I attended an interesting meeting of the European Parliament in Brussels on 8 December. Margot Wallstrom, EU Commissioner for Communication, was meeting with the ‘Conference of Presidents’ in relation to ‘Plan D’. ‘D’ stands for democracy, dialogue and debate, and Wallstrom was there to inform the Presidents of the political groups about her plans, and to listen to their views.

On my part, I was there in connection with my engagements with ‘Plan D’ for the coming months.

Briefly, ‘Plan D’ is the Commission’s answer to the rejection of the EU Constitution in the French and Dutch referenda earlier this year. It is a “communications strategy” aimed at generating debate on the future of Europe. Alternatively, ‘Plan D’ is seen as a PR initiative by the Commission, even if it acknowledges that the proposed EU Constitution is dead, at least in its present form.

Brushing aside the rejected Constitution, Margot Wallstrom has now embarked on a European tour to listen to the people’s views in each member State. My assignment is to follow Wallstrom and participate in the ensuing debates, enabling me not only to voice my contrasting political views, but to also listen to the people of the different member States.

After the tour, the Commission is set to analyse the citizens’ feedback and submit a report to the European Parliament by June 2006.

Personally, I’m looking forward to this experience, knowing it will help me to better understand what other nations and cultures expect of EU membership, comparing the new member States with the old.

Clearly, for some time to come the question will remain: What sort of European Union do the people of different countries want?

And it all starts with how well the people are informed.

My chat with Wallstrom: the PN-media contract

After the meeting a mutual friend introduced me to Margot Wallstrom.

I must admit I quite like her approach as a Commissioner and truly believe she means well. I think she’s doing a very good job. The conversation soon got going, but I could not resist doing away with the formality and moving to a thorny issue. So I shifted gear and asked her whether I could put a frank question outside the agenda, to which she happily consented.

How come, I asked her, her office awarded a 565,000-euro contract to the Nationalist Party’s media organisation, whose nominal shareholder also happens to be the Deputy Prime Minister?

I could not help noticing a slight flush on Margot’s face as she explained that she was already looking into the matter personally.

I explained that this contract could only be viewed as a handout to the PN for being instrumental in securing Malta’s EU membership. I further explained that many in Malta see this award as indirect EU funding to a political party, which discriminates against the other parties. Moreover, this contract empowers the PN to supply politically biased information to the Commission representation in Malta. I concluded that as far as credibility is concerned this is definitely giving a wrong message to the Maltese people and no ‘Plan D’ could work in such circumstances.

She half-smiled and said almost with a sigh that she knows this does not augur well, repeating that she is looking into the matter.

I’m sure we understood each other clearly.

‘D’ for “Dar l-Ewropa”

I was in Malta last Tuesday when Austrian MEP Hans Peter Martin phoned me from Strasbourg to tell me about the final developments at the Budget Committee in the European Parliament. Famed for filming other MEPs defrauding the system and now dedicated to fighting for transparency and accountability in the Union, Hans Peter Martin told me how disgusted he felt with the committee proceedings for the purchase of “Dar l-Ewropa” in St Paul’s Street, Valletta. He said he felt quite sorry for the Maltese MEP, Simon Busuttil, who strongly objected to the purchase but was ignored.

This three million-euro house is situated just behind the Valletta market; quite unsuitable for its purpose since, as Simon Busuttil himself pointed out, it is in a residential area and not at all central or accessible to the people. According to Hans Peter Martin, something similar had happened in Austria, where they bought a house which no one visits except EU civil servants.

French MEP Gérard Onesta, a member of the Bureau and the main proponent of the purchase, was not dissuaded by Simon Busuttil’s arguments. He informed the committee that if the house turns out to be unsuitable they could sell it at a profit and buy another one instead, but it was imperative that they spend the three million before January 2006.

The regulations, you see, do not allow for any unspent funds to be carried forward to the next year so they need to spend all the money come what may. It is, after all, only taxpayers’ money and these unknowing creatures reside far away.

So the deal had to be done. And Gérard Onesta was lacking no effort. He presented lovely pictures of the Grand Harbour and scenes from the Malta Experience, even telling them how nice it would be for EU civil servants to have such a wonderful view.

This salesman’s show turned into a heated debate until finally the sale passed with 13 votes in favour, 10 against and two abstentions. And when, even after a recount, Hans Peter Martin’s counting of the votes did not tally with that of the chair, Onesta strongly objected to his request for another recount and the deal was done.

“I am very pro EU,” Simon Busuttil told Hans Peter Martin after the vote (quoted with permission), “but this is the first time I experienced such EU bureaucracy.”

Well, and quite an expensive type too. Or perhaps this is when ‘D’ is not for democracy and debate, but for deals that drain the people’s money.

[email protected]

Sharon Ellul Bonici is a Labour Party candidate currently working in the European Parliament in the political field.