Tag: EU Commission

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
Mediawatch Politics

The Merry Wives of Caesar

wives_caesar_akkuza

Con Artistry

Just before I graduated from the law course and set off to the College of Europe to harden my bones and extend my experience in the arcane arts of European Law I finally managed to get linked to a law firm. Such link included a promise of employment, particularly a promise of employment in the very arcane art that was still not guaranteed a future in the Maltese law environment. It so happened that the university lecturer who had spotted my ‘talent’ (or let’s say potential) was a certain Dr Patrick Spiteri – at the time Malta’s number one reference point for tax law.

Back from Bruges (the odd fourteen years ago) I settled down for what would turn out to be a rather short period of employment. I had barely had the time to settle when storm clouds began to surround Spiteri’s practices and the man who had seemed to be a visionary turned out to be unable to keep his hands off his client’s money – and this not by way of bills. Luckily for me I managed to change firm and kick off my career properly and Patrick Spiteri quickly became a sad and unfortunate episode in the past.

Over the years I would hear stories of a more and more “deranged” Spiteri hanging around the halls and corridors of our hallowed courts. Fraud, misappropriation and more where the order of the day as reports had it that the man became a sad shadow of his former self. The word on anybody’s mouth who would mention him would be “Spicca Patrick” (Patrick’s finished). I was surprised therefore that the Sunday Times of Malta’s latest self-patting on the back exercise involved a sprightly Spiteri still up to his shenanigans. A bit of journalistic sleuthery had uncovered Spiteri in some mansion in the UK – the Times having taken it upon itself to verify whether his excuses of infirmity that were keeping him away from the court contained any ounce of truth.

Bravo le Times. Our citizens are best served by this journalistic fervor. I wonder though how do the people at The Times get to pick which fakery and effrontery to uncover? As the poetess once said: “What kind of fuckery is this?” We all remember the story of a former EU Commissioner who stayed away from the lights of investigation and examination in Malta by producing certificate after certificate of invalidity that kept him “imprisoned” in Brussels. Where was Mark Micallef and the Times at the time? Did they hound aforesaid ex-Commissioner to verify whether there was any truth in the claims? If not, why not?

Seven Brides for Seven Lovers

Which brings me to another section of the press that seems to assume a self-appointed role of gatekeeper to the truth. MaltaToday’s Balzan is having trouble digesting the sudden wave of information regarding alleged extra-marital trysts that are engaged into by persons holding a public position of power. Two Ministers to boot are currently in the eye of a press storm having had their alleged escapades and infidelities paraded before all.

Ho da far un dramma buffo,
E non trovo l’argomento!
Questo ha troppo sentimento,
Quello insipido mi par.

(Prosdocimo – Il Turco in Italia)

What may seem to be material for an opera libretto (or your average issue of HELLO! magazine) has an important constitutional slant that cannot be ignored. Notwithstanding the eagerness of people like Balzan (or the Times) to be the sole gatekeepers of information in this day and age, it must be said that the “relationship status” of two ministers of government (to put it in facebook style that is best understood) ceases quickly to be a personal and private matter. In the first place even a “simple” liaison that outside the marital circle can be problematic constitutionally for reasons that should be obvious to all. The potential for blackmail (which blackmail would effect the use of his ministerial powers) is already great at that point.

When the allegations then move on to include the possibility of public monies being used to assuage an uncomfortable domestic situation (vide employing wives, ex-wives or lovers) then the constitutional problem is not simply event but unavoidable. This is not about social judgement on the marital status of individuals : a malaise that is strong in persons of all classes in Malta who are quick to judge the unmarried, the separated, the remarried for all kinds of reasons. That kind of ridiculous calculation is hors question.

The real issue is the peril that is brought upon a public position to the extent that such public position becomes untenable. That a minister resorts to the use of the Department of Information to emit imperial decrees proclaiming the happy status of his marriage is clear evidence that the government machinery has lost its plot as to the separation of powers and issues. Ministers have been expected to resign for issues involving mere suspicion until their name is cleared. It is not just Caesar’s wife who has to be above suspicion but also – and above all – Caesar himself.

This is not about speculation and gossip for the sake of speculation and gossip. It is about serious allegations that the performance of a minister in his public role has been placed in serious jeopardy by his behaviour. No amount of faffing and pointing fingers elsewhere should diminish the gravity of the situation. It is also not, strictly speaking, about moral judgement. Mired as we are in a cesspit of moral iniquity it would have not been a problem adding another wart to the already heavily prejudiced situation. As it is though, this is about the lay rules of the land that require of the ministers of government the kind of commitment that is not such as to potentially jeopardise their performance. They also require that the money from the public purse is not used to in any way entertain domestic problems (or their add-ons).

There are larges swathes of the press who are clueless about the goings on. Their twisted set of priorities coupled with the illusion that the private affairs of a public person would remain private no matter what the public consequences will not permit a clear approach to the current issue. Sure a person is free in our society to marry, not to marry, to be faithful, to be unfaithful, to be openly gay, to be a closet gay … the list goes on. These freedoms though are not a carte blanche particularly for persons who are in positions of power and who might prejudice their performance within that position of power by those very freedoms.

As for Balzan’s hilarious disquisitions about who should be the gatekeeper of the news there is an age old system that allows you to publish and be damned, leaving it to the courts to right any wrong if somebody oversteps the line. That really is what libel, slander and defamation laws are all about. But aside from his little libel fund and persecution mania I doubt whether Balzan, once again, has a clue.

 

 

Categories
Euroland Politics

Tonio’s Non-Metamorphoses

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

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

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

It’s the EU Law, Stupid

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

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

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

Those Shoddy Liberals

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

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

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

A Metamorphoses?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?