|
AS we experience information flow or the lack of it within the institution we know as the European Parliament, we discover to our chagrin that the institution that pontificates over the rights and wrongs of Europe from the wind-swept Canary Islands to the icy Polish border is, in fact, an institution that prefers to keeps its doors closed.
It is an institution which has more interest in safeguarding the privileges of its highly paid parliamentarians than the electorate that it should serve.
This edition of MaltaToday covers the response to a simple request over what the Maltese parliamentarians elected by a Maltese constituency to serve in Brussels spend and earn.
It transpires from the report penned by Matthew Vella that the European Parliament’s bureau has rejected MaltaToday’s request for access to the financial accounts of Malta’s five MEPs, after the request was originally turned down by the secretary-general of the European Parliament Julian Priestley.
It turns out that in Malta, our parliament is far more transparent and more open to scrutiny. And yet, in the case of the European Parliament we find a wall of secrecy and closed doors to perfectly legitimate questions related to the way our money is being utilised by our Maltese representatives.
Needless to say, the five Maltese elected officials are comfortable not divulging the finer details of their income, earnings and spendings.
There has been much hubris over the Joe Mifsud so-called irregular contract with the EU. It now turns out that the matter has more to do with a case of internal Labour bickering than with any irregularities.
It is indeed a storm in a tea cup compared with what goes on behind closed doors in the corridors of power in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg.
It is shameful that the European Parliament’s bureau has chosen to avoid answering straight questions by quoting technical regulations that serve anyone but the EU citizens.
It has to be remembered that the Maltese MEPs earn, when one adds their salary, perks and allowances, a minimum of Lm3,300 a month. That is ten times the average Maltese wage. They owe it to the general public who voted them in after their yes and no campaign to divulge details of their spending and financial arrangements.
It is further confirmation that the European Union institutions need further shake up. The electoral negation by the French and Dutch electorate to the European Union’s proposed Constitutional Treaty has not appeared to impress on the ‘actions’ of the EU parliament.
This may appear to be a small matter but it goes to show the arrogance that reigns high in Brussels. Equally undemocratic, even mediaeval, is the European Council’s stubborn refusal to open its doors to the public, despite its role as the highest legislative arm of the EU. Its meetings of ministers remain behind close doors, just like the Cuban and North Korean parliaments, despite the important decisions taken there.
In the televised live programme Int X’tahseb, Foreign Affairs Minister Michael Frendo even attempted to deflect questions about the permanent representative Richard Cachia Caruana.
He argued that Mr Cachia Caruana is not a public person.
Needless, to say he was quickly reminded that the person is a cabinet minister and one of the key ambassadors, if not the most influential representative in the foreign office. Furthermore, he is the person who deals with Malta’s relations with Brussels.
And yet, Mr Cachia Caruana continues to avoid straight interviews on what exactly he is doing in Brussels. In reality he shies away from interviews.
However, it is not just Mr Cachia Caruana that should allow himself to be questioned by the media and the discerning press.
The MEPS should also allow themselves to be queried by the press.
In a climate where faith in the European institutions is at its lowest ebb, the MEPS should attempt to get closer to the people.
In this scenario, the role of the press is clear, it must continue emphasizing the importance of having transparent and responsible institutions. And the MEPS should endeavour to convince the public that they as representatives are carrying out their duties with diligence, dedication, responsibility and complete honesty.
|
