|
Karl Schembri in Strasbourg
The spectre of European secularism is once again haunting this little island of Paul, even though this time the decision is being taken far away on the European mainland.
Faced with the Buttiglione controversy in Strasbourg, our elected MEPs have been exposed to a varied spectrum of worldviews and values, somehow alien to their domestic, parochial political scene, and the Nationalist Party has once again waved its ever-ready banner of Christianity.
Labour MEPs had not committed themselves publicly before the last Wednesday’s expected vote on the new European Commission, although it became clearer they would conform with the Socialists’ unanimous decision to vote against Italian commissioner-designate Rocco Buttiglione, a close friend of the Pope.
The Italian conservative Catholic’s avowed belief that homosexuality is a “sin” and that women should stay at home to make babies did not go down well with the great part of the parliamentarians from all over Europe (although on our shores even our prime minister would get away with it), as Buttiglione’s supporters protested about an anti-Catholic “inquisition”.
The indignation over those declarations was met with equally burning declarations from the conservative Nationalist Parliamentary Secretary Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, who said that Malta Labour Party MEPs “should not betray the Catholic principles clearly endorsed by the majority of the Maltese”, adding that it would be politically immoral of them to “backtrack on the Maltese electorate’s indubitable Catholic-inspired political principles” by voting against Buttiglione.
Freedom of speech
“If they were going to vote with the Socialist party, that is to say against the Commission, then they would have some explaining to do to the Maltese public,” says Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil, who says he was “obviously going to vote in favour” of incoming Commission chief José Manuel Durau Barroso’s original line-up.
Labour MEPs would have to “explain to the Maltese public why they agreed with the witch hunt against Buttiglione,” he adds, “because this is what it was all about, instead of defending his right to hold his own moral convictions.”
But Labour MEPs are sticking to the Party of European Socialists’ position, which is also shared by the Greens and Liberals, that Buttiglione’s personal views are in conflict with a portfolio that has gay rights and gender equality among its responsibilities.
“Buttiglione had every right to express his position, nobody can ever deny him that,” says MLP MEP Joseph Muscat. “However, after having expressed himself, it became clear that he could not be entrusted with the civil liberties portfolio whereby he would be responsible for gay rights and single mothers, among others. He said single mothers are ‘essentially bad mothers’ and that homosexuality is a sin – I find those views to be incompatible with that portfolio.”
The head of the Labour MEPs’ delegation, John Attard Montalto, was similarly critical of Buttiglione’s nomination for this particular portfolio.
“He made a declaration that showed he is not objective where certain minority groups are concerned,” Attard Montalto said. “Having such an important portfolio I think he excluded himself from that position by making that declaration. I admire him because he was honest, because after all he said what he believed, but I think his beliefs are incompatible with the particular commission which he had to lead.
“One has to be careful in the choice of commissioners because had Mr Barroso chosen Mr Buttiglione for fisheries I don’t think his opinion on sexual orientation would be of any consequence to his job.”
Even Maltese Commissioner Joe Borg, nominated precisely as Commissioner for Fisheries, acknowledges this by saying that moral issues “do not crop up when it comes to fisheries.”
The co-head of the Greens’ political group, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, summed it up with an example closer to his roots when he said that giving the justice portfolio to Buttiglione was similar to giving competition and trade to an Orthodox Marxist.
“It’s just incompatible,” he said. “An orthodox Marxist would have views about capital and the free market which would be totally opposite to his role as commissioner in charge of trade or competition.”
Muscat dismisses the notion of a religiously secular anti-Christian movement fuelling the resistance to Barroso’s commission.
“Imagine the outburst that would have erupted had the Turkish Prime Minister made those statements,” he says. “Everyone would have said the Turks are not prepared to join Europe and all that. I would say that in a future Europe where we might have a Muslim on the commission who believes that women should remain at home, I would defend his right to have an opinion but definitely not put him in charge of women’s rights or gender equality.”
But Nationalist MEP David Casa, who declares he would have voted in favour of Barroso’s commission, says: “Buttiglione had stressed that what he said was his personal opinion and personal opinions should in no way interfere with his professional work. One may not agree with what he said but I still believe he is one of the best commissioners designate.”
Busuttil says there is no contradiction at all between Buttiglione’s morality and his designated political office.
“If you read carefully the transcription of what Buttiglione said you would see that he gave a very clear and complete reply, both on the issue of homosexuality and on the issue of women. He was unfortunately misrepresented on what he said, on both counts, because he made a clear distinction between morality and law, between his personal opinion and his political position as a would-be commissioner. The point is I may or may not necessarily agree with the substance of what he said, but I certainly defend his right to say it. This is what this was all about.”
Barroso’s face-saver
In reality, there is a much more complex power process involved than a mere clash of values behind the most controversial decision to be taken by the European Parliament since Jacques Santer’s commission resigned en bloc in 1999 over a corruption scandal before the Parliament got a chance to deliver a widely expected no-confidence vote.
Indeed, observers remark that they never witnessed a European Parliament session as eventful as last week’s. Since being regaled by the Treaty of Nice with the power to refuse a Commission, the EU’s legislative branch is giving for the first time the strongest signals that it intends to flex its political muscles against Member States and the European Commission – Europe’s executive arm.
The crisis also debunked the PN’s smug overconfidence of belonging to the “largest political group” in the European Parliament through the European People’s Party, with a veritable defeat for Barroso and the conservative group supporting him.
A few minutes before Barroso was to propose his commission for a vote last Wednesday, Joe Borg, whose candidature was also at stake because the vote had to be taken on the whole commission team, was joking about having a job with the commission assured whatever the outcome, given that he was already an outgoing commissioner for development.
“However it goes, I’ll be a caretaker commissioner for sure. In fact I’ve already bought a broomstick,” he said with his jovial smile although not without a hint of nervousness.
Barroso’s announcement that he was withdrawing his Commission before it was due to be voted on was met with wide acclamation from the most critical political groups that were threatening to veto the new executive.
“The Commission proposed was not one we could invest our confidence or trust in,” Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialist group, told Barroso. “You have recognised that you did not have a majority, and you have drawn the right conclusion [in] taking a step towards Parliament.”
“Today this House on the river Rhine has grown in stature,” said the leader of the Liberal group, Graham Watson. “Its will was tested, its will has prevailed. At no time did we ask for anything more than is our right. We asked for our judgement to be treated with respect.”
The previous day, Barroso had chosen the road of brinksmanship when he declared that it was anti-European to vote against his commission, but within less than 24 hours it was clear this only worsened the situation. Tuesday night the Liberals made it clear they would not give support to Barroso, at least not the much-needed 50 votes, while the Socialists took a unanimous decision to vote against the new commission.
“I do not honestly think you believe that,” Watson told Barroso about being anti-European. “You know that when pro-Europeans criticise your Commission, they are not doing the work of Euroscepticism, but the very opposite: today, Euroscepticism loses because the voice of democracy in Europe has risen by an octave and has made itself heard in every national capital and beyond.”
“The essential issue here is whether or not Parliament’s role is merely that of rubberstamping,” said Labour MEP Louis Grech. “Are the hearings being held just for formality, or for Parliament to exercise its prerogative to the full? It’s clear that it is the Parliament’s duty and remits to act in this way and that’s how it intends to keep acting. More than asserting its power, Parliament has exercised its power. The moment that Barroso realised Parliament is not there just for formality but as part of the equation of balance of power, he withdrew his original proposal.”
Attard Montalto made an analogy: “It’s as if the Prime Minister nominated his cabinet and Parliament had to approve it. So it is clear that there is a distinction between the executive and the legislative, guaranteeing checks and balances so that the democratic process is fully practised and seen to be practised.”
Being the EU’s only directly elected body, the European Parliament has exercised its power against the will of national governments who select their commissioners, but it “is not the sole repository of democratic legitimacy, which also resides – far more so, some would argue – in national parliaments,” the UK daily broadsheet The Guardian said in its leader last Thursday. That is in fact an unresolved democratic conflict that will remain haunting the EU processes for as long as its structures are unable to prevent similar crises.
With the vote indefinitely postponed, it is now up to Barroso to come up with a solution to this impasse which he put himself in. He pleaded for more time to consult with European governments before resubmitting his team for approval.
It is now clear that Buttiglione will be replaced by another candidate, although it is still unknown whether this change will be accompanied by a reshuffle.
It is also clear that now even the EPP will make its demands on Barroso with would-be commissioners it is not comfortable with.
“Clearly now our own group will expect its own concerns to be addressed in the new commission,” Simon Busuttil says. “Remember that although the EPP was going to vote in favour of the Commission, it did have certain concerns regarding certain Commissioners. So when Barroso comes back he must come back with changes that take into account also our concerns.”
“We have no precedents,” Borg admitted afterwards as he reflected on the EU’s virgin territory that had just begun to be explored. “It seems that as caretaker commissioners we are not meant to take any important decisions or new initiatives except in exceptional circumstances.”
In his case, the decision was not as serious as for other new commissioners, including Buttiglione, who had left their jobs or resigned from government posts to take up the new job in Brussels, although it still means that his new commitments have gone haywire.
karl@newsworksltd.com
|
