Tag: John Dalli

Categories
Dalligate Mediawatch

Talking about a revolution

Mohammed Morsi will just not let go that easily. The government installed after Egypt’s turn of the Arab Spring seems to have its days counted and the army has issued an ultimatum for it to step down. As representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood prepare for the last stand, it seems to be inevitable that there will be a new government that moves away from the initial islamist reaction that was originally installed following Mubarak’s removal.

Listening to the BBC radio this morning I heard of the travel advisories issued by the British government and was bemused to notice that while the political centres of Egypt are currently a no-go area for tourists, the Red Sea zones are still open to business as usual. Which goes to show that 21st century revolutions cannot afford any blips in the economy – so do not cancel that holiday in Sharm el Sheik and the next government will be grateful.

We did see something similar happening in Brazil in the pat few weeks with the social divide being clearly highlighted. On the one hand the Confederations Cup went ahead with a festival of sports in a country that is supposed to be football mad while on the other you had millions of people hitting the street reminding the government to get its priorities right. There’s nothing more symbolic of the surreal clash between the panem et circenses and the protesting crowds than the TV commentator wondering out loud whether the smoke that he can see is coming from the supporters or from the police canisters of tear gas being thrown outside.

Elsewhere Mr Snowden is busy concocting his own peaceful revolution. While Evo Morales seems to think that Snowden’s act is definitely in the interests of peace – a revolutionary act of courage, Vladimir Putin described dealing with Snowden as being “like shearing a pig – too much squealing, too little wool”. Maybe the truth is half way there. Snowden has issued his latest declaration from the transit zone in Moscow.

Snowden denounces the United States for having revoked his passport and left him stateless. He reminds the world that “the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised – and it should be.” Information and knowledge remain the key terms in this period of revolutionary change that is eating at the traditional dynamics of liberal democracy.

As Snowden remains stuck in no-man’s land in a Moscow Airport waiting for news of the first country that will offer him his much needed asylum, we hear of the Maltese politician who crossed half the world in order to spend four hours in the Bahamas for some philanthropic mission. In this case the press statements and emails sent to clarify his behaviour amount to nothing more than a garbled text of foot shuffling and enigmas. The lack of clarity in the statements should of itself suffice as proof to the inquisitive mind that the smokescreen being created (and accompanying conspiracy theories) is just that.

The truth, most times, is simple. It’s the lies and half truths that turn out to be most complicated.

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
Dalligate

OLAF & Caesar’s Wife

I’ll try to to be brief on this one and avoid excessive legalisms. Yesterday, the European Anti-Fraud Office (affectionately known as OLAF) deemed it necessary to issue “a statement in order to clarify comments contained in media reports”. Allowing sufficient leeway for the dangers of inevitable multi-lingual approaches in European matters, the press statement of an “independent wing” of the Commission probably raises more questions than provides answers.

In the first instance it is interesting to see a prosecution unit that remains so pro-active within the media spheres. In a way we can understand the concern since more often than not nowadays a large part of justice matters are dealt with in the public communication spheres long before the real questions are decided in the courts of law. There was however more than a hint of anxiety and patching up in this (I presume) carefully worded missive and maybe, just maybe, we can identify the reasons for the caution.

For the first time we have a clearer indication of what the OLAF report contains with regard to both Silvio Zammit (OLAF still insists on calling him a Maltese entrepreneur) and to Commissioner Dalli. Let’s take a look at the first paragraphs of the release:

The Evidence

The OLAF investigation found evidence that a Maltese entrepreneur, who had organised meetings between Commissioner DALLI and representatives and lobbyists of snus producers, repeatedly requested a considerable sum of money from the snus industry in exchange for the adoption of a proposal for the lifting of the ban on snus, trading on the name of the Commissioner. This request was declined by the snus industry and no payment or financial transactions have taken place.

The OLAF investigation found no conclusive evidence of the direct participation of Commissioner DALLI in the operation for requesting money. In line with Regulation 1073/99, OLAF has referred the case to the competent Maltese judicial authorities, for their consideration of the criminal aspects of the actions of the persons involved.

So we have here a clear delineation of the proof that OLAF has managed to unearth. We now know for certain that Silvio Zammit’s involvement was clear and proven. The involvement includes “repeated requests for a considerable sum of money”, a clear indication that Zammit promised in exchange that their proposal for lifting the ban would be adopted and that Zammit did so in the name of the Commissioner. We also know that Swedish Match declined the request and never transferred any money.

We also know that OLAF found NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of the direct participation of Dalli in the operation for requesting money. Significantly, quite significantly I would add, OLAF’s statement then states that this case was referred to the Attorney General “for consideration of the criminal aspects of the actions of the persons involved”.

Do note that the bit relating to the “circumstantial pieces of evidence” comes later. Unless this is a result of a bad case of press release drafting by OLAF’s PR people then we have something to dwell upon. More importantly AG Peter Grech has something less to dwell upon. The provisions of our law relating to Dalligate would be the Criminal Code chapters on Abuse of Public Authority (112 et seq. with particular consideration of 115, 121(4)(c), and 121A as well as Cap 326 – the Permanent Commission against corruption act. It would also seem that Silvio Zammit’s activities as described would be sanctionable under the relevant provisions. It remains to be seen how much the proof that is now in the AG’s possession can be used to inculpate John Dalli criminally.

Parallels may be drawn to the Arrigo/Vella cases of late and in particular to the notion of knowledge of corrupt offers. At this stage our assessment cannot be more than presumptive given the lack of information about what links John Dalli damningly to Zammit’s activities. So while we can safely say that on the basis of OLAF’s declarations a strong case has been built against Zammit (and I would  add that on the basis of certain emails even Swedish Match might be liable to at least some investigation so long as it could have gone along with the auction), we have little or no certainty about Dalli’s criminal involvement.

This makes even more sense when we look at the next paragraph in OLAF’s statement:

OLAF has also concluded that there are a number of unambiguous circumstantial pieces of evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, indicating that Commissioner DALLI was aware of the activities of the Maltese entrepreneur and of the fact that this person was using the Commissioner’s name and position to gain financial advantages. OLAF found that Commissioner DALLI had taken no action to prevent or dissociate himself from the facts or to report the circumstances. In line with Regulation 1073/99, OLAF referred the case to the President of the Commission, for his consideration in light of the provisions laid down by the“Code of Conduct for the Commissioners”, C (2011) 2094.

What stuck out for me is the fact that after outlining this next set of facts OLAF explains how it referred them to someone distinct from the person who was at the receiving end of the first set of facts. In the case of the circumstantial evidence showing that Dalli was aware of Zammit’s activities OLAF specifies that these were referred to the President of the Commission for his consideration in the light of the provisions of the Code of Conduct for the Commissioners. I find this disconcerting to say the least. On the one hand I can understand that circumstantial evidence might be sufficient to prove a violation of a code of conduct but irrelevant in criminal proceedings but would that not be a call for Malta’s AG to make?

On the other hand it would explain Barroso’s swift action to oblige Dalli to relinquish his post. If Dalli will forgive me the female reference “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion” and that means that Barroso might not require anything more than circumstantial evidence in order to rid himself of an uncomfortable commissioner. OLAF might have realised that this circumstantial evidence would not hold water other than within the confines of a strictly applied code of conduct – and opted to separate the two issues.

Repercussions

It is important to stress that my above analysis is based on a press release and just a press release. Be that as it may and given the original enigmatic responses of Mr Kessler this might be a good reading of the modus operandi in OLAF’s case.

On an EU level the level of evidence required to prove that a Commissioner is blemished  is low. That may be because the Commission cannot afford to make mistakes. Before we heard of the amounts involved (€60m) a large number of journalists were still wondering what Dalli did wrong. Dalli might have had a chinese wall between himself and Zammit but the circumstantial evidence was enough for him to be considered to have stepped on the wrong side of the Commission Code of Conduct.

There is however a remote possibility (but still a possibility) that the AG’s conclusions might turn out to be surprising. Zammit seems to have no hope in hell of getting out of this. He’ll probably get the book thrown at him and more. His actions (if proven as OLAF seems to have proven them) make him fall foul of most of the provisions in the Criminal Code. Dalli? Now that all depends on the links that the AG can create based on the evidence before him. Will the proof that he was aware of Zammit’s activities be substantial? Will it suffice? The Arrigo/Vella cases might have some answers already but there might be more than that required here. It’s an open question but it might also be time for us to consider the scenario where John Dalli is not found to have committed any crime under Maltese law. The faeces might still be about to hit the rotating cooling device.

It may be far fetched but it is, as I say, a remote possibility.

 

 

Categories
Dalligate

Dalligate avec du recul (Intermezzo – European Update)

What was the nickname that Labour had for (then) Minister Dalli a while back? Johnny Cash no? This was back in the time when Dalli was a successful nationalist party heavyweight who imported the much maligned Value Added Tax and bulldozed budget after budget until Sant’s government and CET came along. That was a good 17 years ago. My oh my does time fly when you’re having fun and people do change. Dalli is far from being a nationalist party heavyweight now and this latest fall from grace will seriously test his quality as a political cat of nine lives.

Part one of this post looked at the European dimension of Dalligate – particularly the effect it has on the lobby industry and on the institutional set-up of the EU. Today’s developments deserve a little addendum before turning to the other side of the Dalligate equation that deals with matters closer to Qormi. So here is our intermezzo before part two.

An Intermezzo European Update

The Swedish paper Aftonbladet seems to have reliable information that Silvio Zammit’s price tag in order to influence new tobacco legislation in favour of “snus” was €60 million. That’s right, go make some tea… I’m here waiting with the rest of the story.

Does this change much of what we already had from the OLAF briefings and Dalli press statements? Well, yes and no. We somehow already had the feeling that Silvio Zammit was the one who initiated the contact with ESTOC (remember the RE: business in the email – the one you read here first and then read elsewhere a day later?). We now have a figure to go along with the proposal. Silvio Zammit, purportedly acting for and on behalf of Commissioner Dalli asked for 60€ in order to influence EU legislation.

Now here’s the thing. I have no problem in believing the Swedes on this – they are after all Lutherans and Lutherans never lie. They would have no interest in lying because the documents to corroborate this are in the hands of Malta’s AG and in the hands of Mr Kessler (OLAF Chief). One fact does not everything prove though. You see the problem is that Silvio Zammit emerges from this story as a cowboy  amateur lobbyist (see Noel Grima on how Silvio is nowhere to be seen in the official lobby list). What he is offering is for one Commissioner – Mr Dalli – to actually influence a huge package of EU legislation.

Liars they are not (the Swedes) but stupid? Did they really believe that this vendor of fried date pastries could actually deliver the goods he was promising? It’s not like the Commissioner sits in a tiny room at the Berlaymont and cuts and pastes directives to his (or his lobbyists’ liking). Even if Zammit had obtained the go-ahead (and if Dalli were in on it) it would have been a Herculean task for the duo to convince a long line of obstacles: their own Directorate-General, other Directorate Generals during inter-service consultation for starters and later on down the line the European Parliament and the European Council when voting on the final format.

So if Zammit DID make the offer (and it is looking increasingly likely that he did) then it makes him a very, very naive go-between (I hestitate to call him a lobbyist). You never make a deal that you cannot deliver. We still have no conclusive proof that John Dalli sanctioned the offer (or even that he was aware of it) beyond OLAF’s claims of circumstantial evidence. So much for fools rushing in.

On a European level an offer such as Zammit’s would be manna for a company like Swedish Match that was at the wrong end of Tobacco consultations. Prospects did not seem to be too bright for any pro-snus legislation so their coming into possession of this bungling offer from what turns out to be a naive go-between was a blessing. This is what I meant when I wrote that the Zammit-Dalli tandem (if and when the lien is proven) could have inadvertently left too wide a door open for a lobby group to take advantage. Anybody in Swedish Match’s position would have done the same.

They did not just have one reason to do so… Zammit gave them sixty million.


 

 

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.