Dak Evarist ukoll
Evarist Bartolo has said that of those Maltese citizens who live elsewhere, only the ones who pay tax here should be allowed to vote in general elections. He has misunderstood the meaning of the slogan ‘No taxation without representation,’ which was coined by the Reverend Jonathan Mayhew, who used it in a sermon in Boston in the mid-18th century. It doesn’t mean that only those who pay taxes can vote. It means that people should not be taxed unless they are represented in parliament. It is an argument against the taxation of the disenfranchised, and not an argument as to who can and cannot vote.
Evarist is still harping on about the same thing: that most of those ‘brought over to Malta to vote’ were Nationalist. I have news for Ev. They weren’t brought over to Malta. They came of their own free will, and lots of them paid the full fare for the privilege of getting here in time to vote against Labour. If those who wanted to vote against Labour were more motivated than those who wanted to vote for Labour, then that’s the Labour Party’s problem and not something for which the government can or should be blamed. Obviously, the prospect of Alfred Sant as prime minister was not enough incentive to bring Maltese Labour supporters rushing back here from their homes overseas to vote for the reds. I can’t say I blame them.
Evarist claims that 4,200 such people caught cheap Air Malta flights and came back to vote for the Nationalists. Well, excuse me Mr Prying Eyes, but how do you know for which party they voted? Were you in the polling-booth with them? Or have you just drawn your own conclusions based on social background? Funny how we have data protection in everything but voter records: the dreadful Sant actually placed on the table of the House a list of all the people he claims came over from abroad to vote PN. He doesn’t mind invading the personal space of private citizens. He only minds when people invade his, even though he’s the leader of the Opposition.
So Ev’s conclusion is that if he is elected party leader – some chance, given that he trails in all the polls – he will make sure that only taxpayers vote, except for diplomats working abroad (oh, don’t diplomats pay tax, then?) and students at overseas colleges and universities. He describes this as a ‘principle of democracy’. Now I wonder where he learned his principles of democracy: oh yes, at the feet of Dom Mintoff.
This strikes me as a return to the days when only those who owned property could vote. Now according to Ev it’s only those who pay taxes, which means only those who have earnings. So what about housewives, students, the unemployed, those on social benefits, those who are not liable to income tax because they earn a low salary (and who are most likely to be Labour supporters)? Ev – what a surprise – hasn’t thought this one through.
Oh, and there’s another thing. We’re part of Schengen now, which means that we can move around within Schengen territory as though we are at home in our own country. How is Ev, in all his great wisdom, going to chart our myriad comings and goings? How will he even know whether we live here or elsewhere? And more to the point, why on earth should he consider it the business of his political party to spy on us and find out?
45 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Big brother is watching you!
You actually have a category in your blog called “Suor Bartolo” – hilarious!
The more I read about comments like these from the likes of Evarist and about the antics of the MLP ‘electoral commission’ the more I am convinced I did the right thing in coming down to Malta to vote and save Malta from such people!
It is funny how when many Maltese emigrated, the MLP used to call them “laburisti itturufnati” , when they come back to vote they are labelled non-tax paying “nazzjonalisti” .
However it’s interesting to note a lack of response when you criticize Varist. I for one am not convinced about your criticism of him. I do not think he is the most suited to be leader at all, but in my personal conversations with him I have found him to be a very respectful and charming man. I’ve got the feeling that a number of your readers feel the same way because you don’t seem to get much feedback when you write negatively about him.
Article 57 of the Constitution provides that ‘a person shall be qualified to be registered as a voter for the
election of members of the House of Representatives if, and shall not be qualified to be so registered unless…he is resident in Malta and has during the eighteen months immediately preceding his registration been a resident for a continuous period of six months or for periods amounting in the aggregate to six months’. For the sake of completeness, the applicability of that article is controversial in the light of the Cassola judgment and the right to freedom of movement within the EU.
With that in mind, Labour’s gripe that several thousand disqualified voters may have swung the election in the PN’s favour is not entirely unreasonable. I would have little difficulty listing dozens of disqualified voters who cast a vote for the PN on 08 March if I were so inclined (which I am not). Given that the law as it stands is difficult to enforce, Varist’s suggestion that the payment of taxes in Malta is an appropriate criterion to determine whether or not a person is sufficiently connected to Malta for the purposes of voting at a general election is not unreasonable either. Far from being a misunderstanding of the mantra that led to American independence, it is a serious suggestion that merits attention in future efforts to introduce more certainty in our electoral laws.
@Slavocic – that’s not because he’s nice. It’s because he’s not in the running, and so considered to be an irrelevance.
@Justin BB – do you for one moment imagine that there is this sort of control on eligility for voting in the countries we ‘look up to’?
We should do away with this silly business of abroad Maltese by allowing an overseas postal vote like all civilised countries do. Those who are abroad would be able to vote at the Maltese embassy/consulate in their respective country. is that too difficult to ask?
@Daphne – In actual fact there are wildly varying standards of controls on voters’ eligibility in other democracies, although the standards in Malta are admittedly quite low on that scale.
Now I do not for a moment believe that our Constitution as it stands is just, or workable. I think that we should have postal votes for non-residents who have resided outside Malta for a limited number of years with safeguards to ensure that citizens who are completely unconnected to Malta do not distort results.
However, that does not justify flaunting the rule of law as all of the parties agreed, tacitly or otherwise, to do in the last election. Nor does it justify a knee-jerk reaction to a proposal that simply suggests a means to making the constitutional status quo workable.
[Moderator – ‘…citizens who are completely unconnected to Malta…’ – supposing you mean Maltese citizens, isn’t that a contradiction in terms? All citizens should be able to vote, otherwise you could have a situation where people who flee unfavourable policies in their country are unable to vote out the government that enforces those policies.]
@ Justin BB
“With that in mind, Labour’s gripe that several thousand disqualified voters may have swung the election in the PN’s favour is not entirely unreasonable. ”
Unless you have facts and figures, showing how the “disqualified” voted (PN and not MLP), yours is a very unreasonable assumption. Or are you implying that only PN supporters are capable of studying/working/living abroad? Which would mean that in your opinion MLP supporters are not capable of doing so. You are some champion for the MLP Justin BB, if you arbitrarily decide that membership in the MLP automatically excludes you being able to hold your own outside Malta.
But I think we can see what’s behind your feeble attempt at proving that the “disqualified” voted voted PN over MLP can’t we? It is a case of trying to diminish the PN’S victory by casting doubts about its validity. So let me make it clear. MLP lost. PN won. Live with it, and move on.
@Moderator – you’re right that there was a contradiction in terms when I said ‘completely unconnected’, but I was talking about a real political connection, not a fictitious legal connection. I’m not sure I agree that citizens should have a permanent right to vote. For example, the UK has a fifteen year bar which seems reasonable to me.
@Vanni – Not that is any of your business, but perhaps you will be enlightened by the fact that I have never voted for the MLP, and I am unlikely to do so next time round considering the prospects. I am simply having a discussion that is not completely blinkered by partisanship. As for the facts, you can ask any PN strategist or use you own common sense/eyes – the vast majority of overseas voters were PN supporters. That does not mean that MLP supporters are incapable of working or studying abroad. In fact the only assumption of across-the-board MLP ignorance is evidenced in people who will not respect an argument simply because it emanates from the Labour camp.
“All citizens should be able to vote, otherwise you could have a situation where people who flee unfavourable policies in their country are unable to vote out the government that enforces those policies.”
The moderator makes a valid point here. And of course, ditching that embarkation cards nonsense was the right decision.
However, I think we should remember that many of the Maltese migrants who left the country decades ago are still citizens of Malta. Under the current rules of dual citizenship, their children and grandchildren, who may have never even have visited Malta, may also qualify for citizenship. So shouldn’t they also have the right to vote in our national elections?
In this context, saying that a person should vote in the country where s/he qualifies to pay tax (even if s/he doesn’t actually pay any tax!) is not an unreasonable statement.
Fausto Majjistral has noted that those who work for the EU and its agencies are considered as being still resident in their home country for tax purposes, so they would retain their right to vote under such a rule.
In anticipation of the moderator appending his/her comment to my post, I stress that I do not claim to have the last word on this issue – I’m just thinking aloud to keep the discussion going.
So on the one hand AS and EB are claiming that unqualified people were brought over to vote, while the MLP election report complains that no arrangements were made to fly in Labour-leaning workers from Dubai.
So it seems that the MLP is not claiming that the PN cheated, but that the PN is better at cheating than the MLP.
@ Justin BB
Again:
“As for the facts, you can ask any PN strategist or use you own common sense/eyes – the vast majority of overseas voters were PN supporters.”
Put up or shut up. Getting hot under the collar won’t give substance to your argument.
Where are the hard facts and figures that support your statement?
@Vanni – There are obviously no hard facts and figures because they are not available to the general public, and because nobody followed us overseas voters into the booth (yes, I am one of them as is most of my family and dozens, if not hundreds, of my friends and acquaintances). I have spoken to PN strategists, who could confirm my view if they were short-sighted enough to do so publicly. I also know the profile of overseas voters. That is as far as I can put up, which to the reasonable mind should be enough. However, I will most certainly not heed to your rude suggestion to shut up when I am simply having a civil discussion on which we happen to disagree.
Yes, the MLP claim has more than a hint of sour grapes after the fact, but that does not mean that it is completely unreasonable. It does not mean that the election result is invalid; it simply means that the parties did not play by the rules (perhaps because they could not, given that it is nigh on impossible to prove where one has been without stamps on one’s passport).
Our Constitution does need to be amended because it cannot be enforced, it is not enforced, and because it is unjust. However, it is still the law of the land. In that context, Varsist’s suggestion is worth considering within a wider argument that takes other suggestions into account, including that of our moderator.
So you have no proof. Therefore you are basing your whole argument on an assumption. So we can safely discard it.
Naturally you also could not bring evidence from Stamperija to support your view, not cause they won’t talk, but because if true, it is an assumption (if people have been away from the island for some time, how can they know how they might vote?) on their part, and therefore, can also be classified as hogwash.
You wrote you know the profile of overseas voters. Fine. Naturally you have some form of documentation/proof to support your study of the profile. May we have them?
Vanni, do you think, or assume, that overseas voters are in the vast majority (i) manual labourers who Elcom (the PN’s electoral office) charitably worked day and night to bring to Malta to vote because they assumed that they would vote for the MLP; (ii) university graduates who have been away more or less since we joined the EU and whose vote the PN thinks it can count on?
Discard what you will, but the more important fact remains that our Constitution needs to be amended and there are several valid proposals that we should consider. My view is that it is difficult to justify allowing somebody who has resided outside Malta for more than fifteen years to vote. Having lived in Scotland for almost four years, I can confirm that one does lose touch, despite reading newspapers and blogs daily.
Dear Justin BB
I am not assuming anything. You are doing a fine job in that department. What I am doing is pointing out that your argument is a castle of cards built on a foundation of sand, and thus cannot be a valid argument. You may twist and turn in your reasoning, but the foundation still remains a non starter. Your position is a pointless exercise in propping up the indefensable.
Interestingly, it is clear from your feeble attempt at sarcasm, that you lump all “manual labourers” as MLP supporters. Another insulting assumption on your part.
No Vanni it is not a an insulting assumption; the majority of manual labourers (no need for inverted commas) support MLP, and the majority of university graduates support PN. These are sociological facts. It is also a fact that most overseas voters are university graduates, and europhiles for that matter.
Political parties get out the vote in constituencies that they consider to favour them. For example, is it racist for democrats to work to get out the African-American vote? Do they assume that all African-Americans are not republicans? No, they do not, but they rely on historical and polling data to make an informed assumption.
Now I will leave the last word to you because I have better things to do than discuss with somebody who prefers to first assume that I am an MLP apologist, and then to completely miss the point of everything I say simply because it does not suit a particular partisan vision.
Lovely lovely lovely. Here we go again.. the apologist and the antagonist – the usual story. Cannot help but throw in my thoughts (or reflections, or as it is more fashionable these days MY OPINION).
Vanni – you’re missing the point. You’d still miss the point if it stood naked infront of you jumping up and down on a table shouting “I’m the point you obtuse nincompoop”. (with apologies to Rowan Atkinson)
Why? Because you cannot take the fact that someone else wrote in and – here’s the bit that gets me laughing – actually said that Bartolo’s statement could be reasonable. JBB did not even say Bartolo is right – he said he is reasonable – that there is a case to be made – whether you agree with Bartolo or not. I quote the blog owner here: “Grow up won’t you?”. Na na na na the lejberites lost the election so nananana whatever they say is bull unless you pull out the FACTS. (always assuming that Jbb is a labourite – which he is not).
Fact: There were a large number of voters coming from abroad.
Fact: I could not give two hoots if they voted PN, MLP or if, like me, they voted AD this time round.
Fact: The real issue is that the laws as they stand would have prohibited the vast majority of voters living abroad from voting – had any of the MLPN decided to challenge them before the court.
Fact: MLPN agreed not to challenge any of the voters’ right to vote. (and oh do we owe them for that – they own our right to vote it seems).
Fact: A suggestion by Bartolo to change the system could set the standards for a discussion – an open a discussion – and jbb was correct in replying that this was not necessarily something to ridicule but more a basis for future discussion.
Fact: Our laws on voting rights could be challenged in the future before the constitutional court. Especially given that prsons working for international institutions will never acquire voting rights elsewhere and there is a strong case for arguing that they have an animus revertendi (nothing to do with ghosts or priests vanni). A proviso in the law allowing such nationals who work for international institutions voting rights would not be a crazy proposal (also in reply to Varist, these citizens do not pay tax to any particular country so should they relinquish their vote altogether?).
Of course given a choice between healthy discussion and suggestions on the one hand and name calling, labelling and assumptions of intention on the other we all know where the good old Catholic Latin Real Maltese Nationalist Victorious Voter (not my words… listen to the hymn) will swing.
Give us a break will you… and a word of warning in advance… I am not an AD supporter… I am a vastly superior intelligent voter, unmarried and in favour of divorce, I support Juventus, would love the total emancipation of women and strongly believe in the househusband model, I hate driving automatic cars, I find leeks absolutely horrendous, cannot stand hunting and hunters, I think DCG is big-headed and writes columns to please nationalist fetishists, and travelling and eating are my hobbies. Did I say I love sarcasm and irony and that I love to write tongue in cheek pieces? Don’t know which of these is relevant but I thought I might spare you some assumptions before you hit back and play the man not the ball.
To quote a phrase often used on my blog during elections: “I’m out of here… and won’t be back for some time”. (Most times they’d be back before you could say “Nationalists are losers too”)
Assume all you want, but in the end you have not given any shred of proof to prop up your theory. Therefore both you and Varist (the originator of this idea, if I remember correctly) made what are, and will remain, unsubstantiated claims.
Funny thing is that Varist never let on that a close relative of his, came over to Malta to cast her vote. I am sure she voted PN.
@ Jacques René Zammit
I couldn’t give a toss if they voted for Peter Pan. And I suggest you read Justin’s posts properly before shooting from the hip. He insists on proping up his argument by assuming things. I am not querying his opinion that these restrictions should be abolished, but am certainly taking issue with his opinion that most of Maltese living abroad are PN.
I am happy that you believe you are a superior intelligent being. That can’t be because you are a Juve fan, cause that makes us equal. Can’t be either because you have a blog, ’cause (and without going into detail, no need to advertise ;)) I also have my own platform on the net. In fact the similarities do not end there, but I am not seeking publicity.
But let me ask you something, do you groan and strain when taking a crap? Cause that makes you definately not a superior animal, old bean.
And here we have two prime examples of people who flew to Malta to vote against the government, not for it: my frenemy Jacques Zammit who flew in from Luxembourg to vote AD (after much very public agonising on his blog) and Evarist’s daughter, who flew in from England to vote Labour.
I currently reside in France, and have been away from Malta for 8 years now. I’m a Maltese citizen, and do not have dual citizenship. I cannot vote for the French PResident, and when I resided in the UK, I could not vote in the general elections. If as is proposed, I cannot also vote in Malta because I pay taxes in France, that makes me disenfranchised. I think the constitution needs to be amended to allow all those who are ONLY Maltese citizens to vote in Malta. Those with dual citizenship AND residing in the country of their second citizenship are enfranchised in that country and thus cannot vote in Malta. How you police this system is another matter!
@Vanni. I read while I crap. Useful for catching up. I miss having a hard copy of the papers for that purpose… they prove to be handy beside the throne. Glad to see you are a Juve fan… there’s hope yet. I’m almost tempted to go into the crapping metaphor but I’m afraid all we get is more bull…
…as for the DCG’s comment – agonising is not how I would put it. It was a public demonstration of considerations that a voter makes (or is forced to make) when reaching his decision. It’s not as pleasant as listening to a tesserat explaining why he will vote but having said that I wish there would be more of that careful consideration in the future.
I voted for the third party because given my personal circumstance that was MY top priority. I am not sure who I would vote for next time round.. which in my books is a pretty good starting place since deciding 5 years from the next vote would be quite dumb. With more people like superior me, we would have parties polishing up their act double quick and they would stop taking many people for granted. That includes you Vanni… whether you are crapping or not.
P.S. I did not vote against anyone. I voted for my preferred choice. For and against is football speak. Which side do you support Daphne?
“I voted for the third party because given my personal circumstance that was MY top priority. I am not sure who I would vote for next time round.. which in my books is a pretty good starting place since deciding 5 years from the next vote would be quite dumb. With more people like superior me, we would have parties polishing up their act double quick and they would stop taking many people for granted.”
Bully for you, but, if you forgive my saying, I couldn’t give a sh**. Who you vote for is your own decision, and your personal right. I would support your right to vote be it for PN or MLP or AD, anybody actually, yep even Lowel. You could even use your vote in lieu of toilet paper, as far as I am concerned. But YOU will have to live with your decision, and not me. In other words, as long as it makes you happy, who am I to begrudge you your pleasure?
Res ipsa loquitur. (and you’re forgiven).
Itis apis potanda bigone (and so are you :p)
Funny I knew it this way “Itis apospot undabigone”. Must be a different accent or dialect. :)
Must be the Luxembourgian influence, Jacques. Dead give away is the und – very germanic. Aber ist scheiß egal.
Steven: Good point about being doubly disenfranchised, especially for those who live in countries where naturalisation is not easy, even for those who have lived and worked there for several years.
It’s not easy to draw a line – I know people who have lived in the US for over 30 years, but have retained their Maltese citizenship.
One could consider a combination of criteria, say, using residence for tax purposes together with a 15 (20? 25?) year rule so that people don’t lose the right to vote as soon as they move overseas. (Under the current law, you lose this right within 18 months.)
The other interesting point is distinguishing between those are citizens by birth, and those who ‘inherit’ citizenship, without actually ever residing here.
One idea would be for the former to have a right to vote that they only forfeit after a number of years away from Malta (or never, depending on your point of view), while the latter would only acquire voting rights if and when they take up residence in the country.
BTW the ‘residence for tax purposes’ argument can be used in the opposite direction as well, giving *all* residents (not just citizens) the right to vote in national elections. The xenophobes would be out in force against that one.
‘Itis apis potanda bigone’ is correct (well, it’s not, but you get my point).
I’d also like to point out that even though I do not pay taxes in Malta, decisions made by the Maltese government affect me as a Maltese Citizen, so why should I not get a say in that?
Steven: no one doubts the force of that argument.
The question is whether there is a line to be drawn, and if so, where to draw it.
Should there be a line drawn? Let’s say I remain in France for the next 25 years. I continue to be a Maltese citizen, and do not opt for French citizenship. So I have been away from Malta, and not paid taxes in Malta for over thirty years. If a political party decides to run on a “Get Malta out of the EU” ticket, then that affects me still, but someone has drawn the line at say 25 years. That’s why I think there should be no line. As long as I am a Maltese citizen, then I must have a say in the way a government dictates what that citizenship means. Perhaps we need to look at citizenship, but as long as I am a Maltese citizen (and I can’t see any law requiring me to renounce it!), then I should have a say in who represents me in the world stage.
@ Justin’s first contribution. Could you elaborate on what it is that you find reasonable and serious in Varist’s thesis that what links a Maltese person living abroad to their homeland is solely the fact that that person pays taxes in Malta and that this taxation proviso is to be seen as the criterion for eligibility to vote? According to this reasoning a postgraduate student undertaking studies outside Malta would become ineligible to vote which makes me somewhat confused as to what has motivated Justin to come to Varist’s defence. The logical link a Maltese person living overseas has with their homeland is the fact that that Maltese national potentially will return to Malta months or years following the election – that person is in effect determining who will be the government of the country they could be residing in. It is unreasonable to argue the way Varist argues as his starting point is not to analyse who should be entitled to vote but how to get the 1,500 majority to switch to Labour – this is far from being serious and reasonable. Indeed he has found a quick fix solution which will see the Justins out there ineligible to vote.
I will throw in an assumption of my own making – Maltese living abroad keep themselves more informed about their homeland than when they are actually living in Malta. Their vote is therefore an informed one and driven by what I consider to be a noble sentiment – choosing what they believe is a government which will be for the good of the country they used to reside in and may very well return to. Why Justin and Jacques have come to the defence of someone who wants to deny so many Maltese that right and have attributed reasonable views to one which has no logic to it is baffling to me. Has your drive to criticise Daphne rendered you unable to distinguish a logical argument from a partisan one which is devoid of any reason?
@PR – It’s all about context. Varist’s proposal was made in the context of the current provisions of our Constitution which, as I understand it, are less generous than the proposal that he made. The present constitutional provisions are not capable of enforcement insofar as people who travel within the EU are concerned and Varist suggested that the payment of taxes in Malta should resolve the current dilemma. Daphne mischaracterised Varist’s proposal as a misunderstanding of the mantra ‘no taxation without representation’ and I took issue with that because it struck me as intellectually dishonest.
The point is that we do need to discuss the extent to which non-resident citizens may vote. My view is that we must draw the line somewhere. I think that the UK position that limits voting to persons who have been resident outside the UK for less than 15 years is reasonable. Residence in Malta for taxation purposes might be one of the easier ways of policing that 15-year limit.
The point is that we do need to discuss the extent to which non-resident citizens may vote. My view is that we must draw the line somewhere. I think that the UK position that limits voting to persons who have been resident outside the UK for less than 15 years is reasonable. Residence in Malta for taxation purposes might be one of the easier ways of policing that 15-year limit.
A Maltese remains a Maltese, unless he chooses otherwise. Who are you to deny a fundemental human right for a Maltese citizen? Mentioning things that happen in other countries does not make them a good idea.
BTW, let us assume that a Maltese person lives abroad for more than the limit. This person has no vote in his country of residence, and no vote in his country of origin. As far as being a voter, he is a non person, on the same footing as an illegal immigrant.
And what happens when a person lives abroad, but still pays Maltese tax on the income (rents, interest accrued from bank accts etc etc)arising from Malta. Can he still vote?
Vanni voting is not a fundamental human right and, even if it were, no right is unlimited. It is not me, or Varist for that matter, who is proposing to limit that right – our Constitution has always limited the right to vote to people who are resident in Malta and who spent at least 6 months in Malta in the 18 months prior to registration in the electoral register.
I don’t think that the 15 year limit is a good idea simply because it is done in another country – I think that 15 years is a reasonable cut-off point to make the electoral register representative of people who are actually affected by the result of an election. Of course any cut-off point is going to be arbitrary and open to criticism.
As for your last question, I’m not a tax lawyer, but as I understand it paying some taxes in a country does not necessarily make you resident there any more than paying VAT does when you buy goods and services on holiday.
Justin BB
Start reading:
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b3ccpr.htm
and:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm (Article 5 C)
As you see voting is not only a human right, it is considered a duty.
You wrote:
“Of course any cut-off point is going to be arbitrary and open to criticism. ”
And I can immagine that it can be successfully challenged.
” Varist’s suggestion that the payment of taxes in Malta is an appropriate criterion to determine whether or not a person is sufficiently connected to Malta for the purposes of voting at a general election is not unreasonable either.”.
Those are your words. What I did was give you an example of a Maltese person paying 15% witholding tax in Malta on Bank interest. That automatically gives him the right to vote, according to you and Varist. Apart from the fact that it opens a new can of worms, inasmuch as it could be construed as limiting votes to those who are well off (an amusing concept coming from Varist, a socialist), it automatically excludes all those who do not have a way of being taxed. Let me give another example. I have an acct in my name, which is taxed. My wife hasn’t. So I am more equall (to Varist at least) than my wife.
Vanni thank you for providing that literature, but unless you happen to know something that the University of Malta and the University of Aberdeen have failed to teach me over the past ten years of my legal education, the instruments you invited me to read do not create a fundamental human right to vote. Yes, we do have a right to vote, and we cannot discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, but that does not make voting a fundamental right.
As for the second part, I stand to be corrected, but as far as I know, being resident for the purposes of taxation does not mean that you actually pay taxes so it seems that you would not be more equal than your wife. Nor does it mean that having a bank account makes you resident in Malta for the purposes of taxation.
A afterthought: for the sake of completeness, and before Vanni comes at me with another reading list, even those who make the case that voting is a fundamental human right will readily admit that the said right can be limited on the basis of residency.
“even those who make the case that voting is a fundamental human right will readily admit that the said right can be limited on the basis of residency”
Why “can be limited” ? Why should they be? What are the Varist supporters afraid of? Maltese are Maltese, and that is it. And unless they wish to renounce their right to vote, Varist, and his supporters, should not hinder that right.
I have no intent into going into banking law. However you still seem to support this idea that taxation entitles you to vote. I have given you a clear example of how unfair this is (and impossible to regulate),when owning a bank acct. It was an example, but let’s change it to rent arising from property (or cnus). Does that make richer people more eligable than poor people?
No Vanni, it is not a matter of rich and poor – residence for the purposes of taxation means that because you are deemed to be resident in Malta you must pay taxes, if any, in Malta. Whether you have an income or not, you will have a right to vote because you would have to pay taxes in Malta if you had an income: ‘”resident in Malta” when applied to an individual means an individual who resides in Malta except for such temporary absences as to the Commissioner may seem reasonable and not inconsistent with the claim of such individual to be resident in Malta’ (Income Tax Act). In other words, you are not resident in Malta simply by virtue of the fact that you receive some income in Malta, and you are not excluded from residency simply because you do not receive any income.
As for whether or not the right to vote should be limited at all, we have a genuine disagreement. You seem to think that any Maltese person should have the right to vote until they renounce citizenship (Note that they presently do not. See Art 57 of the Constitution). I think that residency or domicile are more appropriate connecting factors than citizenship or nationality because the former are freely chosen and based on a factual connection rather than a legalistic one. I do not think that somebody who has no connection to Malta, save for the accident of citizenship or nationality, should affect the results of elections. Both views are arguable and we will just have to agree to disagree. That being said, we both seem to agree that Article 57 of our Constitution needs to be amended because its present provisions limit the right to vote intolerably, and (in my view) because it is difficult to enforce.
Finally, please do not persist in labelling people. I am not a Varist supporter – I happened to think that, whatever his motivations may have been, he made an arguable case rather than a ridiculous argument. Nor am I an MLP apologist or anything of the sort. Like most readers of this blog and Daphne herself, I happen to think that George Abela would make the best leader of the MLP, but before I become a ‘George Abela supporter’ in your book of facile labels, I have serious reservations about him too: he was one of the prime movers in the ’96 campaign that gave us CET, pandering to the hunting lobby, Svizzera fil-Mediterran, the politicisation of criminal procedures, etc. That being said, he stands head and shoulders above the rest of the contenders in my book.