The European Parliament’s snubbing of Leo Brincat’s nomination to the European Court of Auditors was, over and above the ridiculous blame game taking place within government circles, a source of major embarrassment for Malta.
It is rendered even more embarrassing by the fact that Malta’s first nominee, Toni Abela, did not even make it through the committee stage. Mr Brincat only made it through the committee stage after former Prime Minister turned MEP Alfred Sant deftly managed to insert himself into the committee’s substitute’s list and cast a decisive vote in his former minister’s favour.
The matter will now be left to the EU’s Council of Ministers to decide, and it appears to be something of a foregone conclusion that Mr Brincat will be given the nod by member states. It is, after all, a rarity for member states to vote down a nominee from another member state’s government and Mr Brincat’s nomination appears likely to get their approval. And if they, on the other hand, are bent on giving Mr Brincat the thumbs down, there are always the horse-trading manoeuvres that take place behind the closed doors of the European Council.
But the fact that Malta’s nominee will in all likelihood eventually scrape through this last test does not diminish the fact that Malta’s reputation has taking something of a beating over the Panama Papers scandal having implicated Malta’s Minister Konrad Mizzi so deeply in financial hanky-panky.
The Panama Papers is still apparently casting its long shadow over Malta, and that shadow will not dissipate for some time.
The MEPs who voted so strongly against Mr Brincat’s nomination, on account of Mr Brincat’s vote in favour of Dr Mizzi in the Opposition’s no confidence vote in the minister, will no doubt be more than perturbed when the European Council okays Mr Brincat’s nomination despite their overwhelming vote to the contrary.
They will also be baying for blood once the European Parliament’s Panama Papers committee kicks into action. These are, after all, not people who forget easily. They will wait and they will, eventually, exact their revenge.
This newspaper had recently asked both Dr Mizzi and Keith Schembri – the Office of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff – whether they will make themselves available to the EP Panama Papers committee if summoned.
Rather inexplicably, both gave the very same carbon copy answer to this newspaper: “If I receive such a request and justification, I will reply accordingly.”
Looking at the answers, one must genuinely ask: what, exactly, is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that “If they ask, I will give them an answer”?
It is more than obvious that both Mizzi and Schembri are most reticent about answering for their deeds before the glare of the European Parliament, and that they will, in the meantime, seek ways to wriggle out of this most uncomfortable prospect.
It is one thing trying to pull the wool over your own nation’s eyes, which the government has unsuccessfully attempted to do, but is quite another to attempt to fool MEPs representing 500 million European citizens who want answers for the corruption that was exposed through the Panama Papers leaks.
The government and its Prime Minister may believe that if they bury their heads in the sand for long enough the Panama Papers will just vanish into thin air, and that the damage incurred by the government’s abject failure to deal with the fallout would be limited and contained within the confines of this small country.
Any such hope, it turns out, was completely detached from reality. This week’s European Parliament vote against a Maltese minister’s nomination to serve on the European Court of Auditors was proof enough of that. MEPs voting against Leo Brincat’s nomination to the ECA did not vote against Mr Brincat the man or his personal merits, they voted against what he represents – a minister from what is becoming to be perceived as the European Union’s most corrupt country.
They voted against a minister who has, with the backing of his Prime Minister and fellow Cabinet members, shamelessly clung to power despite having been exposed as party to some very dubious financial business in Panama and New Zealand. They voted against a goverment minister who supported his Cabinet colleague through thick and thin.
Even worse from an auditing perspective, they voted against a minister who supported his fellow Cabinet minister even though he had promised two full audits on his financial affairs – one by the tax commissioner himself and another by a supposedly reputable international auditing firm – that have never seen the light of day.
After all that has been said since Mr Brincat’s nomination to the ECA failed so miserably, this last one really takes the cake. Those audits were pledged by Mr Brincat’s Cabinet colleague a full seven months ago but they are absolutely nowhere to be seen. One can easily be forgiven for assuming that these audits will never see the light of day.
And now Mr Brincat will seek approval from the Council of Ministers in a last ditch effort to save his, and Malta’s, face. That the Maltese government would even allow such a move in the first place has left many aghast, let alone at a point in time when Malta is on the cusp of assuming the Presidency of the European Union – in about three months’ time.
At this stage, there is only one reasonable course that the government can take if it is to somehow salvage its and Malta’s reputation: the government needs to cut Dr Mizzi loose and, at the very least, send him to the backbench – preferably before Malta assumes the EU Presidency and before Dr Mizzi can be called before the EP’s Panama Papers committee. For extra measure, similar action should be taken with respect to Mr Schembri.
And for an extra show of goodwill, the government will also need to commission a full audit from a respectable foreign firm of Dr Mizzi’s financial affairs and of the entire Panama Papers affair where it is linked back to the government.
Anything short of that will merely increase the bad blood that very clearly exists between Malta and the European Parliament, and which could very well render any prospective legislation that Malta may seek to pass during its stint at the helm of the EU a non-starter.