“You are ridiculous” and “friends are there to sometimes tell you uncomfortable truths” - both are bold statements made by Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, last week. The first statement was made verbally, while the latter was committed to paper.
Last week, on the spur of the moment, Juncker put his foot down. Truth be told, he was left with very little room to manoeuvre to save his face and that of the European Parliament. In the awkward position he found himself in, Juncker lost his cool and his temper. In Strasbourg, he slammed the very poor attendance of MEPs during the plenary session. Juncker branded the EU Parliament “ridiculous”. Right he was! Of the 751 MEPs, only 30 turned up. The huge atrium remained almost empty for the keynote debate between Juncker and Joseph Muscat, Malta’s Prime Minister, which dealt on issues raised during Malta’s six-month presidency of the EU which ended on July 1.
Jean-Claude Juncker conveyed an example of fine leadership. He seized the opportunity to drive home a message on an unacceptable situation which, if not addressed, will lead to the deterioration of the credibility of the EU Parliament. Particularly at this difficult juncture of the EU, with Brexit on the cards, all EU institutions should make an extra effort to show the real relevance and value of the EU’s efforts as a major world economic and social player.
The MEPs’ poor attendance could be interpreted as a protest addressed at Dr Muscat in retaliation on how he has addressed the Panama scandal, which in the eyes of many was and still is being handled very badly by the newly-elected administration.
To put things in context, the EU Parliament is made of eight political groups. The largest political group to which the PN is affiliated is the European People’s Party (EPP), with 215 members. The second largest group, with 189 members, is the progressive alliance of Socialists and Democrats (SD),of which the Partit Laburista is a family member. The other groupings represent the greens, other groups on the extremes of the left and right political spectrum, and the euro-sceptics.
While one can perhaps conclude that the MEPs of the EPP took the opportunity to downplay the debate, the poor showing of the Socialist-Democrat MEPs spells that the Partit Laburista needs to work harder to convince its own family members within the Socialists and Democrats group that Malta, though small, has a valid contribution to make and in this regard expects the respect of, at minimum, the other members within the Socialist-Democrat grouping.
“You are ridiculous” is a very strong charge that undoubtedly lacks the expected diplomacy which one expects towards Members sitting in an institution formed by elected members from EU member states. But in my opinion, although many raised their eyebrows at Juncker’s statement, it was necessary. In this particular case, Juncker spoke on behalf of many EU citizens. Citizens in the EU expect their representatives to participate and contribute effectively in this high-powered EU institution. Members of the EU Parliament should not be allowed to be absentwithout good enough and sufficient reason from parliamentary sessions. Their absence sends the wrong message to all EU citizens.
The charge is more serious when one takes into account that Juncker’s assertion, although addressed to the absent MEPs, was made in the presence of the EU Parliament leader, Antonio Tajani. Although, in truth, the EU Parliament has increased its clout over the past years after earning a bigger say in a host of issues, this momentum has to be maintained. Collective absenteeism does not contribute towards an effective and relevant EU Parliament.
It is understandable that in all forms of human relationships, a breakdown between parties holding diverse views, protecting distinct quadrangles, or coming from different backgrounds is bound to happen at some stage. This could also be said of family members, work colleagues, neighbours and friends. However, to my mind, it is not the breakdown which should be brought under the magnifying glass but what led to the breakdown and, more importantly, what action should be taken to mend the fissures if the relationship is to be mended.
It happens quite often that when people put or find themselves into tight corners, they take recourse to either of the two avenues; they either turn a blind eye or take the bull by the horns. Juncker opted for the latter for the sake of the EU project. There was hardly any other option.
But interestingly, a spokesperson for the Commission confirmed on Wednesday that Juncker had offered his regrets in writing, adding that “Juncker is a friend of the European Parliament” and friends “are there to sometimes tell you uncomfortable truths. This is what president Juncker did.”
Juncker had the gall to rebuke MEPs, yet was humble enough to apologise. Perhaps more local politicians should emulate Junker. Being abrasive should not be mistaken for being arrogant. The two are not the same. Perhaps in Malta, we tend to confuse the two.
[email protected]