Today’s press briefing at the European Commission

6 Comments Comment

1. Karl says:

   October 22, 2012 at 5:02 pm

   Daphne, on the point I made last time, the EU Commission is also considering Dalli as “innocent until proven guilty”.

   I’m not saying he is or is not legally guilty (I have my own opinion here) but this emphasises the point that the PM could not and can not simply condemn John Dalli or for that matter to appoint JD as Commissioner years back, otherwise he would be condemning him before proven guilty or affecting fair process.

   [Daphne – Please distinguish between a sacking offence/resignation matter and A CRIME. We don’t know yet whether Dalli is guilty of having committed the latter, but we know for certain that the former has occurred. On that alone, the prime minister should immediately have called a press conference and cut him loose. Imagine if Prime Minister Fenech Adami had said nothing when the police informed him that the chief justice was under investigation, on the grounds that he is “innocent until proven guilty”. For heaven’s sake.]

   Reply
2. Qeghdin Sew says:

   October 22, 2012 at 5:50 pm

   “In line with rules Mr Dalli will receive an allowance so that he can move back to Malta and will also be paid transitional allowance for a three-year period until he finds another job or retires. This corresponds to 45 per cent of his old salary. His pension will be paid after the transition.”

   He’s 64, if I’m not mistaken. Why is he complaining when he has that golden parachute secured?

   [Daphne – Because with people who grow up in deprivation, the hunger for money never goes away and the fear of starvation is ever present, no matter how many millions there are in the bank. They never feel safe.]

   Reply
   • Enid Blyton says:

     October 22, 2012 at 10:58 pm

     How would you define deprivation; is it not having enough (obviously being conditioned) or simply not having?

     You might have used the wrong word, deprived suggests not being allowed to have or make use of – prisoners are deprived of their freedom. Poverty can be a state of being, beyond your control (when young).

     Reply
3. andi says:

   October 22, 2012 at 5:51 pm

   “Mr Bailly added that the Commission respected the presumption of innocence. There was no evidence of illegal behaviour by Mr Dalli since the legal aspect would be decided by the Attorney General in Malta.”

   Note what is being said here.

   Mr Bailly did NOT say that there was ‘no illegal behaviour’ because there wasn’t any but because it is not up to them to go into this matter. The legal procedure is up to the Maltese Courts.

   Reply
4. Antoine Vella says:

   October 22, 2012 at 5:55 pm

   Many people do not seem to realise that the Commission is a political institution like a government and the President is comparable to a Prime Minister.

   Because of the way the European Union is structured and functions, the President of the Commission has less freedom of action than a national Prime Minister but it is still his prerogative to sack a commissioner and reshuffle the ‘Cabinet’ if he thinks it’s politically advisable to do so.

   Strictly speaking, he didn’t even need an OLAF report but could have based his decision on his own judgement.

   I can’t understand how even intelligent people like Professor Edward Mallia should jump to Dalli’s defence and attack the EU for being undemocratic, as if this were some kind of industrial dispute.

   Reply
5. aston says:

   October 22, 2012 at 7:46 pm

   Let’s for a moment put aside whether Dalli is innocent or not, whether he was aware of Zammit’s lobbying or not (though it is quite obvious he WAS aware as he wrote a judicial letter to Zammit about this by his own admission).

   The correct and decent thing to do, for the Commission’s sake and for his country’s, was to resign the moment he was made aware he was being investigated, back in July.

   He should have put his Office, the Commission, his country, the PM who appointed him before his personal ambitions and not waited till he was pushed. He could have made it clear that his resignation was not in any way an admission of guilt, but an action of integrity.

   Reply