards. James Debono expressed my exact sentiments when he described Joseph Muscat’s attitude to electoral plans as an “I show you mine you show me yours” approach. Drawing parallels to kindergarten banter is fast becoming a cliché in itself but this is what our political intelligentia have to offer us in 2012 ladies and gentlemen.

In a way it should have been obvious. If we want everything to change then everything must remain the same. It’s as old as the hills in the Mediterranean. I read about Alaric, a Goth or Wisigoth, who had decided to take on the Roman regions of Narbonne and had grand plans to obliterate the memory of Rome and replace it with some Goth equivalent (at the time not exclusively linked to black make up). When he noticed it would be a tad difficult he opted for the Med option – he took the place of the Romans and acted as though nothing ever changed. That was in the 7th century AD. It still works today. The battleground for a symbol of change has never been so wide – and so confusing. On the one hand you have Prince Simon the anointed one (in yet another pointless distraction) exclaiming how yes – change is necessary and he is the one to bring it about. On the other you have Joseph who is trying hard to explain that we need to rid ourselves of the nationalist scourge but at the same time he is at pains to point out that the switchover to his party will be painless : almost as though no change has really happened.

Contradictions? You’ll get plenty of them. We still have not spoken about Tonio Borg but we’ll leave that for another time. Today is the day we should be focusing on the US where Republicans are hoping to swing the vote from the agent of change himself. Reporting from across the pond has it that this has been very much of a déja-vu campaign. Both the GOP and the Democrats are recycling old speeches. I strongly suspect that this has much to do with an increasingly unfathomable and volatile electorate. The post-crisis world has shaken liberal democracy at its very foundations – it is not in trouble but some major tweaking might be in order to re-establish the age old Hobbesian covenant upon new terms and criteria.

Representation is not what it used to be and the represented are beginning to take note… (finally I would add). Last night we had a vivid exchange between two MPs. One ended up asking the other (sarcastically, we hope) whether he had inherited parliament from his aunt. Ironically we should be asking the question to both our main parties – or at least reminding them that parliament is not theirs to own but ours to entrust.

In the end… all that matters might be the swing.

 

Categories
Campaign 2013 Dalligate Mediawatch Politics

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.

Categories
Mediawatch

Freedom of speech

We’ve noticed that the Runs is carrying an excellent video of a speech by Rowan Atkinson regarding the Freedom of speech. It reminded me of Zizek’s concept of tolerance as a pseudo-principle. Freedom of speech is really a thorny issue in today’s world because of the censorious instincts that are being bred by our modern idea of “tolerance”. Political correctness, tolerance and the relativism of values – there’s much more than immediate political points to be won by discussing them.

I dare add that within the legal community the tendency to over-regulate is a curse that is on the increase. It is an easy “solution” that takes advantage of the manifest weakness in the democratic power-equilibrium. Law making was never meant to be a populist, vote-winning exercise. Freedom of speech (and not the right to insult) is yet another victim of this systemic weakness that has been exaggerated by the onslaught of conspiracy theorists and end-of-days doomsayers who still revel in fantasies about the iron fist of the law.


 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

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.

Categories
Euroland Mediawatch

Dalligate… avec du recul – part I (European Lobbying)

I did say yesterday that the (ex) Commissioner Dalli case smacks of the surreal. With a little less than twenty-four hours time for reflection and with a flurry of statements and press conferences to look at (not to mention the early-worm analysis) we can safely conclude that the case is less surreal and more multi-dimensional.

Strange as it was seeing Lou Bondi among the legion of journalists querying the Commission’s move following the OLAF report, it was a fitting reminder of the (at least) dual dimension of this case. Bondi’s questions (and those of a few other journalists who bothered to research the Malta dimension) represented the Maltese interest in the affair. The TVM talk-show host is undeniably partisan (a “renown fact” some would say) in his approach and this element of partisanship was present in the Brussels Q&A. Even from our point of view, watching the events unfold yesterday we could not resist wearing Maltese partisan glasses – whether you formed part of the “we want Dalli to fail (see we told you so)” brigade or the conspiracy theorist “the evil clique has hit him hard” clan. It is inevitable in our Melito-centric way of thinking: this was happening in Brussels because someone in Malta needed it to happen.

But that is not necessarily the case is it? Here’s why.

European Lobbying after Dalligate

I spoke to a few colleagues who have worked closely within and around the lobbying industry in Brussels. Tucked away as I am in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg I cannot claim to have first hand experience of lobbying (and thank heavens for that since my work depends on not being influenced by outside lobbying  – it IS a court of law you know). Insider information has therefore been crucial to better understand the works.

First there is the business of lobbying. Commissioners meet companies, associations and lobby groups regularly. It is not a hidden fact. You can actually check out a Commissioner’s agenda for such meetings -they are public knowledge. John Dalli has himself shown that he met most of the Tobacco Industry groups in preparation for his next Tobacco Directive in which he has invested much of his time. The trick here is to try to understand and find out exactly how far the Dalli-Zammit connection took this particular type of contact and lobbying. What the journalists were legitimately querying yesterday (particularly to the enigmatic OLAF chief Kessler) was “where is the wrongdoing”?

Industry experts will tell you that lobbying to meet a Commissioner is legit. That a go-between asks for money to set up a meeting “is neither here nor there”. The no-no bit comes when you “trade in influence”. If I understand this correctly it means that the Commissioner and his entourage don’t only deal with access to the Commissioner but also put a price on “changing legislation itself”. Which is where the whole business of proof remains hazy. Kessler told us that the proof was circumstantial and the OLAF report actually concludes that no legislation was influenced while adding that Dalli was aware of the dealings. The emails – the few that have surfaced (one actually) are neither here nor there. What is holding Dalli/Zammit back from publishing all the correspondence with Swedish Match?

An ex-colleague of mine at the Court, now busy on the lecture circuit blogged about Dalligate and its repercussions. Here is what he has to say about Dalli’s position:

These findings of the OLAF do not seem to prima facie warrant Mr Dalli’s resignation and contribute to make its sudden move appear as an overreaction to the questionable behavior of an individual foreign to his office. However, the language chosen by the Commission to convey the findings of the OLAF report is quite ambiguous and opens to speculation: to what extent Mr Dalli knew that he was the object of lobbying by a member of his Maltese entourage? OLAF seems to suggest that he was actually fully aware of this fact. Did he take any action to limit these lobbying efforts? And more importantly: to what extent Dalli’s behavior, even though a inert one, has been such as to breach the duty of integrity to which he was bound under Article 245 TFEU?

These questions cannot be answered easily and without the appropriate proof. In order to build a case for his defence, John Dalli would have to probably do the following:

  • prove that the draft Directive was not influenced by the smokeless tobacco clan (no legislation effected)
  • publish the full exchange of correspondence with any lobby teams (correspondence made in his name and to which he had access)
  • procure a list of witnesses to any meetings that occured
  • show a list of other companies/associations that he met
  • possibly provide a timeline that could show that Swedish Match’s dealings turned sour after a possible rejection.
Until that happens we must bear in mind that lobby relations in Brussels have now shifted to a new paradigm. Dalligate  will have endless repercussions on the lobbying industry in Brussels, because it will mean that a company/association really has to watch out how to approach any Commissioner, how to word emails and more. Meanwhile, the Commissioners and their staff (thousands of them) will have to revise the conditions for meeting industry reps, something which until now has been done, according to industry practitioners with ease and without any stains.Comparisons are being drawn to the “Cash for Access/Lobbygate” scandal in the UK in 1998. (Incidentally it takes quite a desperate bit of research to rely on the impressions of a Daily Mail blogger to gauge impressions abroad on Dalligate -baksheesh? really? Is 1998 really that far back Synon? Rule Brittania fejn jaqbillhom dawn l-iStricklandjani).
On the face of the information that has been made available until now – and barring any prova regina that might still be hiding in the OLAF report – the Commission (and Dalli) seems to have been an easy target for entrapment by an angry lobbyist combined with the presence of an OLAF that is enthusiastic to prove its worth. Dalli and Zammit might be eventually found to be guilty of over-enthusiastically engaging in “cash for access” dealings (not exactly baksheesh Synon) and thus leaving the door wide open for an industry specialist to work it to its advantage. Alberto Alemanno asks a few questions in this respect:
In these circumstances, the sudden resignation of Mr Dalli is somewhat surprising as it is likely to weaken not only his personal position but also that of the EU Commission. While the EU Commission emerges as the looser of this ‘situation’, the prima facie winner seems instead Swedish Match, one of the leader producer of smokefree tobacco products. One may legitimately wonder what has been the exact role played by the company in the birth of the professional relationship between the Maltese entrepreneur and the company. Was Swedish Match a victim or the creator of such a relationship?

Should it turned out that it has been the latter, the trap that Swedish Match seem to have successfully tended to Mr Dalli could turned out to be counterproductive: the benefit it could gain in messing delaying the preparation of the revised directive might be offset by the negative image it gained in originating this scandal. Should instead turned out that Swedish Match was the innocent victim of a fraud (read its yesterday’s press release), nobody will feel very sorry for a company selling tobacco products and willing to hire somebody who was ready to leverage on his personal relationship to steer the outcome of the policy process.

In any event, this episode, although unfortunate for everyone, has the merit to bring to public attention the limits of today’s tobacco control efforts : the lack of an open, evidence-based and non-ideological debate upon the future of tobacco (including snus). My claim is that should such a debate exist neither Swedish Match nor Commissioner Dalli would have fallen victim of the snus’ trap.

 So to conclude part one. Dalligate issue goes far beyond the preoccupations of our navel-gazing island. An important European institution has been rocked by the scandal – the practices of the lobbying industry are bound to be revised and many questions have cropped up that remain as ye unanswered. Prominent among which is the distinct possibility that a lobby group that is sufficiently motivated and irked by a current Commissioner might find a way to use the EU’s own mechanisms to rid itself of an uncomfortable interlocutor.
If this is the case there is much reviewing left to be done.
* J’accuse would like to thanks the persons who under the veil of anonymity provided relevant insight into the world and workings of lobby-groups in Brussels. The next post will focus on the Malta repercussions of Dalligate – from nominating a new Commissioner, to the effect on an electoral campaign to the suspension of Dalli’s “interference” in local politics.

 

Categories
Mediawatch

Emails in context (Snuff)

MaltaToday have published a loose email that is obviously part of a wider correspondence between ESTOC (European Smokeless Tobacco Council) and Silvio Zammit. This email would appear to vindicate the assertion that Silvio Zammit was offered money to set up a meeting between ESTOC and John Dalli. the words “would appear” are important here.

The email (see pic below – click to enlarge) is obviously not the first contact between ESTOC and Zammit. Aside from the fact that the ESTOC contact refers to Mr Zammit by name – implying a high level of familiarity, the subject of the email clearly demonstrates that this is a reply in a chain of mails. The subject tag is “Re: Proposal”. So the last email before this was from Silvio Zammit to ESTOC and is called “Proposal”. It is highly unlikely that the subject matter was added in this email since the “re:proposal” bit clashes with the context of the current text. it is more probable that the ESTOC contact (Inge) was using the shorter method of “Reply” in the email.

We do not know what was the content of the previous email (and neither – apparently – do MaltaToday).

There are a few considerations to be made here with regards to the lobby groups and Commissioners. The Belgian channel RTBF described this case as one of “trafic d’influence‘ and it is important to bear in mind that this is the nature of the fraud involved. It is not uncommon for go-betweens to liaise for meetings with Commissioners but it is illegal for Commissioners to sell their powers and discretion to bidders.

The issue at stake here is twofold. Firstly there is the issue of the relationship between Silvio Zammit and a lobby group. What was the offer? Who made it? Who established contact? What was being sold/offered? How much of the Commissioner’s ultimate discretion was being put on the table for “sale”?

The second issue is whether John Dalli knew of these transactions and whether there was an actual possibility that the Commissioner’s discretion be tied/influenced by these monetary offers.

I can see no reason why, if this email is intended to prove that Silvio Zammit was the subject of “baiting” by the Smokeless Tobacco lobby, then the whole correspondence is not being shown. The only plausible answer I have to that is that the original contact was made by Silvio Zammit and that the earlier emails would only show that it was his contact that got the ball rolling. Needless to say, ESTOC might have pounced on the opportunity of throwing a bad light on a Commissioner whose legislative activity and programmes were not very helpful to their cause however they were could have been helped by Zammit’s availability and familiarity.