‘Nul points’ for Karmenu Vella…

It matters a great deal that a man who proved incapable of giving even a single straight answer to any of the European Parliament's questions, can go on to win a place on a Commission

The more European Commissioners I watch being grilled by the European Parliament, the more I am reminded of the Eurovision Song Contest. With one notable difference: the music tends to be much better in the Commissioner hearings…

But in both scenarios you will find the same intrinsic paradox. The Eurovision Song Contest (as its name helpfully suggests) is all about choosing the best European song. At least, on paper. But as we have all time and again seen, it is rare indeed for the best song to actually win.

When push comes to shove, the actual considerations – both among Eurovision judges and, it would seem, European populations as a whole – tend to have much more to do with whatever controversy happens to be raging on in the background, or with the precise geo-political lay-out of the European continent, than with anything concerning ‘music’.

Conchita Wurst’s winning entry this year was at least among the five most memorable songs performed on the night. But would the bearded wonder have won at all, were it not for a marked surge in worldwide homophobia, all the resulting media hype, and the corresponding backlash among Europe’s LGBT communities?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Most other years, however, songs either climbed or plummeted the ladder of Eurovision success for spectacularly contrived reasons. In 2006, a Finnish cross between Kiss, Marliyn Manson and the Night of the Living Dead won the contest with a ‘rock anthem’ that most garage rock bands would consider too embarrassingly cliché and unoriginal to perform even at a school ball. Just because they masqueraded their lack of talent behind some three miles of prosthetic make-up, and drowned the song under so many explosions and fireworks that we couldn’t actually hear the damn thing until it had already won.

Well, it’s exactly the same with European Commissioners. As we all saw last Monday, the decision to approve Karmenu Vella for the Fisheries, Maritime Policy and Environment portfolio had little, in the end, to do with Vella’s actual expertise or knowledge of any of those areas. Quite frankly he didn’t display any knowledge or expertise, so we can all safely rule out the possibility that he will be chosen today because he is the right man for the job.

Admittedly, he didn’t wear a Frankenstein mask, or expect us not to notice the difference between a guitar solo and a clumsy run on the E minor pentatonic scale, or anything like that. But he did bury his lack of know-how under an ocean of platitudes and trite clichés that we have all heard a million times before… and in terms of European politics, that is exactly the same trick that won Lordi the Eurovision Song Contest with ‘Hard Rock Hallelujah’ in 2006.

There is, however, a small difference between the two scenarios. In the bigger picture, it matters little that a mediocre, uninspiring and rather crappy pop song can win an international song contest simply because of political considerations. It’s the sort of thing we can all safely ignore.

But it matters a very great deal that a man who proved incapable of giving even a single straight answer to any of the European Parliament’s questions, can go on to win a place on a Commission whose actions and decisions have a direct bearing on all our lives.

Let’s take a closer look at Vella’s grilling again, shall we? On two specific occasions, Vella was asked point blank to commit to clear European policy guideline directions for the environment. This was his answer: "I cannot give you 100% commitment on anything that I don’t know I can deliver. We are still taking stock of what was left over from the previous Commission. This is not a question about not being able to commit on anything…"

Small problem with that reply, Mr Vella. You didn’t give 100% commitment – or even close to that percentage – on anything at all. Not on hunting or trapping, not on waste management, not on air quality, not on pollution, not on pesticides… not even on the proposed revision of the birds and habitats directives, which is of immense significance to a political controversy in which your own (former) government is currently embroiled.

By your own admission, then, there is nothing at all connected with the environment on which you ‘know you can deliver’. Yet delivery on environmental targets is precisely what is expected of you. In fact it is the whole point of the job for which you were being interviewed. It’s like asking a prospective postman whether he can deliver a letter to the correct address. “I’m not sure, I’ve never tried” is not exactly the sort of answer that elicits very much confidence, now, is it?

Here on the other hand, was Vella’s response to a very valid question regarding his own personal commitment to environmental issues, given his past government’s track record when it comes to infringements of European environmental directives:

"Unfortunately there are member states that are possibly less responsible than others... I downloaded the infringements in 2013 when it comes to environment, member state by member state, some 350 in total. There are some countries with 25 infringements alone. The country I know best is among the lowest for infringements… five."

It seems, however, that Vella doesn’t know even his own country very well, if he thinks that its five infringements for 2013 compares favourably with the 25 registered in other member states during the same year. He forgets, for instance, that Malta is not five times smaller than all other European countries… but closer to 500 times smaller, and in some cases much more.

In a country the size of a public garden in many European cities – and without either the toxic industrial pollution other states have to contend with, or even any real natural resources to deplete – our five infringements in one year are actually a shocking indictment of our disregard for environmental directives.

Now let us look at a few of the questions he didn’t answer… or at least, where his answers fell demonstrably short of reassuring the parliament that three crucial areas of European policy would be in safe hands under Karmenu Vella.

On maritime pollution: "I think something will have to be done... I need to be better acquainted... this needs more discussion, thinking, since it affects member states economically, but the environmental aspect needs to be kept at the forefront…"

On the thorny issue of state aid to fishermen: "I'm not certain, but tax exemptions and state aid will have to be dealt with at member state level. I don't have any background on it..."

Naturally, both these answers raise a rather important little consideration in the context of a hearing aimed at approving or rejecting a prospective member of the European Commission. If you don’t have any background on it… what the hell are you even doing applying for the job? And if you knew you were going to be questioned by the PECH committee which looks specifically into fisheries and maritime policy… why the hell did you not acquaint yourself better with the subject before trying (and failing) to answer any of their questions?

The second answer, however, also raises serious doubts as to how well the prospective European Commission knows European law. State aid is one area which lies very emphatically OUTSIDE the remit of individual member states. As a former Cabinet minister in a Maltese government – and who was responsible for tourism, no less – Vella should know this more than most. Malta has for years tried to inject state aid into Air Malta, but has always found the Commission breathing down its neck.

OK, so in a nutshell I suppose you could say I was not highly impressed by Karmenu Vella’s lacklustre and decidedly mediocre performance last Monday. And nor, it seems, were any of the NGOs involved in the area he will very soon be regulating.

But what intrigues me is the fact that the European Parliament seems ready to accept Vella as Commissioner, despite various complaints (by a great many of the MEPs present) that he had failed utterly to address the parliament’s concerns. The chairman of the EP’s environment committee even conceded that Vella's answers were “not entirely precise”… yet went on to approve him anyway.

What does this tell us, exactly, about the way such decisions are taken at European level?

I think it tells us that we can trust the European parliament’s judgment in such matters about as much as we can trust the official ratings at the Eurovision Song Contest as a measure of musical talent. The only difference is that the Eurovision at least pretends to be about music, even if we can all see through the pretence a million miles away.

The Commissioner hearings, on the other hand, seem to have given up even pretending to be about safeguarding the best interests of Europe as a whole. The only important thing is that the political groupings within the European Parliament continue scratching each other’s backs, like the good old European neighbours they all are.