Panama was an albatross around Leo Brincat’s neck

Leo Brincat comes across as a decent and moderate politician who has a sense of sobriety and proportion – which are increasingly rare qualities in Muscat’s cabinet of upstarts.

Admittedly his performance as minister for the environment was somewhat ineffective, hampered by Muscat’s pro-development bias and Brincat’s blind loyalty to party and leader. But I have reasons to believe that things would have gone far worse had he not been around. I am sure he would have done a good job as an EU auditor.

Still the issue at stake was not Brincat’s competence or personal integrity. The reason why 381 MEPs, including 166 MEPs who have no affiliation to the EPP, turned him down is that Brincat had voted for Minister Konrad Mizzi in a confidence vote in the Maltese parliament in the aftermath of Panamagate.

It is Joseph Muscat’s refusal to sack Konrad Mizzi which ultimately condemned Brincat to a humiliation in the European Parliament.

Brincat himself acknowledged that he had an albatross around his neck when he openly admitted considering his own resignation from Muscat’s cabinet and he only stayed on because of his loyalty to the party. The fact that a loyal soldier like Brincat would consider resigning says a lot on the seriousness of the unethical conduct of Konrad Mizzi.

Probably this admission only served to strengthen the resolve of MEPs to vote against him. An auditor is expected to put partisan loyalties aside when combating abuse. Surely in the Maltese context, it is hard to imagine stalwarts like Brincat resigning over a matter of principle. But in Europe at this present juncture, tax evasion and opening companies in secret locations like Panama are considered as very serious matters.

As Socialist MEP Ana Gomes succinctly put it, “one needs to act according to one’s conscience and not hide behind party whip when talking about the fight against tax evasion, or using tax havens to eventually hide proceeds”.

Playing the jingoistic card by portraying the majority of MEPs as stooges of the Nationalist Party is an insult to people’s intelligence. The way some people divide not just Malta but the whole world into two camps – Labour vs Nationalist – simply exposes the myopia in which they have been brought up.

The vote of the three Nationalist MEPs had no impact on the vote.

What counted were the 166 MEPs from groups with no affiliation to the PN, who do not give a fig about petty Maltese politics, who simply wanted to send a strong message to a government which has retained within its ranks the only EU minister and chief of staff of an EU PM mentioned in the panama papers.

The main culprits for undermining Brincat’s candidature were Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri for remaining in office and Joseph Muscat for letting them stay on. It was Muscat who could have relieved Brincat of this poisoned chalice.

The government has now decided to press ahead with the nomination and seek confirmation from the European Council of Ministers. This is a legitimate right but in itself shows a sense of disrespect towards the EU’s only democratically elected institution. It is irresponsible on the part of the Maltese government to create an institutional showdown between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament over an issue for which the Maltese government is solely to blame for.

Even if the Council complies, Brincat himself would have to bear the humiliation of being seen as an “imposition” of the Council of Ministers on Parliament. Had Muscat sacked Mizzi and Schembri, Brincat would have been approved without any problems.

Instead Muscat has managed to attract even more international attention on his failure to take a decisive action on Panamagate. Muscat who projected himself as some bright new light in the European left was exposed as a defender of a minister and a chief of staff who opened companies in Panama and the British Virgin Islands, two jurisdictions which make any decent socialist see red.