Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/244624
16 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 19 JANUARY 2014 Marlene Mizzi Hijacking the EP for partisan interests T his week in the European Parliament, we assisted to the sad spectacle of Malta's name being dragged down the gutter by my Nationalist 'colleagues'. I'm not really sure what to call them now, since for me 'colleagues' are people you work with for a common goal. As a Maltese MEP, it was quite an ordeal to see my fellow 'colleagues', with whom I am supposed to work together in Malta's interest, actively using Malta as a dart-board and basking in seeing MEPs from other countries throwing darts at us and inflicting damage. It is indeed a shame that PN MEPs seem to have fallen into the temptation of trying to score cheap political points in order to secure re-election in May. If this is not a pathetic way to attract votes, I don't know what is! Even more worrying however, were the speeches and comments that I heard from my fellow MEPs during this plenary week. It was not the criticism to the Maltese scheme. After all, free speech is part and parcel of being European and I totally embrace it. It was the fact, revealed by other MEPs, of the keenness of the Maltese PN MEPs to lobby against, and knowingly spread erroneous information on the IIP scheme and on the government's intentions. In this exercise the PN MEPs were brilliant. The jargon used, and sentiments expressed by MEPs, many from countries with competing citizenship schemes, were similar to the rhetoric we heard ad nauseam from their former MEP, now leader of the PN in opposition, Simon Busuttil. But perhaps the most appalling, and hypocritical, were the arguments of members of the EPP, looking down on 'rich' people who are the ones the IIP aims to attract and who, according to them, must necessarily be money launderers, criminals, terrorists and a generally distasteful lot not to be allowed anywhere near our shores. They decided a priori, that all those who apply for such schemes must necessarily fall in the mentioned distasteful sector of humanity. I thought I was listening to a group of far-left extremists attending the annual communist conference, entitled 'Rich is Criminal'. But the behaviour of our own MEPs was summarised by a fellow MEP from the EPP political group, who candidly told me that he was impressed – not favourably so, by his tone – by the passion showed by the two Maltese MEPs members of his political group, in speaking against their own country. I cringed on behalf of the PN MEPs. This attitude also reflects a sudden change in the PN's line of thought over where the competences of the European Parliament start and end. During his stint as an MEP, Simon Busuttil was vociferous on numerous occasions about the need of the European Parliament When the EP allows itself to be hijacked by a partisan agenda, it gives itself a bad reputation with the electorate to back off and not interfere on issues which fell under our national competence, even when such issues where actively threatening the rights of our fellow European citizens. He was asking the EP to back off the PN government, of course. The fact that all of a sudden Dr Busuttil changed tack suggests that either he did not believe in what he was saying when he was an MEP, or else that he did a U-turn purely for political convenience. In both cases however, it is an attitude which does not fit a person of his institutional importance. But then, integrity of thought does not seem to be Dr Busuttil's forte. Nor is it of his MEPs! And, speaking of stints in the EP, I would like to ask Dr Busuttil and Mr Casa, both MEPs for donkey's years: where on earth where they when eight other member states introduced their own citizenship schemes, all involving their own ad hoc 'sale of citizenship' schemes and which would have affected Malta too? Why didn't they protect Malta's interests then, from the many rich money launderers and criminals entering the other eight member states through un-questioned, unscrutinised, un-debated schemes? I do believe that while the European Parliament has a very important role to play in complementing the work of the national governments, it has to be very cautious in the way that it exercises its powers. When the European Parliament allows itself to be hijacked by a partisan agenda of a political party, it gives itself a bad reputation with the electorate, at a time when such reputation is already at an all-time low. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened in this case. By choosing to single out Malta, the EPP, successfully instigated by its Maltese delegation, chose to ignore all the other citizenship schemes that already exist in Europe that sell citizenship in either a direct or indirect manner. The insistence of the PN MEPs to have Malta referred to – and Malta only – gave the two MEPs a great victory, and undoubtedly satisfaction, to see their country being vilified in this manner, with the majority of euro-parliamentarians voting en masse for the resolution. This stubbornness ultimately allowed us to miss a golden opportunity to actually talk about this issue in a sensible manner. It was also interesting to note that the majority of those who spoke so vociferously against Malta's scheme, have similar schemes in their countries! It was like expecting Coca-Cola to vote in favour of Pepsi. Had the EPP and the Nationalist delegation decided not to focus on the Maltese case and making Malta a scapegoat, I am certain that the debate would have turned out to be much more useful for everyone. After all it is in Europe's interest to have a clear and mature debate of what it should mean to be a European citizen in the 21st century. With the world changing at breakneck speed, we must not be afraid of debating such issues. But as an MEP representing my country in a European forum, I must also ensure that, during such debates, the country that I represent will not end up as some sort of case study to be dissected and analysed by everyone. But that is exactly what happened. Having said so, this strategy of calling on Big Brother's help, does not say much for the negotiation skills of the leader of the Opposition on home ground! I suppose we shall expect more of these charades every time the leader of the Opposition does not get his way. Now that this debate is finally behind us, we can move forward and heal the wounds that were opened during this contentious process. It must be pointed out that this debate and subsequent vote, have no say, no impact and absolutely no influence on the decision taken by the national parliament. It is not binding. Stop. It has been an exercise called 'let's smear Malta's name the best we can'. I hope that the PN and its MEPs feel better about the exercise they instigated against Malta. Are we sure they have not sold Malta's dignity for 30 pieces of silver and five minutes of limelight? Marlene Mizzi is a Labour MEP