Category: Euroland

Categories
Euroland Politics

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?

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
Euroland Politics

The vote abroad

The Bill to amend the General Elections Act gets its first reading on Monday. Among the most “innovative” of measures is the introduction of a “rolling register” allowing persons who turn 18 on the eve of an election to vote. What is conspicuous in its absence is any improvement with regard to the status of voters based abroad. This, my friends, is 2012. Malta is a member of the European Union and a huge proportion of its nationals have opted to make use of the rights of workers to free movement. A large number of Maltese are now gainfully employed as fonctionnaires within the European institutions.

I will not even entertain for one second any objection that goes in the way of “you cannot vote for Malta’s government if you do not live there”. It is rubbish, xenophobic and populist in so many ways. Take French voters for example. In the last elections France had a new constituency for Northern Europe. French expats were entitled to vote in places such as London. The Number of registered voters in the UK were around 75,000 with approximately 23,000 turning out for an evenly split vote between Sarkozy and Hollande (about 11,900 vs 11,500 votes). The United Kingdom allows its citizens to register for voting abroad with a sort of 15-year expiry date (to register to vote as an overseas voter you have to have registered to vote in the previous 15 years).

Our neighbours Italy also famously have an expat constituency- remember Cassola? Now I am prepared to accept the argument (grudgingly) that Malta is not yet ready to dedicate a seat in parliament to its expat constituency but it is downright impractical to persist with the current situation of rent-a-planeload voting instead of having the rational solution of voting in embassies.

What counts for Mater Dei and old people’s homes with more than 30 residents should surely count for BeNeLux, London and maybe Paris. No?

Categories
Euroland Mediawatch

April’s Democratic Fool

Some smart alec at the European Commission decided that the best day to launch the European Citizen’s Initiative would be the first of April. As far as I know the April Fool tradition permeates most EU countries and if there are any which do not ‘celebrate’ it then they must surely have heard of it in being ‘celebrated’ in other countries.

The first of April is not a good idea to launch any kind of initiative and it is particularly inapt for the launching of an initiative that supposedly strengthens the democratic elements of an ailing European Union. So what is the ECI? If you follow the link provided earlier you will find out that the ECI opens up new possibilities for European citizens who could “force” the Commission’s hand into thinking about proposing new legislation.

Basically 7 EU citizens based in 7 different EU countries will be able to set up a committee (a “citizen’s committee”) that will then proceed to formulate a statement of intent and attempt to collect 1 million support signatures. The main obstacle (apart from getting the attention and support of 1 million EU citizens (electronically or on paper) is that the proposal must be in an area in which the Commission is already empowered to legislate.

It’s not easy. Organisations cannot technically form part of the citizen’s committee (so one would assume that pan-European organisations cannot suddenly become unique promoters of causes). On the other hand the initiative shows a lot of trust in electronic collection and promotion of the statements. Democracy does get to cross onto the net. Additionally the potential demos is increased – you do not have to be eligible to vote in your own country to take part in an ECI … you just have to be over 16.

A successful initiative that collects 1,000,000 signatures gets to be properly considered by the Commission and also gets the ear of the European Parliament. Furthermore the Commission, although not obliged to actually propose legislation, must provide a Communication addressing what it plans to do in response to the citizen’s initiative and must give reasons for every action or inaction.

The daunting size of the amount of signatures and the non-enforceability at the end of the tunnel must not discourage EU citizens. There are many positive signs in this new instrument – first among which is the acknowledgement of electronic democracy within the mechanisms of law making. Think ACTA – think how fast public support was whipped over the net. Does one million seem such a huge figure now?

Baby steps. I just wish they did not opt for the first of April for the launch.

Categories
Euroland

That Intergovernmental Feeling

 

 

So we have the first results out from the latest round of talks to “save the Euro” and “tackle the crisis”. You have probably read about the UK’s latest “opt-out”, about how this means that there will be further “deepening” between the euro-zone 17 + (probably) 8 others while the UK, Sweden and (some have mentioned) Hungary sit on the fence. You might have quizzed the use of the words “golden rule” and wondered whether Malta’s PM and Opposition leader actually can do anything about the direction Euro politics is taking – was their adamant stance against a common fiscal system just a bit of brinkmanship or did they really mean it? Has Europe just skipped a gluttonous opportunity/excuse to go federal? Will the UK’s “splendid isolationsim” be justified?

Those questions and much more will be tackled (or left unanswered) in the next full post on J’accuse. Yes.

P.S. The current layout is temporary and we sincerely apologise for the sporadic posts on your facebook newsfeeds.

Categories
Euroland

AAA

Luxembourg is hanging onto its triple-A rating by the skin of its teeth. A string of the “well-to-do” nations in Europe wake up every Monday nowadays dreading the much-feared Standard & Poors downgrade from AAA to AA. Many still live in the land of make believe where they think that a downgrade is nigh impossible – even if the once mighty United States has already taken the punch. The national press here in the Duchy reported Ministerial songs of austerity and budget restrictions a week or so ago but there still seems to be an air of “this will never happen to us”. North of the border Elio di Rupo becomes Brussels first francophone Prime Minister since 1974 and has a government of 12 Ministers and 6 Secretaries formed just in time for the upcoming Treaty negotiations.

What Treaty negotiations I hear you ask? Well it seems that the Merkozy duumvirate is pressing for a revised Treaty by March next year. March. That’s “only” three months away. I say only because it’s a treaty rewriting we are talking about – one that usually requires months and months of horse-trading and negotiations. Merkozy will not have that. They need a Treaty Change and they need it now. “Change is…” that’s Barack Obama’s new battle-cry. In this case “Change” is an attempt at avoiding what Radek Sikorski called “disintegration” in his now famous speech in Berlin on the 28th November.

“the entire practice of lending money presupposed at least the honest intention to repay”

Sikorski’s speech made waves and it did so because it called a spade a spade. Here he is exposing the problems of the Euro zone’s failings:

We have a Europe with a dominant currency but no single Treasury to enforce it. We have joint borders without a common migration policy. We are supposed to have a common foreign policy, but it is divorced from real instruments of power and often weakened by member states cutting their own deals. I could go on. Most of our institutions and procedures depend on the goodwill and sense of propriety of member states. It works tolerably well when the going is good. But then a wave of migrants shows up on the EU’s border, or a civil war blows up in our neighborhood, or markets panic. And then, what do we habitually do? We run for cover in the familiar framework of the nation state.

The nation state. That’s what we were saying a while back about new republics. Not Joseph Muscat’s sudden flirt with ideas about “Second Republics” – verbal contracts, not worth the paper that they are written on. The nation state in its revised form takes note of the realities within which it operates and accounts for them. Sikorski refers to the early hiccups in the US federation and in the Swiss federation. I recall ten to fifteen years ago during our European Studies when the “deepening vs widening” question was very much the vogue. Our biggest question then was when we asked what it would take for the big step towards federative structures to take place. Sikorski gave us the answer.

It’s the economy, stupid.