One imagines that this scheme could be counter-productive to Muscat’s campaign for more EU support on immigration.

Why should the EU help us if we seem to have so much space that we’re selling citizenship?

Min Weber: you have been shot down by Mr Major of Henley’s who mentions sale of passports to be “in the low hundreds” per year.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20131107/local/no-cap-on-the-number-who-can-buy-citizenship-henley.493749#.Unx-yYXOeKw

That means five years from now they will be in the region of 1000 to 1500 such ‘citizens’ claiming to be Maltese. Dr Buttigieg was right and you are wrong.

Given the horrific journey and poor conditions irregular migrants go through, only to be rejected once they survive all that, I think that even if ONE person is allowed to buy a passport for 650,000 Eur, it would be a shame.

So really, I can’t understand where your problem lies.

Then we agree.

I don’t we ever had, in almost fifty years of independence, a properly articulated budget. We delude ourselves that we’re a modern European country but we’re just peasants yapping at the lord’s doorstep, fighting for scraps. Labour is just continuing in a long tradition started, notably, by the Gonzi government, i.e. Big Government As The Great Benefactor.

And why is it that it’s always the middle that get squeezed? The rich get away with everything, the poor are showered with freebies, and the rest of us, the ones who are actually economically productive, are made to pay for both.

If one sees the numbers and the economic story/growth, Malta will again require emigration not immigration.

Good answer Mrs. CG. Mrs. Buttigieg put forward a good argument: a government contradicting itself in moral convictions/policies in the same breath.

If there’s room for more people here, then how much they pay or don’t is irrelevant.

It Malta has spare room only for people with money, it cannot style itself a champion of the poor, the small and the weak.

Claudette Buttigieg pointed out the hypocrisy of Labour’s policy and the fallacies of its logic. Those are facts. How you feel about immigration doesn’t change them.

Baxxter I refrained from going into the merits of the individual measures as there are a number that I do not agree with in principle, many are gimmicks and a few are good in my opinion.

I put the positive in inverted commas for a reason. I meant I was expecting it to be much worse than it was (worse not meaning less forward looking as it can’t be worse in that sense but in terms of introducing unpopular measures and more importantly of introducing the unexpected, 8 months of labour has left me with a feeling of ‘expect the unexpected’).

Their strategy is clear; they announced the passport sale beforehand intentionally so that they only announce “good news” in the budget. Even if I fear the passport plays an important role as a revenue stream, that is no longer news, so people overlook it and just leave with the feeling that ‘ara kemm hu generuz dan il-gvern’.

Many people (make that all) I have talked to are pleased overall – and let’s face it, telling them that reducing w&e isn’t a good idea isn’t going to get you far with many people – but reminding them that this is being financed by their citizenship helps put things in perspective.

(I too am TOTALLY against reducing utility rates)

Her argument is weak.

Only a few dozen individuals will buy Malta’s passports. Just divide EUR 30 million by the cost of each passport and you will get the amount of individuals the government is expecting to buy the passport in one year.

That number will be by far smaller than the number of boatpeople getting here during that same period.

This is as clear as the rays of the morning sun.

[Daphne – Your assumption that “only a few dozen individuals will buy Malta’s passports” is wrong. An EU/Schengen passport at a low price and with no strings attached is one of the world’s most marketable commodities. Demand will be huge and supply isn’t capped. You clearly have no idea of how big and populous the world is, and what sorts of people there are in it. And Buttigieg’s argument is not about numbers, but about ethics and morality.]

And, needless to say, I was being ironic about the way I perceive my intelligence. I think that, while I am not a genius, I am intelligent enough to recognise a weak argument when I see one. And Ms Buttigieg’s was certainly weak. (For the reasons I have given above.)

[Daphne – It isn’t weak at all. Your argument, however, is affected by your quite obvious personal grudge. You have been nowhere in this debate, nowhere at all, then suddenly you pop out to attack a side-observation made by one MP. So obviously, your problem is the MP.]

Lastly, I have nothing personal against Ms Buttigieg. I don’t even know her. But, no, she is not sharp. At least, her numerical thinking is shabby, shoddy, and wishy-washy.

[Daphne – Nobody who makes a statement like that can be described as intelligent: “I don’t even know her. But, no, she is not sharp.”]

Her argument is very weak, and I would ask you kindly to refrain from damaging the PN with such reasonings put forward only to remind the voters that she exists.

It is clear that there won’t thousands of individuals buying into this scheme, perhaps there are thousands of individuals reaching our shores on boats.

Now if I, a person of average intelligence, got to this conclusion, then your average voter will get to the same conclusion, and consider the PN’s line of attack very weak and unfocussed.

The focus should be on the sleaze that there might be in this exercise, not in the social-democratic credentials of the Labour Party!

Ms Buttigieg, please get your priorities right. Thanks.

[Daphne – It is precisely because you are of average intelligence that you have reached this conclusion. The fact that your views might match those of the average voter is nothing to boast about. It was the average voter who gave us this government.

Claudette is sharper than most. Your problem appears to be personal.]