Are you a troll or a traitor? It would seem that following the debate about Malta in the European Parliament, those are the only two categories we should be slotted into. If you were appalled at the way the debate panned out, with the country being falsely depicted as a cross between a bloody Sicilian outpost and a Colombian drug pit stop, you were immediately branded a ‘troll’. If many of the interventions made by foreign MEPs were about a country that you did not recognise, which was far from the realities of your everyday experience, you were dismissed as a sycophantic lackey of the governing Labour ‘regime’.
If you did not too take kindly to foreign MEPs spouting off sanctimoniously about the ‘rule of law’ without getting their facts right, you were – again – stuffed firmly into the Labour ‘troll’ category. On the other hand, if you agreed with greater emphasis and discussion about the state of our institutions in the European Parliament forum, you were classified as a ‘traitor’ – a telltale running off to foreign MEPs within the same political family to make the Labour government – and the country – look bad.
I don’t hold much with that kind of pigeon-holing. What I do know is that the situation seen and felt on the ground here is different from the spectacle of histrionics and fudging of facts played out in the European Parliament. Let’s look at the facts away from the faux-patriotic bombast that constituted most of the debate. In the first place, there is no denying that the country needs to beef up – or actually create – effective enforcement mechanisms at all levels and in all fields – including that of financial services.
There is also a need for more transparency in a number of sectors such as the Individual Investor Programme scheme. Any reticence to publish information – especially when faced with freedom of information requests – will naturally give rise to suspicions. Nothing erodes faith in the institutions as much as constant stonewalling and concealment of information.
The same holds true for the lack of enforcement and regulatory action. We come across this deficiency every day – from simple traffic infringements to planning breaches to more serious criminal infractions that are not dealt with with the requisite expediency and thoroughness.
The debate has served little purpose other than that of eroding somewhat the Maltese people’s faith in the European Parliament
So – yes – there is scope for change and action and even discussion at a European level about how this may come about.
However, the debate that took place at the European Parliament did not take place in that spirit. What we saw were woefully uninformed foreign MEPs making sensationalist statements. To this end we had George Mayer of the Eurosceptic ENF (Europe of Nations and Freedom) and habitual absentee from the Dieselgate committee meetings telling us that “the situation reminds me of Netflix Narcos”.
Edouard Ferrand, another Eurosceptic MEP who votes in favour of retaining the barbaric practice that is the corrida (bullfighting), and within the pro-Kremlin ENF, advises us to expunge ourselves from the taint of “gangsterism”.
There was some handwringing about our tax system from MEPs from Luxembourg (home of the Luxleaks – sweetheart deals for multinational corporations and prosecution of whistleblowers) and from Portugal (seemingly forgetful of Madeira’s ‘special’ tax system). The result of the vote after that was no surprise.
Did it look like a convention of helpful equals discussing possible improvements to our laws and making proposals for better co-operation? Not really. What it does look like is MEPs from other countries laying into another Member State for alleged deficiencies of its fiscal system – a system which has been known to the EU and aspects of which are shared with other jurisdictions. It’s not playing the victim card to state that this looks like political grandstanding to gain approval on the respective home fronts.
The fact that the discussion was ostensibly brought about by the brutal slaying of Daphne Caruana Galizia does not help to inspire confidence in the debate. The sad but bare truth is that until the identity and motivation of the perpetrator is ascertained – no-one – least of all people who are not privy to the nuances of political life in Malta – can reach any conclusions. No amount of fudging of issues and bandwagon-jumping can erase that reality.
As it is, the debate has served little purpose other than that of eroding somewhat the Maltese people’s faith in the European Parliament and feeling betrayed that they were misrepresented in a European forum for partisan ends. It is the tragedy of the perpetuation of polarised politics by a few.
drcbonello@gmail.com