Politika dwar il-klima fl-Unjoni Ewropea

 

Il-politika dwar il-klima hi materja ewlenija li qegħda taħt il-lenti fil-laqgħat li Ursula von der Leyen, innominata bħala President tal-Kummissjoni tal-Unjoni Ewropea, qed ikollha mal-gruppi politiċi diversi fil-Parlament Ewropew.

Kemm il-Grupp tas-Soċjalisti u Demokratiċi kif ukoll dak Liberali fil-Parlament Ewropew ippubblikaw lista ta’ talbiet li għamlu lil von der Leyen dwar dak li jriduha tikkommetti ruħha dwaru imma li s’issa evitat. Fuq quddiem nett f’dan kollu hemm impenn ikbar dwar li politika meħtieġa biex ikun indirizzati l-impatti tat-tibdil fil-klima.

Min-naħa l-oħra, l-Grupp tal-Ħodor fil-Parlament Ewropew ħareġ stqarrija li permezz tagħha ta’ l-ġenb lill-kandidatura ta’ von der Leyen u dan għax, fi kliem Ska Keller, ko-president tal-grupp: “ma smajna l-ebda proposta konkreta, la dwar is-saltna tad-dritt u l-anqas dwar il-klima. Ġejna eletti b’mandat ta’ bidla u m’aħniex naraw kif din il-bidla tista’ sseħħ b’din il-kandidata.”

Azzjoni dwar il-bidla fil-klima hi prijorità u din il-prijorità għandha tkun riflessa fl-ambizzjonijiet li l-kandidat għall-Presidenza tal-Kummissjoni tal-Unjoni Ewropea trid tmexxi ‘l-quddiem. Sfortunatament hu magħruf li Ursula von der Leyen qatt ma tat prijorità lill-azzjoni dwar il-bidla fil-klima tul iż-żmien kollu li ilha attiva fil-politika nazzjonali tal-Ġermanja!

Tul l-għaxar snin li ġejjin, l-emissjonijiet tal-gassijiet serra fuq livell globali jeħtieġ li jonqsu b’iktar min-nofs. Anke iktar mit-tnaqqis ta’ 55% kif talab il-Parlament Ewropew kif ukoll mill-40% tnaqqis li s’issa aċċettaw il-pajjiżi membri. Dan fl-istess ħin li l-emissjonijiet netti għandhom jilħqu żero sa mhux iktar tard mill- 2050. Il-miri tal-ftehim ta’ Pariġi illum jiuffurmaw parti integrali mill-liġijiet tal-Unjoni Ewropea imma għad hemm ħafna ħidma x’issir biex dawn il-miri jitwettqu fir-realtà.

Soluzzjonijiet jeżistu biex ikunu ikunu indirizzati u trasformati l-enerġija, t-trasport, l-agrikultura u l-proċessi industrijali. Imma jeħtieġ li nkunu kapaċi li naħdmu flimkien biex l-impenn li jitwettaq il-Ftehim ta’ Pariġi mhux biss ikun onorat, imma li nkunu kapaċi nħajru oħrajn jagħmlu bħalna.

Minkejja l-wegħdiet li saru mill-pajjiżi differenti dwar emissjonijiet bħala parti mill-ftehim ta’ Pariġi xorta waħda jidher li ż-żieda fit-temperatura, sa tmiem is-seklu kurrenti, ser tkun ta’ madwar tlett gradi Celsius (3°C) fuq it-temperatura pre-industrijali. Dan meta nafu li iktar min-nofs din iż-żieda jkollha effetti katastrofiċi.

Diġà bdejna nduqu l-konsegwenzi bis-sħana tilħaq livelli ġodda, estremi ta’ għargħar u nuqqas ta’ xita u nirien li qed jagħmlu ħsara mhux żgħira f’kull rokna tad-dinja. L-affarijiet sejrin għall-agħar. Imma għad baqa’ ċans, kemm-il darba niċċaqalqu bla iktar dewmien.

Il-Gvernijiet m’humiex jieħdu l-inizjattiva. Mhux qed jindirizzaw dak li qed jirriżulta mir-riċerka xjentifika. Sfortunatament, uħud mill-Gvernijiet (u l-partiti politiċi li jiffurmawhom) jaraw kull azzjoni meħtieġa biex tkun indirizzata l-bidla fil-klima bħala ta’ xkiel għall-industrija u għall-ekonomija.

Sa minn meta saru tibdiliet fit-trattati Ewropej fl-1987, l-Unjoni Ewropea bdiet tieħu deċiżjonijiet dwar l-oqsma ambjentali b’maġġoranza kkwalifikata. Dan wassal biex ġiet sviluppata leġislazzjoni ambjentali li tiffaċilita politika Ewropea li tirrispondi għal dak kollu meħtieġ mit-tibdil fil-klima. Tul dan iż-żmien kollu, l-Parlament Ewropew kien dejjem fuq quddiem jinsisti dwar miri ċari u ambizzjużi fil-ġlieda kontra l-bidla fil-klima. Hu meħtieġ li anke l-Kummissjoni Ewropea timxi fuq dawn il-passi.

Hu għalhekk li hu meħtieġ li l-President approvat għall-Kummissjoni Ewropea tikkunsidra l-azzjoni dwar il-bidla fil-klima bħala prijorità u li tkun lesta biex il-Kummissjoni immexxija minnha taġixxi b’dan il-mod.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 14 ta’ Lulju 2019

Advertisements

Climate Change politics at the EU

The politics of climate change is a main topic of discussion at the meetings which Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission President-designate, is currently participating in with the various political groups in the EU Parliament.

The Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats Group, as well as the Liberal Group, have issued written demands to von der Leyen detailing the various policy commitments which they expect but not yet see. The politics of climate change is at the forefront of the requests made.

The Greens, on the other hand, have issued a statement rejecting von der Leyen’s candidacy, as in the words of Ska Keller, co-president of the group: “We did not hear any concrete proposal, be it on the rule of law or on climate. We have been elected on a mandate for change and we don’t see how change will be possible with this candidate.”

Action on climate change is a priority and this priority must be reflected in the ambitions which the European Commission President-designate puts forward. Unfortunately, it is known that Ursula von der Leyen has never prioritised climate action during her long career in German National politics!

Over the next 10 years, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions need to be more than halved (beyond the 55% reduction as requested by the European Parliament and surely beyond the 40% committed to by the EU Member States), while net GHG emissions must reach zero by 2050 at the latest. Attaining the commitments of the Paris Agreement is now enshrined in EU climate and energy laws but the European Union must do much more to make it a reality.

Solutions exist for transforming energy, transport, agriculture and industrial production systems. We must act together to fulfil our commitments to the Paris Agreement and beyond, and encourage others to do so too.

Notwithstanding the national pledges made as part of the Paris Agreement, we are on course for warming of about 3°C above pre-industrial temperatures by 2100. It is known that any increase exceeding 1.5°C will be catastrophic.

We are already at the receiving end, with global temperatures warming-up at unprecedented rates, floods, droughts and fires which are impacting our communities all over the world. It is getting worse. Yet it is not too late, provided we act without further delay.

Governments are not showing leadership in tackling climate change. They are not addressing the gap between the expectations of the citizens and the analysis of the scientists on one hand, and their decisions on the other.

Unfortunately, some governments, and the political parties which form them, see climate change policies only as an obstacle for industry and the economy.

Since the Treaty change of 1987, the European Union has decided legislation in the field of the environment on the basis of a qualified majority voting. This has allowed for the development of a comprehensive set of new environmental legislation and facilitated a concerted EU policy response towards climate change.

The EU Parliament has, most of the time, been the most progressive EU institution, demanding more ambitious targets and measures in the fight against climate change. It is about time that the EU Commission follows suit.

We need a European Commission President who considers climate change action as a priority and acts accordingly.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 14 July 2019

Pesticides found in hair samples

Abstract and main results of report commissioned by the                                             

European Greens-European Free Alliance in the European Parliament

 

Pesticides are ubiquitous in our environment and food. Many pesticides are reported to induce health issues including cancer, neurological pathologies and endocrine disruption. The Greens/EFA Group set up a large-scale campaign to measure human exposure for a selection of 30 pesticides, reported as endocrine disruptors, among EU population.

Hair analysis has been chosen to investigate pesticides exposure because hair is a unique and reliable biomonitoring tool to investigate long term chronic exposure. Moreover, xenobiotics that are present in blood are incorporated into the hair structure during hair synthesis in the scalp and incorporated substances have increased stability. As hair grows about 1 cm per month, the analysis of each centimetre informs about average exposure over a one-month period. In addition, hairs are easy to sample and to ship to the laboratory.

148 hair samples were collected from 6 EU countries: Germany, Denmark, United Kingdom (Wales), Italy, France and Belgium between end of July and October 2018. Samples were analysed to search for a selection of 30 pesticides including insecticides, fungicides and herbicides.

Main results of the study indicate:

15 pesticides out of 30 were detected at least one time
 60.1% of analysed samples contain at least one pesticide residue
 23.6% of analysed samples contain at least two pesticide residues
 Most occurring pesticides are:
 fipronil (insecticide) found in 29.7% of samples,
 propiconazole (fungicide) found in 18.9% of samples,
 permethrine (insecticide) found in 18.9% of samples,
 chlorpyriphos-ethyl (insecticide) found in 10.1% of samples
 Highest proportion of sample with pesticide residues (84.6%) was found for the United      Kingdom (Wales)
 Lowest proportion of sample with pesticide residues (44.1%) was found for Germany
 Highest number of different pesticide residues (4) was found for 4 samples from     Belgium
 Highest concentration of pesticide residues (3941.9 pg/mg) was found for one sample       from France
Populations from the 6 countries studied are exposed to variable number and quantity     of pesticides depending on their country and their age category.

full report accessible here

Il-baġit : lil hinn mill-€s

Id-diska ta’ Liza Minelli “Money makes the world go round” donnha li hi t-tema li madwarha hu minsuġ id-diskors tal-Baġit li nqara mill-Ministru tal-Finanzi nhar it-Tnejn fil-Parlament. Il-messaġġ ċar li wasal fi djarna kien li l-flus u l-“ġid” li hawn jagħmlu possibli li tirċievi ċekk id-dar, kemm jekk għandek bżonnu kif ukoll jekk m’għandekx.

F’dawn iż-żmienijiet il-kelma taxxa donna saret kelma moqżieża fid-dizzjunarju politiku: għalhekk ġie suġġerit li n-nuqqas ta’ taxxi ġodda, inkella ta’ żieda fit-taxxi eżistenti kien element pożittiv fid-diskors tal-Onorevoli Ministru. Ċekkijiet għal kważi kulħadd. L-ewwel għal dawk li għandhom il-ħtieġa u mbagħad għall-parti l-kbira tal-bqija. Dak li kien jingħad li “jittieħed mingħand kull wieħed skont ma jiflaħ, u jingħata lil kulħadd skont il-ħtiġijiet tiegħu” donnu li ma għandu l-ebda piz illum meta nippruvaw nifhmu l-filosofija politika li fuqha hu mfassal dan il-baġit ta’ Gvern “Laburista”.

It-taxxa li tinġabar f’Malta donnha li hi utli biss meta tinġabar mingħand kumpaniji barranin li fil-waqt li joperaw barra mit-teritorju Malti jkollhom uffiċċju żgħir jew sempliċi letterbox f’Malta. Dan biex ikunu jistgħu jibbenefikaw minn rati ta’ taxxa sostanzjalment iktar baxxi minn dawk li jkunu soġġetti għalihom fil-pajjiżi fejn joperaw.

Diversi kumpaniji fis-settur tas-servizzi finanzjarji ukoll jibbenefikaw minn rati ta’ taxxa li bihom jiffrankaw sostanzjalment minn dak li jħallsu band’oħra.

Il-Gvern mingħalih li għamel opra. Fir-realtá qed jibgħat messaġġ li Malta tilqa’ li min irid jevadi t-taxxa f’pajjiżu, kemm-il darba jkun lest li jħalli xi ħaġa minn dak li jiffranka fil-kaxxa ta’ Malta!

F’dan il-kuntest l-istudju intitolat Toxic Tax Deals. When BASF’s Tax Structure is more about style than substance. ippubblikat mill-Grupp tal-Ħodor fil-Parlament Ewropew madwar sentejn ilu jispjega b’mod ċar x’inhu jiġri. F’dan l-istudju ġie konkluż li l-BASF, ġgant Ġermaniz fil-qasam tal-industrija kimika ibbazat f’Ludwigshafen, jagħmel użu minn differenzi fis-sitemi nazzjonali tat-taxxa biex jevita milli jħallas it-taxxi dovuti. Huwa stmat li, tul il-ħames snin bejn l-2010 u l-2014, BASF evitaw madwar biljun euro fi ħlas ta’ taxxi. Minflok ħallsu ammonti ferm inqas, b’ħajr lill-gvernijiet Maltin (blu u ħomor) talli għinhom jevitaw dawn it-taxxi kollha.

F’dan il-kuntest id-dikjarazzjoni tal-Ministru tal-Finanzi kontra l-evażjoni tat-taxxa u l-ħasil tal-flus jidhru dak li fil-fatt huma: eżerċizzju ta’ retorika. Inżommu f’moħħna ukoll il-kaz tal-Panama Papers, li kien stabilixxa l-fatt li membru tal-Kabinett u ċ-Chief of Staff fl-uffiċċju tal-Prim Ministru kellhom kumpaniji fil-Panama, pajjiż rinomat għall-evażjoni tat-taxxa, u dwar dan ma kienu ittieħdu l-ebda passi kontra tagħhom. Fid-dawl ta’ dan, id-dikjarazzjoni ta’ “qdusija” da parti tal-Onorevoli Ministru hi nieqsa minn kull kredibilitá.

Il-proposti tal-Baġit isaħħu ix-xibka soċjali u dan billi jgħinu finanzjarjament lill-vulnerabbli. Imma l-kwalitá tal-ħajja ma titkejjilx biss f’termini ta’ flus. Fil-Baġit hemm bosta miżuri ambjentali nofs leħja.

Il-ħarsien tal-karozzi huwa iktar importanti mill-kwalitá tal-ħajja għalina. Il-Gvern jikkunsidra li hu iktar importanti li jwessa’ t-toroq biex jiffaċilita ċ-ċaqlieq tal-karozzi u b’hekk jipprova jnaqqas il-konġestjoni. Loġika rasha l-isfel. Il-mira kellha tkun it-tnaqqis tal-karozzi mit-toroq tagħna għax dik hi l-problema. It-twessiegħ tat-toroq u t-titjib tal-infrastruttura bil-kostruzzjoni ta’ flyovers lil hawn u lil hemm iwassal biss għaż-żieda ta’ karozzi fit-toroq tagħna u b’hekk tikber il-problema tal-konġestjoni. L-unika soluzzjoni hi li jkun inkoraġġit bis-serjetá t-trasport alternattiv. Il-Gvern qiegħed fl-istess nifs jinkoraġixxi kemm lit-trasport alternattiv kif ukoll iż-żieda fenomenali ta’ karozzi: dan ifisser li għadu ma tgħallem xejn. Wara kollox huwa l-pjan nazzjonali tat-trasport imfassal minn dan il-Gvern stess li jpoġġi quddiemna l-mira tat-tnaqqis tal-karozzi mit-toroq tagħna. Imma jidher li l-Gvern qed iwarrab il-pjani tiegħu stess.

L-Gvern hu iktar interessat mill-ħarsien tal-karozzi milli mill-ħarsien tal-kwalitá tal-ħajja tagħna lkoll.

Dan hu biss eżempu wieħed. Hemm bosta oħrajn.

Il-Baġit qed jitlef l-oportunitá li jagħmel differenza f’numru ta’ oqsma fejn li troxx il-flus mhux biżżejjed.

 

Ippubblikat fuq Illum: Il-Ħadd 28 t’Ottubru 2018

Il-basla li daħal fiha David Casa

L-istorja dal-għodu fil-Malta Today dwar il-Membru Parlamentari Ewropew David Casa u d-droga kokaina hi waħda gravi. Ma nafx jekk hiex minna jew le. Biż-żmien insiru nafu iktar dwar jekk hiex storja ivvintata inkella jekk hiex storja reali. Ovvjament, din l-istorja, barra milli hi ezerċizzju ta’ tpattija għal tkeċċija mix-xogħol hi storja immirata lejn il-kredibilitá ta’ David Casa u dan fir-rigward tal-posizzjoni iebsa li qed jieħu fil-Parlament Ewropew dwar diversi materji.

Jekk dak li qed jintqal hu minnu David Casa għandu bżonn l-għajnuna biex jindirizza d-dipendenza fuq id-droga. Jekk min-naħa l-oħra mhux minnu, l-problema xorta hi waħda kbira.

Qed jingħad li dak li kien assistant ta’ David Casa u oriġina din l-istorja tkeċċa mix-xogħol tiegħu (bħala assistant ta’ David Casa) għax kien qed ikun repetutament fis-sakra fuq ix-xogħol minħabba problemi kbar li kien qed jiffaċċa, fosthom kont ta’ mitt elf ewro ta’ arretrati ta’ taxxa fuq id-dħul. Anke dan għandu bżonn għajnuna kbira u mhux min jinqeda bih f’mumenti ta’ dgħjufija, irrispettivament minn jekk l-istorja hiex minna jew le! Dejjem sakemm ma sabx lil min ħallaslu jew ħafirlu l-kont tat-taxxa, kollu jew parti minnu!

Qed jissemmew diversi problemi inkluż li dan l-ex-assistent ta’ David Casa kien tkeċċa mis- segretarjat privat ta’ Austin Gatt fl-2002 meta l-Pulizja kien tellgħuh il-Qorti dwar negozju ta’ ċekkijiet f’munita barranija. Akkuża li, għandu jingħad, kien liberat minna.

Meta timpjega lil min ikun fid-dell ta’ dan it-taħwid f’postijiet sensittivi, x’tistenna? Mhux li xi darba jew oħra jdaħħluk f’xi basla?

Undermining the rule of law

The “rule of law” is a basic democratic principle codified in the laws of democratic countries.

We are all servants of the law in order to be free and in a democracy, the law should apply to one and all without exception. A weak “rule of law” thus results in less and less democracy until one is left with only a free-standing façade.

The law is there to be observed: it should be a constraint on the behaviour of individuals as well as on that of institutions. All individuals ought to be subject to the same laws, whereas institutions are there to protect us all, not just from ourselves but also from all possible attempted abuse of authority by the institutions themselves.

It is within this context that the report of the ad hoc delegation of the Committee of Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament has to be considered. The report is an illustration of how others see the state of our democracy, even though at points it may be inaccurate.

The delegation’s brief was to investigate “alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion”.

The observations and conclusions of the delegation in its 36-page report are certainly not edifying. The common thread running through the different pages of the report is that in Malta there are more masters of the law than servants; this is how others see us.

In my opinion they are not far off the mark. The report repeatedly emphasises the point that the law should be observed in both letter and spirit.

The institutions in Malta are very weak. I would add that they are weak by design, in other words they are designed specifically to genuflect when confronted by crude political power. This is reflected both in the type of appointees as well as in the actual set-up of the institutions which are supposedly there to protect us.

The above-mentioned report observes, for example, that none of the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) reports on Maltese politically exposed persons (PEPs) were investigated by the Police, notwithstanding the fact that the said reports had been forwarded to them “for any action the Police may consider appropriate”.

Is it too much to expect that the police do their duty in at least investigating? The fact that no such investigation was carried out drives home the clear unequivocal message that for the police, PEPs are not subject to the law like any other person. The EU Parliament report is very clear as to why such investigations are essential. In fact it is stated that: “Persons perceived to be implicated in serious acts of corruption and money- laundering, as a result of Panama Papers revelations and FIAU reports, should not be kept in public office and must be swiftly and formally investigated and brought to justice. Keeping them in office affects the credibility of the Government, fuels the perception of impunity and may result in further damage to State interests by enabling the continuation of criminal activity.”

The question to be asked is: why is this possible? Why do Maltese authorities tend to bend the rules or close an eye here and there?

You may find an indication as to why this is so in two small incidents occurring in Malta this year. These illustrate the forma mentis of the Maltese “authorities”.

The first example is associated with the fireworks factory at Iż-Żebbiegħ. After 30 years in Court the rural community of iż-Żebbiegħ won a civil case as a result of which a permit for a fireworks factory was declared null and void by the Court of Appeal. The government reacted by rushing through Parliament amendments to the Explosives Ordinance. These amendments with approved by Parliament with the full support of the Opposition. As a result, notwithstanding the decision of the Court of Appeal, a permit for the fireworks factory can still be issued.

The second example is still “work in progress”. The Court of Appeal has, in the application of rent legislation, decided that the Antoine de Paule Band Club in Paola was in breach of its lease agreement. As a result the Court of Appeal ordered the eviction of the band club from the premises they leased within four months.

The government reacted by publishing proposed amendments to the Civil Code, as a result of which the eviction ordered by the Court of Appeal will be blocked.

These are two examples of the government reacting to decisions of our Courts of Law by moving the goalposts – with the direct involvement of the Opposition. The public reactions to these two cases have been minimal. Maltese public opinion has become immune to such “cheating” and bending of the rules because this method of operation has become an integral part of the way in which our institutions function. The Opposition is an active collaborator in this exercise that undermines the rule of law in Malta.

Is it therefore reasonable to be surprised if this “cheating” and bending of the rules is applied not just in minor matters but in very serious ones too? Moving the goalposts whenever it is politically expedient is, unfortunately, part of the way in which this country has operated to date. It is certainly anything but democratic and most obviously anything but respectful towards the rule of law.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 20 May 2018

Encouraging the avoidance of paying tax

The issue as to whether or not  Malta is a tax haven has been brought to the fore once again, as a result of the amendment to the Panama Papers Inquiry Report discussed in the European Parliament earlier this week. The defeated amendment would have seen Malta, Luxembourg, Ireland and the Netherlands labelled by the European Parliament as “tax havens”.

The matter is much more complex. On the one hand it involves tax competition and on the other hand it is a matter of justice in taxation matters.

As has been repeatedly stated, competition on taxation matters is one of the few areas in which small, as well as peripheral, countries in the European Union have a competitive advantage. Alternattiva Demokratika-The Green Party is not in favour of loosing this competitive advantage through tax harmonisation in the EU. However, it has to be used in a responsible manner.

The rules permitting the refund of a substantial amount of tax paid by foreign-owned companies based in Malta is one of the main reasons for the current spotlight. This substantial tax refund effectively reduces the tax paid by such companies from 35% to five per cent and is obviously considered very attractive by a number of companies. The basic question that requires a clear answer is how many of these companies are letter-box companies, that is companies which do not have any part of their operations on Maltese soil?

It would be reasonable to encourage companies to base part of their operations in Malta and, as a result, make use of tax advantages. But in respect of those companies which have not moved any part of their operations to Malta, making use of beneficial taxation arrangements is unreasonable and unjust. It leads to such companies avoiding paying tax in the countries in which they create their profits and consequently avoiding their social responsibilities on paying taxes in the countries that are providing them with the very facilities which make it possible for them to create their wealth.

In a nutshell, Malta is providing these companies with the legal framework to avoid their taxation responsibilities in the countries in which they operate through payment of a fraction of these taxes to the Maltese Exchequer. They pocket the rest.

Hiding behind the EU unanimity rule on tax issues will not get us anywhere, as Ireland has learnt in the Apple case. At the end of the day, the situation is not just about  taxation: it also involves competition rules and rules regulating state aid, as the legal infrastructure encouraging the avoidance of taxation is, in effect, a mechanism for state aid. The is also an issue of tax justice, as a result of which tax should be paid where the profits are generated.

Tax competition has a role to play as an important tool that small and peripheral countries in the EU have at their disposal. No one should expect these countries, Malta included, to throw away the small advantage they have, but it should be clear that this should be used responsibly and in no way should it buttress the urge of multinationals to circumvent the national taxation system in the country where their profits are generated.

Profits should be taxed where they are actually generated and not elsewhere. The EU needs to end – once and for all – not only tax evasion but also tax avoidance resulting from loopholes in national taxation rules. For this to happen, the EU member states must not only be vigilant, but they must also refrain from encouraging tax avoidance through the creation of more loopholes.

Tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance seriously will mean that taxes are paid where they are due, thereby funding the services and infrastructure that is required in a modern, civilised society. This can only happen if more companies pay their dues.

Tax competition need not be a race to the bottom.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 17 December 2017

Sven Giegold tkellem dwar il-preokkupazzjoni tagħna lkoll

Il-Membru Parlamentari Ewropew Sven Giegold, mill-Grupp tal-Ħodor, Ġermaniż,  ġie Malta ippreokkupat dwar is-saltna tad-dritt f’Malta. B’dak li sema’ kemm dam hawn spiċċa ippreokkupa ruħu ferm iktar.

Fuq il-blog tiegħu stess, fil-fatt jgħid hekk: 

“The delegation of the Parliament came seriously concerned over the rule of law in Malta and left even more worried. We learnt a great deal, gathered important evidence and were promised even more.

The police and the attorney general have demonstrated an unwillingness to investigate and failure to prosecute corruption and money laundering.”

X’qalulhom mela, biex tawhom din l-impressjoni ħażina.

Sven Giegold ikompli jgħid :

“Publically available information and even reports by Malta’s anti-money laundering body FIAU have repeatedly not triggered investigations. Individuals and financial institutions involved were not searched, evidence not gathered. This protected high government officials such as prime minister’s chief of staff Keith Schembri and minister Konrad Mizzi from prosecution as well as financial instiutions such as Pilatus Bank and Nexia BT.”

Bħalna lkoll Sven Giegold ifforma l-opinjoni li r-rapporti tal-FIAU ġew injorati. Jidher li wasal għall- konklużjoni li ma saret l-ebda investigazzjoni dwar il-kontenut ta’ dawn ir-rapporti. Għax kieku saret investigazzjoni u din waslet għall-konklużjoni li ma kien hemm xejn minn dak li jintqal fir-rapporti, nimmaġina li l-Kummissarju tal-Pulizija kien jgħidlhom lid-delegazzjoni tal-Parlament Ewropew li “investiga u ma sab xejn”.

Imma ma jidhirx li intqal dan il-kliem għax il-konklużjoni ta’ Giegold, liema konklużjoni taqbel magħha Ana Gomes is-Soċjalista Portugiża li qed tmexxi d-delegazzjoni, hi ċara daqs il-kristall :

“Publically available information and even reports by Malta’s anti-money laundering body FIAU have repeatedly not triggered investigations.”

Din hi l-preokkupazzjoni tagħna lkoll: li l-istituzzjonijiet qegħdin hemm għalxejn.

Wara d-dibattitu fi Strasburgu

 

Id-dibattitu tal-ġimgħa l-oħra fil-Parlament Ewropew dwar is-saltna tad-dritt wera li prattikament il-partiti politiċi kollha huma mħassba dwar is-saltna tad-dritt f’Malta. Il-qtil ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia jkompli jżid ma dan it-tħassib.

It-tħassib hu wieħed akkumulat u huwa ġġustifikat minħabba diversi affarijiet li ġraw fuq tul ta’ żmien.

Il-ħatra u r-riżenja ta’ diversi Kummissarji tal-Pulizija matul dawn il-ħames snin xejn ma għen f’dan il-kuntest.

Ir-rapporti tal-FIAU (Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit) li waslu għand il-Kummissarju tal-Pulizija u ma ittieħdu l-ebda passi dwarhom ukoll wasslu l-messaġġ li f’dan il-pajjiż xejn m’hu xejn: li l-liġi hi bla siwi.

Jekk il-liġi hi bla siwi għax l-awtorijtajiet li għandhom l-obbligu li jimplimentawha jagħlqu għajnejhom, daqqa waħda u drabi oħra t-tnejn, hu ġustifikat li jingħad li s-saltna tad-dritt hi mhedda.

F’dan il-kuntest ma tista’ tagħti tort lil ħadd li jissuspetta illi l-awtoritajiet kollha ħaġa waħda, jħokku dahar xulxin. Anke jekk mhux neċessarjament hekk.

Imma hemm min qiegħed japprofitta ruħu minn din is-sitwazzjoni biex jiżra’ sfiduċja iktar milli diġa hawn. Ilkoll kemm aħna, fuq quddiem nett il-partiti politiċi, għandna l-obbligu li f’din is-siegħa delikata ma nesagerawx fil-kritika li nagħmlu. Anke fejn il-kritika hi ġustifikata. Il-kritika li issir hemm bżonn li tkun waħda responsabbli avolja jkun hemm min ma jagħtix każ, jew inkella jipprova jagħti l-impressjoni li mhux qed jagħti każ.

Il-fatti jibqgħu dejjem fatti.

Il-Prim Ministru żbalja meta ma tajjarx lill-Konrad Mizzi mill-Kabinett u lil Keith Schembri minn Chief of Staff fl-uffiċċju tiegħu wara li isimhom deher fil-lista magħrufa bħala Panama Papers. Kien żball oħxon li anke fil-Partit Laburista stess kien hemm dibattitu jaħraq dwaru. Fil-Partit Laburista kien hemm min kellu l-kuraġġ li jesprimi fehmtu dwar dan fil-pubbliku. Hekk għamlu s-sena l-oħra Evarist Bartolo u Godfrey Farrugia. Kien hemm oħrajn li tkellmu fil-magħluq waqt laqgħat tal-Grupp Parlamentari. Fil-gazzetti kienu ssemmew l-ismijiet tad-Deputat Prim Ministru ta’ dak iż-żmien Louis Grech u tal-Ministri Leo Brincat, Edward Scicluna u George Vella. Hemm ukoll id-dikjarazzjoni ċara pubblika ta’ Alfred Sant, avolja dan issa qed jitkellem ftit differenti. Naf li hemm oħrajn. Kollha talbu r-riżenja ta’ Konrad Mizzi.

Il-preokkupazzjoni tal-lum hi in parti riżultat ta’ din id-deċiżjoni żbaljata tal-Prim Ministru Joseph Muscat.

Il-kobba issa kompliet titħabbel bil-qtil ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Sfortunatament hemm min qed jitfa l-argumenti kollha f’borma waħda u jgħaqqad, b’mod irresponsabbli l-affarijiet, meta s’issa għad ma hemm l-ebda prova dwar min wettaq dan id-delitt u għal liema raġuni. L-iżbalji li saru fil-kors tal-investigazzjoni xejn m’huma ta’ għajnuna. La d-dewmien tal-Maġistrat Consuelo Scerri Herrera biex ma tibqax tmexxi l-investigazzjoni Maġisterjali u l-anqas li d-Deputat Kummissarju Silvio Valletta ma fehemx li l-presenza tiegħu fl-investigazzjoni tista’ tkun ta’ xkiel għall-kredibilita tal-konkluzjonijiet m’huma ser jgħinu.

F’dan il-kuntest il-kummenti ta’ Frans Timmermans Viċi President Ewlieni tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea huma ta’ validità kbira: “Let the investigation run its full course. What is not on is to start with a conclusion and look for facts to support that conclusion.”

Il-preokkupazzjoni tagħna lkoll hi ġustifikata. Imma tajjeb li nżommu quddiem għajnejna li t-taħwid kollu li għandna quddiemna ma tfaċċax f’daqqa, ilu jinġabar ftit ftit. Biex dan jingħeleb jeħtieġ l-isforz flimkien ta’ kull min hu ta’ rieda tajba.

 

ippubblikat f’Illum – Il-Ħadd 19 ta’ Novembru 2017

Beyond the Strasbourg debate

Last week’s debate in the European Parliament on the rule of law in Malta revealed that all political parties are preoccupied with the matter and the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia has made a bad situation worse.

This preoccupation has not developed overnight, it has accumulated over time. The appointment of various Commissioners of Police and their subsequent resignation for a variety of reasons has not been helpful: it has reinforced the perception that “all is not well in the state of Denmark”.

The Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit reports received by the Commissioner of Police, and in respect of which no investigation was carried out, sent out one clear message: in this country, some people are clearly not subject to the rule of law. Can anyone be blamed if this message – sent by the Commissioner of Police – was clearly understood by one and all?

This transmits an additional clear message: the authorities are in cahoots; they are scratching each other’s back. Even though reality may be different, this is the message which has gone through.

Unfortunately, some people may be cashing in on these developments and, as a result, increasing exponentially the lack of trust in public authorities in Malta. This is a very dangerous development and calls for responsible action on the part of one and all, primarily political parties. Speaking out publicly about these developments is justified, notwithstanding the continuous insults which keep being levelled against such a stand. It is time to stand up and be counted.

The Prime Minister erred when he did not dismiss Minister Konrad Mizzi and Chief of Staff at the OPM Keith Schembri on the spot, after it was clear that their names featured prominently in the Panama Papers. This serious error by the Prime Minister triggered a debate about the matter in the Labour Party. Some even had the courage to speak publicly: Evarist Bartolo and Godfrey Farrugia did so. Others participated actively in the internal debates within the Labour Party, in particular during meetings of the Parliamentary Group. Last year, the media had mentioned various Labour MPs as having been vociferous in internal debates on the matter: it was reported that former Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech and senior Ministers Leo Brincat, Edward Scicluna and George Vella took the lead.

Even former Labour Leader Alfred Sant made public declarations in support of required resignations. This week, Sant sought to change his tune in a hysterical contribution to the Strasbourg debate. Others have preferred silence.

The Prime Minister’s erroneous position in refusing to fire Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri has been a major contributor to the present state of affairs. The murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia has made matters worse and has, justifiably, led to the current preoccupation with the question of whether the rule of law is still effective in Malta at all.

Unfortunately some individuals begin linking all the incidents together – in the process, weaving a story which is quite different from reality, at least that which is known so far. Some claim to be able to joint the dots, thereby creating a narrative unknown to the rest of us, because the dots can be joined in many different ways.

Mistakes made during the initial stages of the investigation of the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder further reinforce the perceptions that all is not well. When Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera took quite some time to realise that it was not right for her to lead the investigation into the murder of a journalist who had been the prime mover in torpedoing her elevation to the position of a Judge in the Superior Courts, everyone was shocked.

Even the failure of Deputy Police Commissioner Silvio Valletta to realise that for him to lead the police investigation into Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder could dent the credibility of the police investigation in view of his marriage to a Cabinet Minister was another serious mistake. This is no reflection on the couple’s integrity but an ethical consideration which should have been taken into consideration in the first seconds of the investigation.

In this context, the comments of European Commission Senior Vice President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans assume greater importance “Let the investigation run its  full course. What is not on is to start with a conclusion and look for facts to support that conclusion.”

It is reasonable that all of us are seriously preoccupied. The present state of affairs did not develop overnight. It requires the concerted efforts of all of us to be put right.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 19 November 2017