John Dalli: perfectly representative of all that is wrong with idiosyncratic Maltese values of a particular kind
I’m assuming you’re all following the live updates on timesofmalta.com about the proceedings in Luxembourg. Please feel free to comment here.
Meanwhile, this comment has just come in which pretty much sums up the situation.
Dalli made the catastrophic error of thinking that his idiosyncratically Maltese hamallu values are the universal industry standard (so to speak).
Lots of Maltese people – even those from quite good backgrounds – make this mistake because they don’t get out much, read very little and have qualified and conditioned contact with the outside world. They therefore think that amoral pragmatism is the default position universally, and literally cannot distinguish between what is illegal and what is legal but wholly intolerable.
Dalli’s conduct and defense strategy in this horrendous debacle is the ultimate illustration of that. He goes on and on about the letter of the law when this has absolutely nothing to do with the law.
Is it illegal for an EU Commissioner to meet the representative of a world tobacco giant while wearing his swimming-trunks at the pool in a Gozo hotel, accompanied by a semi-literate glorified mqaret-seller with a seaside kiosk?
No, it is not. Should he be doing it? MOST DEFINITELY NOT. But you will find many Maltese who will argue ‘Allura, b’daqshekk, x’fiha?’ They do not belong in a European democracy.
They are so far gone that they are beyond understanding. We have to accept that their culture is different (and not in a good way, but in an inferior way – it’s crucial to remember that) and at this late stage in their life, they are not going to learn anything.
The thing to do is to keep reminding ourselves that no matter how many of these people we see and hear around us in our daily lives and in our newspapers and on our television screens, they are the ones who are completely in the wrong.
———
Comment sent in by Libertas:
The live report on timesofmalta.com just goes to show how amateurish Dalli is in even entertaining the idea of a case like this. They tore him to shreds: Barroso, the judges, lawyers, everyone.
Barroso was excellent about the difference between legal presumption of innocence and the political responsibility for secret meetings with the tobacco lobby organised by a bar owner for a European Commissioner thousands of miles away and without other aides from the Commission.
24 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Barroso’s argument is simple: Dalli admitted that it was not appropriate for him to meet lobbyists away from Brussels without EU officials being present, and while a bar owner/his personal political canvasser acts as a broker.
The decision was political: Dalli’s position was untenable.
Can anyone imagine the situation if this piece of juicy news was leaked to the press, with Barroso saying that he knew about it but did nothing?
The most important point being made is that Dalli’s position as EU Commissioner was untenable for political and ethical reasons of correctness.
Unfortunately, it seems few understand this, including Dalli himself, otherwise he would never have started such proceedings.
[Daphne – You mean, ‘otherwise he would never have behaved that way in the first place’.]
Dalli failed on another count: he didn’t make any case at all. He’s behaving in the European Court of Justice just as he did when he demanded – and got – a hearing at the PN headquarters.
The only two things I can remember about THAT meeting were 1) he didn’t make the case he’d said he’d had, and 2) his particular gripe was he’d been referred to as gej dal-l*ba (J Dalli BA).
Something tells me that the only takeaway from the ECJ hearing will be the image of J Dalli BA in his swimming trunks, meeting the man from Philip Morris.
In simple terms, Barroso’s decision to keep Dalli, or to drop him, was a political decision, and it is even permitted in the Treaty.
The court cannot interfere with a political decision of the President of the Commission.
The only difference the court can make is to establish the sequence of events and the facts of how Dalli left the Commission.
So far, it is clear that he first accepted to resign, but later wanted to change the version and say it was a dismissal.
Five days after he left the Commission, on 22 October 2012, on Super One, John Dalli said more than once, that he told Barroso that he (Dalli) will resign.
See 4.29 onwards here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqtu1xnwkkk
John Dalli was arguing about the form (written or otherwise), but not the content, of the decision he gave to Barroso.
Can they play this video in the European court?
I know Super One has little credibility, but it was John Dalli himself on the programme.
Also note earlier point made by Dalli ” no money was exchanged”. So, was there an intent? This was Rizzo’s job.
Money doesn’t need to be exchanged but wired, or shares given etc.
If Mark Micallef is reading this website, can he tell us if Mary Swan is in court?
Mary Swan doesn’t exist any more. She has a new name and a new passport. I hope it isn’t a Maltese one.
John Dalli seems to have bought himself a much stronger rope to hang himself with. This court hearing has left him in a deeper mess without an ounce of credibility left even in the eyes of his blindest or most amoral supporters.
Where is Dr. Muscat’s podium being prepared for the big announcement regarding his advisers and what is going to happen to them?
The skip is getting fuller by the day.
I do believe that Dalli had accepted the reaity of the political situation. But today he wants us to believe otherwise.
“Romero Requena: Of course, he protested his innocence and repeatedly – and when I say repeatedly, I mean repeatedly – referred to them as conjectures. But in the end accepted the political reality of the situation.”
John Dalli has no leg to stand on in his defence that he did nothing illegal or wrong in meeting with representatives of a giant tobacco company by the pool in Gozo, with Silvio Zammit (while wearing his trunks) and with no Commission officials present. His behaviour, as an EU Commissioner, was plainly wrong. He may have been on holiday, but he was still the EU Commissioner.
Turning vice into virtue. There are times when you have to say NO, I will not meet you, it wouldn’t be right.
“One of his staff asked if it was true he met tobacco lobbyists. and he said: you know who I am, if they ask me to meet them I do.”
John Dalli needs to understand the same would have happened if he were some super CEO accepting to attend a rendezvous with the competition away from headquarters.
Goes to show how corporate and businesslike the man is. So he was on holiday, from what, his responsibilities?
Interesting times ahead, Muscat’s toast if he tries a xummiemu.
Great stuff. Faced with a red-face moment and removal from the commission, what goes through Dalli’s mind?
I’ll quote his former cabinet chief, Johanna Darmanin: “I saw Dalli and he told me we have a problem, I need to contact my wife. I need to see about my rights, my allowances and whether I have a pension.”
Forman: Dalli said that he was told his staff were instructed no longer to assist him
Darmanin: I would say to the contrary. I was not instructed to this effect and in fact in the days that followed, he was still assisted by his staff and had full access to his secretariat.
Darmanin: Moreover, we had a meeting with the Vice President of the European Commission Moros Sefcovic in which he told us to make sure Dalli has what he needs for the transition.
Dalli and Muscat: liars, both.
I’ve never seen someone claw himself out of the gutter, and having achieved that handsomely, fight so desperately to get back in.
I have been following John Dalli vs President Jose` Maria Barros with great interest.
I do not have to go through every statement made with a magnifying glass to confirm that John Dalli has committed perjury again like he did when he falsely and maliciously accused me in revenge because I reported his involvement in the Daewoo scandal.
The following is one of the many comments made by Joanna Darmanin in her witness as quoted in Times of Malta.
Darmanin: “I saw Dalli and he told me we have a problem; I need to contact my wife. I need to see about my rights. My allowances and whether I have a pension”.
That statement sums him up. He is not called Johnny Cash for nothing. It’s always about the money with him. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxmCCsMoD0&feature=kp
Once again former disgraced EU Commissioner John Dalli brought Malta’s good name into international disrepute. His audacity and hypocrisy has no limits. The situation he brought himself into has nothing to do with unfair dismissal.
It is to do with political accountability. He should also be held accountable for all the alleged corruption he was involved in during his political career.
I always said he was corrupt and my allegations against him remain.
‘accompanied by a semi-literate glorified mqaret-seller with a seaside kiosk’
That ‘semi-literate glorified mqaret-seller’ claims to have studied Management at University of Malta on his Facebook page, I’ll have you know.
https://www.facebook.com/zammits
[Daphne – Oh right. That’s why he’s barely coherent then. But then his boss isn’t coherent either, and he studied ekawnts.]
Dalli has been claiming in the Maltese media that Barroso’s staff had also been having secret meetings with the tobacco lobby. (This in itself is admittance that Dalli did have meetings with them)
How come he didn’t say that when he was face to face with Barroso in court?
If I were innocent, as Dalli claims to be, I’d scream it at the top of my voice considering the opportunity of having the international media following this event.
If there was even a shred of doubt as to Dalli’s guilt then that’s just about gone out of the window now.
In Malta, what starts off as poor education from family, religious and social groups, later transforms into personality disorder. Psychologists, educators and sociologists need to look closely into this wide-spread phenomenon.
Let’s say he was completely innocent, even of knowing what was going on but not saying anything (which nobody believes he is), he should have resigned voluntarily anyway.
Judges do it, politicians do it. It’s the only way you can defend yourself whilst at the same time not putting the institution you represent in bad repute.
John Dalli was and still is hugely defensive and arrogant. The guy honestly believes he is right simply because there may not be enough proof to pin him down as having been corrupt in this particular case.
What puzzles me is why Labour take in and defend PN rejects like Dalli, Engerer, Pullicino Orlando, Debono and others. Is it to thank them for being unprofessional, arrogant or disloyal all to the disadvantage of the PN ?
Political parties have a habit of considering these individuals as trophies. Didn’t the PN pick up Ms “run Rabbit Run” and the fat controller once?
Judge Farrugia Sacco didn’t resign. He was relieved of his caseload.
Johhny “the Don” Dalli should get his Mafia strongmen to pay a visit to that Maoist Jesuit Barroso to extract his pound of flesh.