Airmalta's recent business breakfast was not merely meant to launch a rebranding exercise by the national airline, but it was also an event that was used to deliver a particular message regarding who is really in control of GonziPN.
However, this event also raises a question to which Airmalta should provide an answer. In what capacity was Mr RCC invited at the Airmalta rebranding business breakfast, and seated on the same table with the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance? Even though Mr RCC, in his capacity as Permanent Representative to the EU, may have been involved in the discussions with the European Commission on the approval of state aid to Airmalta, which is a distinct matter from the rebranding exercise, nevertheless the man is still a disgraced former EU Permanent Representative by virtue of the parliamentary vote taken in June.
Therefore how does Airmalta invite a person and seats him with the Prime Minister and a cabinet minister as though he is still a cabinet member? RCC is not just a former cabinet member but a disgraced former cabinet member for the official parliamentary record. He was fired by parliament, and according to Lawrence Gonzi's interpretation of the parliamentary motion, he was fired on grounds of treason, and not simply voluntarily retired from the post.
It is all too clear, especially after recent events regarding JPOs request to expel RCC from the PN revealed that RCC was one of those responsible for the RJ70s and Azzura Air debacle of Airmalta, RCC wanted to show that he is still in the driving seat of the GonziPN government, or what’s left of it, and wanted to show it specifically in an event involving Airmalta, i.e. on the same turf in which his failures were exposed. It was simply a show of force by RCC.
This move by RCC does not only expose the man's arrogance, but it also belittles Lawrence Gonzi and exposes him even more as being very weak and as the one who does not call the shots. But then, in a political party which has been hijacked by a small clique and stripped it from its democratic credentials, how can one expect the "King" to be effectively more powerful and in control of the "Kingmaker"!