S&D MEP Ana Gomes can’t imagine that the Maltese government would choose to persist with its nomination of Leo Brincat for the European Court of Auditors, or that Council would “dare go against the European Parliament’s view” given the sheer number of votes against.
Leo Brincat, Malta’s nominee to the European Court of Auditors, has been rejected by the European Parliament by 381 votes against, 229 in favour and 58 abstentions. The European Parliament has a total of 751 MEPs, thus meaning that a number were not present for the vote. Regardless, an absolute majority of MEPs voted against his acceptance.
Mr Brincat is the second Maltese nominee to be rejected, after former PL Deputy Leader Toni Abela was rejected at committee stage back in March. Dr Abela had withdrawn his nomination, but Mr Brincat said he would persist with his ECA bid and go before the European Council, which has the final say on the matter.
Ana Gomes is also Vice Chair of the Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (the committee that will address the Panama Papers). Speaking with The Malta Independent, she said that if they persist with the nomination, “such an action would not only result in them discrediting themselves, but it would also not put the working conditions of the nominee in a good light, should he be appointed”.
She confirmed that the result of the Parliamentary vote was connected to Malta and the Panama Papers scandal, where Minister Konrad Mizzi was found to have a company in Panama. “Despite the recommendations by different political groups, it’s a serious nomination in which members of the EU Parliament could not disregard the information available. Indeed many members are aware of Malta and the Panama Papers. The fact that Leo Brincat used the excuse that he was towing the party line and following the party whip’s orders to vote the way he did in the vote of no confidence in Konrad Mizzi is quite disturbing, as many people, including myself, see these kinds of issues as ones that require an MP to have sound judgement. It is the kind of situation where one needs to act according to one’s conscience and not hide behind party whip when talking about the fight against tax evasion, or using tax havens to eventually hide proceeds”.
“It’s a crucial question of personal judgement. Many members are aware of the excuse regarding the party whip, and that worked against him in the minds of many MEPs”
Asked about an internal S&D group meeting, and whether there were many who objected to the party backing Mr Brincat, as EU sources had told this newsroom, MEP Gomes said that she was not present, however heard that the backing of Mr Brincat was mainly due to him having argued against the Whip recommendation, regardless of his vote. “Personally, this however was the worst excuse, this is why I wouldn’t trust someone if they hide behind party lines and not exercise their judgement and conscience as an MP”.
She was also queried about the EU Parliament’s view of Malta. “I, as Vice Chairperson of the committee (looking into the Panama Papers), have closely followed debates in Malta and other countries where the Panama Papers created an internal debate. I wouldn’t say Malta is viewed in a negative light. I think that debates, as well as the action or inaction in Malta are putting it in the spotlight and drawing attention from Parliament. This, as well as the fact that Malta will soon hold the EU Presidency”.
