There’s no better way to describe the decision of the Nationalist Party for its MEPs to vote against the nomination of Leo Brincat to sit on the European Court of Auditors than this: call it a great infamy.
The head of the Nationalist MEP delegation, let it be said, participated in the organization for Leo of meetings with the European Popular Party. Whether one wants to or not, one is led to the conclusion that more than cries and hidden whispers had been going on.
Up to now, within the European Parliament, the arrangement has always been observed by both sides to maintain support for nominations involving Maltese individuals, as is proper. Other delegations do the same, in a manifestation of national unity. Given our minute size, the split that has been put on display shows us in the worst possible light.
The truth is that the PN in Opposition lacks strong issues, except one, regarding the Panama papers. It can flog it to death for as much as it likes in Malta. But pushing it into a European forum in this unscrupulous way simply amounts to a highly geared political opportunism. It undermines the national interest. It is inviting retaliation of the type – an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
***
Hypocrisy
Then we had the decision by the EPP group in the European Parliament to vote against Brincat’s nomination. They too referred to the Panama papers scandal to prop their decision. It would be difficult to find a more blatant example of hypocrisy
During the last elections to the European Parliament, the EPP candidate for the presidency of the European Commission was Jean Claude Juncker, ex-Prime Minister and ex-Finance Minister of Luxembourg. Now he leads the European Commission while remaining part of the EPP political “family”.
It was during Juncker’s stint as finance minister of his country that all the suspicious arrangements were made, by which multinational companies got off paying their taxes, as revealed by the Luxleaks scandal. Now it is really strange that in no way did the EPP show it had a problem about the matteror that it felt scandalised by the revelations. In fact, it has stonewalled all motions in the EP which go in the direction of a censure on Juncker’s record.
There can be no comparison between the facts regarding the Panama papers scandal (in which he personally had no mention) as attached to Leo Brincat’s nomination, and the very serious facts that are attached to Juncker.
***
Coherence
Indeed, the excuse brought forward by the Nationalist Opposition to negative Brincat’s nomination was that he had voted in favour of a motion in the Maltese Parliament dealing with the controversy over the Panama papers.
It was a vote of confidence, regulated by the three line whip procedure.
In our parliamentary system, which is clamped between two parties, both sides have a bitter experience of what happens when a three line whip on a vote of confidence is disobeyed.
To remain coherent with the excuse he adopted, the Opposition Leader must now recognize that the members of his party who voted against the Gonzi administration on votes of confidence were exercising their discretion as to what is right or wrong. Even if with their position, they embarrassed their government and eventually brought it down, he should welcome them back in the PN fold with open arms, while recognizing their right if they get the opportunity, and the call arises in future, to repeat what they did in the past.