As far as I know being a resident in Malta is currently defined as spending 183 days on the island in any given year. Will this definition be changed across the board? Or will a new definition be used for the IIP scheme?

If this definition is changed across the board, I expect that there will be some very serious economic repercussions.

At the moment any company registered in Malta needs to have at least one company representative who is a “resident” of Malta.

If the requirement for residency in Malta is changed, companies would no longer need to have any real physical presence in the country and presumably they wouldn’t even have to employ anybody from Malta – effectively throwing away a good chunk of the benefits that come with having foreign investment in the country.

Not sure how much this warrants a response (as I’m sure you wouldn’t believe anything which doesn’t come out from Super One and/or Joseph Muscat’s lips), but I’ll do my best.

‘Illegal immigrants’ do not, as in any country in the world, gain the host country’s/Maltese citizenship. They arrive here, stay in detention centres (at least in the case of Malta) and, if their case of persecution is found to be genuine, then they are given refugee status, which is not citizenship. The rest, whose cases are found to have to basis for granting asylum, are sent back because they aren’t considered refugees.

The long time all such migrants seem to stay in Malta is due to the fact that finding out the facts related to processing their application for asylum is a long process.

Apart from being grossly misinformed, your argument would also have some gaping holes if it were true. Do you really think migrants would be allowed to stay in open/detention centres if they were being given Maltese citizenship as you claim? Wouldn’t granting them citizenship entail the right to vote; and which party in government would treat potential voters that way (unless it’s a dictatorship)?

Agreed, following the electoral defeat, the PN found itself at odds with the vote, which the party always upheld as confirmation of its direction and policy making.

The main argument being Labour’s credibility, or lack of. What Muscat’s doing lately, a real three card game, may have however tipped public opinion back in their favour.

The risk the PN carries is actually going back to ‘Labour ma nbidlux’, even because there’s no need for it, not when this Labour has its own unsustainable faults and insurmountable defects.

Thankfully, Jason Azzopardi saw to it that those blessed negotiations will out. The details uncovered point in one direction, they’ll do everything to bend the rules and cheat the EU Commission, cash urgently required.

Lesson learnt no.2, never subscribe to Labour’s pledge that it will ever keep its word. Or better, why should Labour be trusted because they said they would, if the PN’s position was always averse to Labour’s credibility?

Time to be consistent, and enough of the cosy cooperation, with Muscat it soon becomes collusion. The country needs an Opposition, not a caste.

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-02-02/news/manuel-mallia-pledged-to-resignif-any-residency-requirement-is-introduced-to-citizenship-programme-3845357575/

As a matter of principle the Nationalist Party should have taken the stance that no price value should be pegged to our citizenship as this is something you need to earn and not buy.

Can you tell me how do the illegal imigrants earn our citizenship? So for you PN supporters it is ok we give our citizenship for free then to give it to billioners ?

Stop crying and give Malta a break..

So now Mr Muscat has accepted a compromise ‘everyone’ should be happy. Horseshit – it’s the start of a long slippery slope – and pity us where it might end.

So do I. I’ll be blunt: does he want my vote or not?

What does he owe Shiv Nair?

There is another, quite Maltese, alive and kicking, who game-plays this chicanery to perfection.

Fact has shown, against all odds of them ever coming to light, that he does have oriental links. They have been rendered suitably invisible.

Dr Busuttil has correctly said that he is awaiting the publication of the Legal Notice before expressing his full opinion.

Grant him the benefit of the doubt.

To act out against Joseph Muscat, one is only wrong if one is rash and hasn’t taken into consideration all the possible factors. Joseph Muscat would have been smirking away at just the potential of such a muddle.

Kevin is young and naive. Don’t forget that the man has style and has pulled a good/ brilliant stunt or two. People need guidance.

Kevin may well have had a correct feel of the pulse:
How many people are complaining about the economy being stagnant?
About opportunities being safe-guarded for the in-crowd.

I feel that what he expressed was the frustration of the economy being held back by neo-Mintoffian tactics.

Today is month end and responsible employers have salaries to pay. If the economy is stagnant, how long must they wait before this translates to something else?

I believe these were Kevin’s frustrations.

This is not a normal government.

Rashness is not what we need at the moment.

Introspection for clarity of where this will lead us, and a steel resolve is.

Stamina to play out the right moves is vital.