Tag: EU

Categories
Rule of Law

Praworządność : the EU and the Rule of Law

In a historic move today, the European Commission has initiated a procedure against Poland based on the clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law. From the official press release:

Despite repeated efforts, for almost two years, to engage the Polish authorities in a constructive dialogue in the context of the Rule of Law Framework, the Commission has today concluded that there is a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law in Poland.

The Commission is therefore proposing to the Council to adopt a decision under Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union (see Annex II).

The European Commission is taking action to protect the rule of law in Europe. Judicial reforms in Poland mean that the country’s judiciary is now under the political control of the ruling majority. In the absence of judicial independence, serious questions are raised about the effective application of EU law, from the protection of investments to the mutual recognition of decisions in areas as diverse as child custody disputes or the execution of European Arrest Warrants.

This is not something that can or should be taken lightly. In a local (Maltese) context, this should put paid to the myth that the eyes of the EU institutions are only focused on Malta (vide Pana Committee and recent Rule of Law task force) and that they are focused on Malta because of the work of some “traitors”. It should also put paid to the yarn being spun in some quarters that the rule of law is some “cliche'” that only serves the ulterior hidden purposes of power-hungry groups eager to overturn the current status.

Interestingly the Commission focuses on the judicial reforms in Poland that have severely prejudiced the independence  of the judiciary – the main default in the state of the rule of law in Poland is seen to be the judicial branch. The deficiencies are in the powers of appointment and removal that have been arrogated to the executive in recent legislative changes.

Why should Malta care?

Malta’s current system of appointment, removal and scrutiny of the judiciary is already flawed as it is. All the talk about reform, even in the judicial sector, remains just that – talk. Over the years the loopholes in the system that stem from the excessive discretion of an all-powerful judiciary have only been worsened. Our Prime Minister may “take note” in some cases (in answer to the Chief Justice for example) or “be perplexed” in others (as when he feigns ignorance of the consequences of the Ombudsman’s warnings regarding the internal kangaroo courts being set up within the public service). There is only so long that these lies can hold though.

Alarm bells will continue to be rung – if not by a spineless opposition that seems to be ever more hell bent on joining the populist battle, at least by a wider civil society made up of varied exponents and NGOs that feel it is their duty to act as Malta’s last conscience. Poland had long been playing with fire and is now in direct line for losing certain rights under the EU system. Malta could very well be next.

In the eighties Malta looked closely and learnt lessons from the happenings in Warsaw and Gdansk. The solidarność (solidarity) movement was adopted as a precursor for the calls of Work, Justice and Liberty that brought about change from a tired system. This time round we might do well to take heed and see how Poland solves its problems with praworządność  (rule of law).

Now. Before it is too late.

Categories
Politics

Malta, l-UE u r-rifuġji fiskali

L-ewwel parti: Rifuġji Fiskali u Politika Ewropea

Ilbieraħ l-Unjoni Ewropea ippublikat “blacklist” ta’ rifuġji fiskali (tax havens) u din tinkludi 17-il pajjiż barra l-Unjoni illi jitqiesu bħala pajjiżi li ma jikkoperawx f’materji fiskali. Milli stajt nara, ir-reazzjoni għal din l-aħbar kienet waħda li tirrefletti konfużjoni kbira kemm dwar is-suġġett innifsu kif ukoll dwar il-protagonisti principali.

Ħa nibdew mill-kwistjoni ta’ rifuġji fiskali (tax havens). Il-villaġġ globali li inħoloq wara tmiem it-tieni gwerra dinjija jiddependi ħafna fuq l-iskambju ekonomiku, is-swieqi ħielsa jew swieqi ta’ skambju kummercjali u l-mobilita’. Is-swieq ħielsa kienu pedament importanti sabiex, fost l-oħrajn, ikun hemm incentiv biżżejjed biex pajjiżi fil-kontinent il-qadim jingħaqdu u għall-ewwel darba wara mijiet ta’ snin iwaqqfu il-gwerer ta’ bejniethom.

L-Unjoni Ewropea inbniet fuq il-pedamenti ta’ erba’ libertajiet ekonomici – il-moviment liberu tal-prodotti, tas-servizzi, tal-kapitali u tal-persuni. L-ewwel drittijiet ta’ moviment ħieles kienu marbutin strettament mal-ekonomija u l-possibilita’ li tikber. Il-ħsieb kien, u għadu, li l-ġenerazzjoni ta’ ġid jikber u jitqassam. Sadattant parallel mal-iżviluppi ekonomici fil-kuntest ta’ swieq u economies of scale, il-pajjiżi membri kienu ukoll baqgħu jipperfezzjonaw sistemi ta’ welfare – saħħa, edukazzjoni ecc illi mhux biss huma kumplimentari għall ekonomija iżda jitqiesu bħala essenzjali għall-qgħada tajba tac-cittadini ta’ pajjiz.

Tajjeb li wieħed ifakkar li minkejja li l-Unjoni Ewropea hija għaqda ta’ stati, dawn jibqgħu sovrani u jżommu għalihom id-dritt sovran li jirregolaw certi oqsma. Kull tant żmien jiġu innegozjati pakketti ta’ armonizzazzjoni li jfissru li l-politika f’certu oqsma ikollha standard minimu komuni jew sahansitra regola komuni li tapplika indaqs ma kullhadd. Meta jkunu qed jagixxu b’dan il-mod l-istati ikunu qed jaħdmu fl-interess tagħhom stess (individwalment) qabel ma jikkunsidraw il-bżonnijiet komuni. Hija sistema ta’ kompromessi u negozjar fejn wieħed icedi naħa u jirbaħ oħra.

Ir-reġim fiskali huwa qasam li qajla qed jiġi armonizzat. L-interessi ta’ pajjiżi differenti anki fi ħdan l-UE huma differenti. Pajjiżi li specjalizzaw f’sistemi fiskali attrajenti – bħal Malta, Lussemburgu, l-Irlanda u l-Pajjiżi Baxxi – għandhom interess li ma jippermettux stati oħra jirregolaw dan il-qasam iżżejjed għaliex jitilfu ħafna mid-dħul li għandhom. Ma ninsewx ukoll li minkejja l-indinjazzkoni li juru certi pajjiżi hekk imsejħa kbar, dawn ukoll jabbużaw minn mekkaniżmi fiskali li inħolqu f’territorji iżghar li qiegħdin fil-kontroll tagħħhom Hekk Spanja, Franza, l-Italja u r-Renju Unit igawdu mis-sistemi fiskali ad hoc maħluqa f’postijiet bħal Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, ic-Channel Islands u Liechtenstein.

Huwa car li dan il-qasam huwa wieħed fejn l-interessi nazzjonali fi ħdan l-UE jirbaħ kull sforz ta’ armonizzazzoni konkreta. Il-pajjiżi ma jitiflux cans li jisparaw fuq pajjiz membru ieħor ma’ l-ewwel sinjal ta’ djufija… dan jispjega ukoll kif id-dibattitu dwar il-qiegħda tal-istat ta’ dritt f’Malta ġie żvijat kemm il-darba fuq il-kwistjoni ta’ rifuġju fiskali – kwistjoni li tellfet ħafna mill-kwalita’ tad-diskussjoni. Minkejja li ma hemmx dubju li pajjiż fiskalment attraenti jista’ jiġbed l-interess ta’ flus hekk imsejħa “maħmuġa” u b’hekk isir pajjiż komdu għall-ħasil ta’ tali flus, il-fatt jibqa li l-kwistjoni ta’ stat ta’ dritt hija importanti għax b’istituzzjonijiet li jiggarantixxu li dan ma jsirx (permezz ta monitoring tajjeb u indipendenza) l-attrativita’ fiskali ma ssirx awtomatikament bejta tal-ħasil ta’ flus.

Issa, biex nerġgħu għad-dikjarazzjoni tal-UE dwar il-lista’ s-sewda. Jekk hemm xi ħaġa li tgħaqqad il-pajjiżi Ewropej fuq kwistjonijiet fiskali hija proprju dik dwar kompetitivita’ fuq skala internazzjonali. X’ifisser dan? Ifisser li filwaqt li difficli li wieħed jimmaġina lill-pajjiżi tal-UE jaqblu dwar limiti ta’ tassazzjoni bejniethom, l-istess ma jistax jingħad fir-rigward tal-konkorrenza internazzjonali minn pajjiżi bħal Panama. Hu għalhekk illi mill-aspett Ewropew ma hix ħaġa sorpredenti li sar il-qbil li sar illi iffoka fuq pajjiżi barra l-UE.

It-tieni parti: Rifuġji fiskali vs kompetitivita’ fiskali

Wieħed irid ukoll joqgħod attent meta jitkellem dwar sistemi fiskali differenti li jeżistu kemm fl-Ewropa kif ukoll fil-bqija tad-dinja. Reġim fiskali li jiffacilita l-ħasil ta’ flus ma huwiex fuq l-istess livell ta’ reġim fiskali illi joffri vantaġġi lil min jiflaħ iħallas għal dak it-tip ta’ ippjanar.

Ir-rifuġju fiskali illi minħabba monitoraġġ laxk jew nuqqas totali ta’ kontrolli jsir għodda ta’ ħasil ta’ flus ma huwa qatt se jiġi promoss – la fis-sistema Ewropea u lanqas f’dik dinjija. Ir-raġuni hija waħda ovvja – is-sors illegali tal-flus li jaslu f’dan it-tip ta’ reġim huwa problema għall-pajjiżi kollha għaliex jsaħħaħ sistemi illegali li jtellfu mis-sistema ekonomika dinjija kif ukoll huma moralment reprensibbli. Pajjiż bħal Panama li dan l-aħħar ħareġ fic-car mill-Panama papers li kien jonqos ħafna mill-iskrutinju (tant li persuni li suppost huma meqjusa bħala politikament esposti (PEP’s – politically exposed persons) xorta sabu mod kif jiftħu kontijiet hemm – awtomatikament jaqa’ taħt din il-kategorija ta’ rifuġji fiskali.

Mill-banda l-oħra pajjiżi bħal Malta stess għandhom interess li jkollhom politika ta’ kompetitivita’ fiskali. Huma specjalment pajjizi żgħar illi ma jifilħux jikkompetu f’oqsma ta’ produzzjoni u manifattura illi ħafna drabi jittantaw it-triq ta’ kompetitivita’ fiskali. Il-kritika li jaqilgħu dawn il-pajjiżi – li kull ma jagħmlu hu li joffru kundizzjonijiet favorevoli sabiex kumpaniji jagħżlu li jkunu intaxxati f’pajjiżhom – hi li qed jaqilgħu il-flus minn fuq dar ħaddieħor. Bosta drabi s-sistema ekonomika ta’ pajjiż hija waħda kumplimentari – dħul minn taxxi u ħruġ fuq welfare. Issa jekk pajjiż partikolari qed jara li t-taxxi li seta jiġbor minn kumpaniji qed “jaħarbu” lejn pajjiżi oħra b’sistema kompetitiva ta’ taxxi wieħed jifhem għalfejn ma hux kuntent.

It-tielet parti: Il-politika fiskali u l-moralita’

Ħafna kritika tas-sistemi fiskali ġeneralment titfa’ il kull tip ta’ sistema f’keffa waħda. Dawk li jpinġu sistemi li potenzjalment jiffrankaw t-taxxa lil min jiflaħ ħafna bħala sistemi li huma moralment reprensibbli ma għandhomx tort sa l-aħħar. Fl-istess waqt pero ma nistgħux ninjoraw illi d-differenzi bejn sistemi u oħrajn – illi jikkonsistu fis-solidita’ ta’ skrutinju u trasparenza – huma importanti ukoll. Nieħdu lil Malta illi għaliha huwa importanti ħafna s-settur ta’ kompetitivita’ fiskali. Id-deciżjoni jekk il-pajjiż għandux ikompli f’din it-triq hija waħda importanti u hija politika fil-veru sens tal-kelma.

Trid tkun għami iżraq jekk taħseb li s-sigurta’ socjali li tgawdi minnha bħalissa ma hix frott ukoll ta’ profitti li s-sistema fiskali preżenti qed toħloq. Dan ma jfissirx li ma gġandhomx jitqiegħdu f’diskussjoni kemm il-politika fiskali, kif ukoll il-politika dwar gaming per eżempju – li hija sistema oħra leġiżlattiva fejn nisfruttaw vantaġġ kompetittiv fiskali biex niġbdu f’pajjiżna flejjes bħal dawn.

Li rrid ngħid hu li ma hemm xejn ħażin li jkollna dubji dwar is-sistemi politici tagħna. Anzi, huwa importanti illi minn żmien għall-ieħor il-pajjiż ikollu diskussjonijiet dwar l-identita’ tiegħu. Pero ma nistgħux nitfgħu kollox f’keffa waħda u  ma nassumux il-fatt li sistemi fiskali huma parti mis-success ricenti tal-pajjiz.

Ma huwiex sorprendenti li Malta ingħaqdet mal-pajjiżi tal-UE u sawwret lista sewda ta’ pajjiżi bħal dik li għandna issa. Li hu sorprendenti hu li bħala membru tal-kunsill UE, Malta qablet u ivvutat li wieħed minn dawn il-pajjiżi ikun il-Panama. Ir-rappreżentant tal-gvern li ivvota kien qed jivvota u jaqbel mal-fatt illi il-pajjiż fejn Ministru tal-Kabinet u Chief of Staff tal-Prim Ministru fetħu kumpaniji huwa pajjiż illi jisħoqqlu label ta’ blacklist għaliex hemm suspetti kbar ta’ nuqqas ta’ trasparenza. Jekk xejn dik hija l-iktar aħbar sorprendenti li ħarġet.

 

Categories
Constitutional Development Corruption

Pirates of the Mediterranean.

 

The #Maltafiles scandal has just broken. The journalistic network EIC (European Investigative Collaborations) combed through 150,000 documents leaked from Malta and concluded that Malta is a ‘pirate base’ for tax avoidance. Coming right after Panama Leaks had projected Malta into the wrong side of the limelight thanks to its having the only EU Minister with companies in Panama (and not doing anything about it), this new scandal threatens to deal a heavy blow to a crucial sector of the Maltese economy. As things stand we are definitely not in the best position to set up any form of defence.

Reputation is the key concept here. Blow after blow is being dealt to Malta’s reputation as an honest dealer on the international and European level. One lesson that many nations learnt from Panama Leaks was that in order to be able to survive in the cut-troath world of tax competitiveness it is crucial to know how to be on the right side of the fine line between tax avoidance and the abetting of illegality.

The International Dimension

Take New Zealand for example, the discovery of the use of their system of trusts by Maltese government figures led to the changing of laws in the country relating to trusts. Notwithstanding the immediate and timely reaction to shore up the damage, the ripples of the scandal are still having an effect on the NZ trust system to this day: the inquiry into the dealings by the Azerbaijan President’s daughter involve movement of moneys through New Zealand trusts.

In Panama, the founders of Mossack Fonseca – the law firm in the eye of the storm – were arrested and accused of having formed a criminal organisation that assisted persons in hiding funds of doubtful origin (read money laundering). They have only just been released on bail. Laws get changed, law firm partners get tried criminally and action is taken. All to protect a country’s reputation. That is because in the world of tax and investment competition reputation is crucial.

What happened in Malta? For over a year now the Prime Minister has stood by two of his closest operators: Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi notwithstanding the fact that they were two PEPs caught up in the Panama Papers scandal. The feeble excuse? Some sort of declaration on a hastily written paper makes it all seem – to the Prime Minister – A.O.K. Worse still, insofar as Mizzi is concerned we have the fake defrocking from his position as Energy Minister as some form of retribution for his ‘genuine error’. The hypocrisy behind this move was never more blatant than during Malta’s turn at the presidency of the EU with Mizzi turning up and chairing meetings of the EU Council of Energy Ministers.

No effort at all was made to preserve Malta’s reputation in this respect on the international scene. Joseph Muscat was quite prepared to defy everyone and everything and proceed with his headfast ways keeping both Schembri and Mizzi close to his chest while ignoring international calls that cried foul. At no instant did his particular magic formula for Malta’s economy – Muscatonomics – contemplate the huge damage being wrought by his actions and those of his entourage. The recent developments with regards to the operations of Pilatus Bank are only an aggravation of this situation. It can only get worse.

The European Dimension

The Best in Europe is what Joseph Muscat had promised. Has he delivered? There are different ways of looking at this. First there is the government spin that our economy has never been better. We have low unemployment and budget surplus flowing through our ears and noses. The ‘trickle down’ benefits for the citizen remain the famous ‘consumption bill cuts’ that earned Muscat his first ride in power. A different song is that sung by others who – as best put metaphorically by a colleague of mine – describe the situation as follows: The previous nationalist government had replaced an old car with a spanking new one and the labour government found it all set to go. What labour is doing is revving up the engine and wearing it down as fast as possible like there is no tomorrow.

Beyond the inevitable spin though there is a reputation to be upheld in the European Union too. Being the best in Europe also entails being the best in Europe by European standards and those standards are to be found in the rules of the club. It’s not about a blind adherence to the rules either, it is about understanding that the European Union is a sum of its parts and that every part of the Union can only benefit when they work together and for the same interest.

This idea is best enshrined in article 4(3) of the Treaty of the European Union:

“Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.

The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.

The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives”.

The principle of sincere cooperation underlies the operation of the EU as a group of states with common goals and common regulations. When boiled down to the essence it translates into “member states (and institutions) should not engage in activity that undermines the goals and effectiveness of the Union and its objectives”.

Which brings me to passports and the sale thereof. It may be ok for the government of Malta to lend lip service to the European Union as a project and as a concept. The damascene conversion of Malta’s PM from hater of all things EU to sudden prophet on the future of Europe might have become a taboo topic and yet it remains to be tested given how every action on the European stage by this government is tied to inherent contradictions and the sale of passports is the prime example.

When Malta’s Labour government decided to turn the sale of Maltese citizenship into a lucrative business it also did so with the full knowledge that the main attraction of such citizenship was that it included EU citizenship in a sort of 2 for 1 deal. The bulk of local criticism of the scheme was related to the type of purchasers who would be attracted but few chose to stress the European dimension of the problem. The low and inconsistent standards applied to the scheme and the readiness to accept anybody willing to pay were not only harming Malta but they were harming the European Union.

Did our PM care? Irrespectively of whether he was aware of the alleged massive operation of greasing of wheels when it came to the implementing of the scheme, Muscat showed an incredible nonchalance in dismissing this huge “up yours” to the European Union as one big bout of jealousy. What does that make Malta seem like in the eyes of its partners in Europe? What does it do to the reputation of the nation? Yes you guessed. We are the pirates of the Mediterranean, ready to sell our soul for a quick kill – and that kind of reputation sticks.

So when the focus suddenly shifts to a Financial Services industry and to how Malta has used a (cheap) competitive edge to attract investments here the onus of proof that Malta acts with malicious intent of the “I’m alright and f you jack” kind is much lower. Couple that with the fact that our regulatory system in this sphere has not exactly been improving over the years but rather has degenerated and you suddenly discover that one of the crucial sectors in our economy is under open fire from all sides.

This is not Luxembourg right after Luxleaks. This is not Ireland after getting rapped on the hand by the Commission for the way it deals with huge multinationals. This is passport selling Malta with a Panama Leaks associated heart of government that is now exposed with a set of files showing that its financial services system is being abused by persons of not too high a standard.

That is the difference really. On any other day, under any other government, an attack on the competitive edge of a particular sector can be weathered given the right diplomacy and the right legal action in the right quarters. Take our gaming industry – constantly subjected to a barrage of attacks by fellow EU members who want a piece of the cake. So long as we can show that our regulatory standards are high and that we operate within the limits of sincere cooperation then it as all part of a days work as members of the EU. There are forums were this battle can be taken.

This is not any other day or any other government. This is a scandal ridden government that has now got a long list of grievances which all boil down to the breakdown of governance. The strongest defence for maintaining a competitive regime is that it is done and maintained within a strong regulatory framework that allows for no nonsense. When France, Germany, Italy and more come knocking at your door asking questions as to how your financial services industry is full of huge holes allowing for money laundering operations the best platform for defence is not the deck of a pirate ship that is sinking fast.

Categories
Mediawatch

No Peace for Nice

peacenice

With the end of EURO 2016, Nice and its inhabitants must have thought that they had closed their account with violence. The football tournament had been the scene of some violent moments when “supporters” hailing from different nations wreaked havoc on many of the host towns in France. Nice was one of them. When the violence among fans erupts we tend to hear two arguments. Firstly there are those who claim that these are not “real fans”, that they are only on site in search of violence and ways to display their pent up anger. Secondly the reaction this time round was to threaten deportation. Some of the fans arrested after violent nights were in fact returned to their country of origin.

Last night, during the 14th July celebrations on the Nice Promenade, an individual who has now been identified as a French-Tunisian ploughed into the huge crowd watching the event with a van and ended his mad drive by firing shots into the crowd before being put down by policemen. President Hollande stated that this attack had a “terrorist character” that cannot be denied and that we need to do “everything we can to fight against terrorism’. Once again a Western nation squares up against an invisible enemy…. a chimera. The reaction to such events is still a siege mentality of us vs them – as though there is an invisible army among us ready to strike again and against whom measures have to be taken.

It is now almost 15 years since the brutal attacks on the Twin Towers in the US and it seems that we have not moved much further forward. The war on the ground in Syria, Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East gives us the illusion that a battle is being won or lost. Daesh gives an ephemeral shape and face to “the enemy” whenever one is needed but soon fades in a cloud of confusing and contradictory information peppered with amateur youtube videos of beheadings and crucifixions far from the “civilised West” that is under attack.

Reactions closer to home are very much like those we witness in the football violence month. An attempt to define “them” (the real fans vs the fake fans) ends up in the simplification of the all encompassing term “terrorist”. Those who sow terror. The knee-jerk reaction fuelled by ignorance is to assemble an identikit based on the cliches – islam, immigrants, arabic…. – and ask that all of these get thrown out. Donald Trump? A hero. Give us more walls. Suddenly the Brexit vote does not look so dumb. Just as in the football months , just as every time a mad idea to “purify” society seems to be taking over the idea of “deportation” begins to gain in popularity. But will it work?

If, as the reports are claiming, this was a French-Tunisian, then blaming the EU and its policy on immigration has little or nothing to do with the events.  Tunisia was a French colony until the mid-fifties. Persons of Tunisian, Algerian, and Moroccan origin coloured the French landscape adding a touch of diversity  long before the sudden awareness on “immigrants” was given a new tinge of alarm by a disgruntled part of the population. Thousands of persons of Maltese and Italian descent pepper the coast of France as they do the north coast of Africa – relics from a time when the concept of free movement across the Mediterranean was much more fluid and economic based than it is today.

The truth seems to lie more in the fact that the perpetrators of recent events labelled as “terrorist” are more likely to be angry misfits in society. We used to call them criminals. They perpetrate violence on large number of people while hanging on to the excuse of “martyrdom” or “vindication” but we should not be side-tracked by the mask that they choose to show when committing the crime. Normal society, acting calmly and rationally, has laws for criminals and sends them to prison. Criminals are not deported, they are punished for their crimes.

The 2000s have been a fertile ground in the Western World for the creation of angry generations of individuals. I have already spoken about this not so long ago (Killing in the name of – June 16th):

The truth is that it is all of society that is threatened – as it always has been – by the existence of misfits and grudge-bearers who would do more than write a letter to the editor complaining about how society’s mores have gone to the dumps. Intent and motive is beside the point if not only to understand how much pent up anger exists or needs to exist in an individual before he resorts to violence. The Orlando and Paris killers may have pinned their banner to ISIS and some contorted view of a religion but the fact remains that their twisted acts are the result of violent social misfits.

It is not even their creed or origin that should be under focus but the reasons why they failed to fit so badly in the societies in which they were brought up. Badly enough to pick up a gun or dagger and kill fellow human beings. Badly enough to not care.

I came across a chat this morning where one of the people (an Australian based individual) was advocating deportation and exit from the EU for France because of the EU’s “immigration policy”. The implication is always the same. The problem is immigration and immigrants. Is it really? Not too far back in time Sarkozy’s government faced huge riots in French suburbia. We read about battles between the police and suburban angry youth burning cars and rioting in the streets outside and around Paris. Was this Islam or immigrant inspired? No it was not.

Western democracies are having to face a bigger problem than terrorism. The bigger problem is the huge number of individuals who no longer feel safe or happy in our society. Economically downtrodden, socially marginalised and with no hope these are the fertile grounds for explosions of anger and acts of desperation. From Orlando to Nice the resorting to angry deeds becomes almost a natural consequence.

Society needs to notice that creating a convenient label such as terrorist or immigrant does not take the monster away. It also needs to be told fast that Trump-like solutions or Farage-like fear mongering are not on the table. Isolation gets nobody nowhere. Rather than concentrating on demonstrations of strength the problem should be tackled at the roots – ironically projects such as the EU intended for economic and social betterment of the peoples of Europe are being hijacked by fearmongerers and the jackals of war.

Listening to Farage, Trump and the like will not solve anything. It will only exacerbate the very problems that we need to be solving.

 

Categories
Politics Values

Morning-after: Muscat does a Farage

muscat_farage

Malta cannot stop a company from importing a morning-after contraceptive pill that has EU approval, Joseph Muscat said this evening. Speaking at one of the meetings in the Gvern li Jisma series, the Prime Minister said he was not in a position to make moral statements, but to speak to the experts. In this case, the expert was the Medicines’ Authority, whose reply had actually surprised him, Dr Muscat said.

Then people actually wonder why Joseph Muscat gets compared to Nigel Farage. Here’s why. On the contraception pill our Prime Minister practically implied that Malta would be obliged by the EU to sell the “morning-after” pill over the counter (I don’t think anybody would be obliged to import a pill if the intention were not to sell it).

Using the EU as a monster that forces states to do what they do not want to do in their sovereign competencies is exactly what Farage did.

The truth is that following a recommendation by the European Medicines Agency (based in the UK incidentally) in 2014, the European Commission issued a decision in 2015 switching the status of two morning after pills from prescription to non-prescription. This decision DOES NOT LEGALLY BIND member states and in fact Malta still neither registers nor sells such pills. Countries such as Italy have for some time attached a further condition before allowing over the counter sale (pregnancy test). (source)

Switching the debate to whether the EU obliges Malta to decide on the matter is tantamount to washing ones hands of the decision. This is not the kind of decision making that one would expect from a progressive and pro-Europeanist Prime Minister.

“In November 2014, the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) recommended a change in classification status from prescription to non-prescription for UPA ECPs, meaning that the drug could be obtained without a prescription in the EU. Following the EMA´s assessment, in January 2015, the European Commission issued an implementing decision that UPA ECPs should be available without a prescription, amending the marketing authorisation granted in 2009 for UPA ECPs.

While the European Commission’s decision is not legally binding and does not create new obligations to the EU Member States with regards to EC accessibility, in most EU countries, the decision is being followed, and UPA ECPs are available directly in the pharmacies or are in the process of becoming available. At the end of November 2015, the situation regarding ECPs in the EU was the following:

UPA ECPs are available without prescription in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Age restrictions have been set in at least 3 countries: Croatia and Italy (for women younger than 18) and Poland (for women younger than 15).

In the Baltic subregion, the new marketing authorisation is being processed in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and UPA ECPs are expected to be available by 2016.

In Hungary, in January 2015, the government decided that because of patient safety considerations, it will continue to require prescriptions for all types of EC.

In Malta, LNG ECPs and UPA ECPs are not registered or available.

LNG ECPs remain a prescription drug in Hungary and Poland. In Croatia and Italy since October 2015, at least one brand of LNG ECPs is registered as prescription- free products.”

The decision of whether the morning after pill is available over the counter remains a national prerogative. It is a decision that must be taken at a national level. Sure, it must be informed by the EU Commission decision recommending over-the counter sales that is the result of a recommendation by a specialised agency but this does not undermine the fact that it is ultimately a national decision of which our government cannot wash its hands.

Washing his hands and blaming the EU monster is dishonest and untruthful to begin with. It also unmasks the real level of commitment that Muscat has both to progressive and Europeanist ideas.

We need more fact-based politics and less untruths. Otherwise we might as well have a comedian like Farage running our country irresponsibly.

 

ADDENDUM (from Facebook):

James Debono asks:

I am no expert on importation of medicines and laws regulating them. On a political level it would be wiser not shift buck to EUon such matters and assume responsibility. That is the non technical argument. I say this cause am completely in favour of morning after and wary of shifting arguments to EU on sensitive issues. So I can see your political point. That said the pill is available in all EU countries with differences being on need of prescription etc. I am under impression that local medicines authority has to authorize it at some point. My technical question is whether local authorities can stop any medicine from being imported without submitting a legal ground to do so (and thus expose themselves to a legal challenge) Does such a step (to ban this particular brand of morning after pill) require the approval of new legislation to justify any decision to ban it locally (and thus not open state to legal challenge)? So technically muscat seems to be saying we are not going out of the way to stop this pill on irrational grounds (while politically passing buck on single market)?

Thank you James Debono. Let me begin by stating that my post was not a position on whether the pill should or should not be available. I was simply stating that the buck should not be passed onto the EU when it is evidently not the case.

I will try to answer your question as best as I can. First of all the issue of marketing and sale of Medicines is a special field of EU law that in some cases requires special implementation of the general principles of free movement of goods. IN essence the idea is to create a single market insofar as medicinal products are concerned but the basic directive also recognises differences in MSs (member states) on certain issues.

The general principle is that a registered product should be marketable in all the EU. That is when an EU-wide license is issued. In other cases MS specific authorities (NCA’s) have the power to issue or refuse national licenses. This occurs for different reasons all of which boil down to public policy.

It is important to realise that the European Medicine’s Agency is responsible for scientific research and study of all products. All EU states benefit from the investment made by a centralised agency to vet medicincal products and this obviously avoids replication over 28 MSs.

Now for the national agency. They are entitled to refuse to license certain products including morning after pills.

You should be looking at Directive 2001/83 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Particularly its article 4(4) which states: “This Directive shall not affect the application of national legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale, supply or use of medicinal products as contraceptives or abortifacients. The Member States shall communicate the national legislation concerned to the Commission.”

So in answer to your question: “whether local authorities can stop any medicine from being imported without submitting a legal ground to do so?” The answer is yes since the actual point is that local autorithies cannot be obliged to license certain categories of drugs/medicines.

Link to the Directive.

Link to the Commission decision advising Member States to allow over the counter prescription.

Additional reading.

Categories
Mediawatch

Sales Report

salesreport

Chief Salesman Muscat was reporting from his business visit in Algeria. He told journalists that the Algerian authorities had laughed off any suggestion that something was amiss with the abnormal number of visas being issued by the consulate run by Muscat’s father’s cousin. Obviously the matter of visas being issued lightly and allegedly on the basis of a network of bribes is of no security consequence to Algeria. Why should it be? It is probably a laughing matter indeed. The arabs have a curious habit of referring to someone as “oncle” or “cousin” out of respect – much in the same way as some Maltese use the phrase “my friend” even if you do not know them from Adam. Muscat was reported to have replied sarcastically about his familiarity with the man running the Algeria consulate. “He’s my father’s cousin, that’s a very strong relationship,” Dr Muscat said sarcastically. Again, he seems to find these things funny. Brushing it all off as being a bit too much brouhaha.

Meanwhile. Malta’s Chief Salesman seemed positively surprised that the Algerian counterparts are eager to use Malta as a window to Europe’s pharmaceutical market. What stands out as strange is that given the linguistic and historical partnership with France, the Algerians would still need to use Malta to hitch a ride into Europe. The question really is all about standards. Is Malta becoming one of the weaker links of the European Union? Is this government once again peddling the rights and obligations that were hard earned in order to make a quick sale? We can only wait. Do not expect truthful answers from salesmen though, Their business is not governance but profit.