EU Observer reports today: ‘EU commission prepares legal challenge on Malta passport sales’
There’s something I detect about EU Commissioner Reding’s personality which tells me that Joseph Muscat has done the worst possible thing in blatantly defying her, not consulting her, issuing an open challenge to her to do her worst, and being wildly rude about not going down on his knees to her or anyone else.
He’s got an all-out war on his hands.
I also detect that, as an older woman and something of an authority figure in more ways than one, she’s inadvertently pressing a wide and varied number of psychological buttons and bringing out some really deep-rooted resentments and insecurities.
The newspaper reports:
BRUSSELS – The European Commission is laying the groundwork for a legal challenge to Malta’s passport sale scheme despite red lines on national sovereignty.
The EU treaty says decisions on granting citizenship are the prerogative of member states.
But lawyers for justice commissioner Viviane Reding are looking to file potential infringement proceedings on the basis of article 4.3 of the EU treaty, which also says member states must act “pursuant to the principle of sincere co-operation.”
The logic is that if Malta sells nationality to, say, a Russian oligarch, they are, in fact, selling the right to live in all 28 EU countries, putting fellow member states at risk if Maltese due diligence fails to weed out criminals.
EU officials have dug up two files – the Micheletti case of 1990 and the Rottman case of 2008 – in which the EU court in Luxembourg ruled that citizenship decisions must be made with due regard to wider EU law.
They note that the commission cited article 4.3 in recent infringement proceedings on tax reform in Hungary, in which Hungary backed down instead of going to court.
They also note that a ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague – the Nottebohm case of 1955 – says that citizenship should only be granted to people who can demonstrate a real bond with their new country, for instance, by living there for a few years before they get their papers.
But Malta is to sell the EU passports after a vetting process of just six months, with no obligation to ever live on the group of Mediterranean islands.
(…)
33 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://euobserver.com/justice/122843
I saw it coming long time ago. Let us hope that we do not get a crash landing for it is hard to take Captain Joe 90.
http://www.hna.de/nachrichten/politik/hna-meinung/kommentar-3318217.html
I know Commissioner Reding. I worked with her. She is a true professional, politically astute and sharp on technical matters.
She will not suffer threats lightly.
Just a few years ago she reduced to tears all the European mobile operators by killing off their roaming tariffs. Some of them had a turnover larger than Malta’s GDP.
The Prime Minister’s tough words and aggressive behaviour might work well for a kazin in Bormla, but will certainly do nothing to favour Malta with Reding.
Unfortunately, Malta will stand to lose from the erosion of European relations, and I suspect the Labour government is too busy grabbing to realise or care about the side effects.
Unless, that is, the PL isn’t planning an exit. Foolish enough they surely are.
Excellent up-sum of the current impasse.
These Neanderthals (b’rispett kollu) only know how to talk on a level suitable for the kazin crowd, whisky in hand at 9am on a Sunday.
Looking forward to outcome of their ‘negotiations’ with Reding and the EC.
The legal process will take a long time and by the time the court rules thousands will have paid for the Maltese passports.
That is why it is very important for the Nationalist Party to make it clear that when elected it will annul these spurious Muscat passports.
Caveat emptor!
This report makes it clear that the Commission is taking this matter very seriously and will not let it drop.
The Nottebohm case which they refer to means that the implementation of the passport scheme could have pretty drastic consequences for us genuine Maltese citizens since our passports and nationality will become suspect.
In the Nottebohm case, the International Court of Justice held that, although under international law the conditions for the granting of nationality are within the domestic jurisdiction of a state, if these conditions were not in accordance with generally recognized principles in regard to nationality, other states are not obliged to recognize them.
The “generally recognized principles in regard to nationality” require a genuine connection between that individual and the state.
If the scheme is implemented, other states would be entitled not to recognize Maltese nationality when it does not conform to “generally recognized principles in regard to nationality”.
All Maltese passports would be under suspicion. We would have to prove that we are genuine Maltese citizens.
http://www.maltarightnow.com/?module=news&at=Marlene+Farrugia+tistieden+lil+min+ma+jridiex+fil%2DPL+biex+jag%26%23295%3Bmel+mozzjoni+biex+ike%26%23267%3B%26%23267%3Bija&t=a&aid=99853762&cid=19
Attagirl.
When she summons Joe, he will have to appear before her, like some errant schoolboy before the headmistress.
The picture is funny, until you consider that this little boy is, for better or for worse, the Maltese Prime Minister, and his shame, shames each and every Maltese person.
Ah well, if you play with the big boys, you have to be ready to take a few knocks.
When the IIP is thwarted, and a few years have passed, Muscat will admit that, with hindsight, the entire scheme was actually a mistake and that all those opposing it were actually correct. Sound familiar?
I expect this to happen around late 2017, early 2018. A stitch in time.
[Daphne – Exactly why do you think that? He’s never admitted or acknowledged that he was wrong about Malta joining the European Union. What he actually said was that, with hindsight, he realises that the Yes vote won.]
Muscat is a fundamentalist, one for whom there is only one way – his. There is no possibility of real dialogue.
Ergo, he was wrong, no? Does he have to say the words (he won’t) for the rest of us to see through that?
Super ONE had a running message on-screen for two days, proclaiming ‘il-partnership rebah!’ Right? Well It did not. Muscat ended up admitting that much.
Yes, I bet he isn’t please with this appointment either. That’s two in a row.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-01-23/news/mep-roberta-metsola-appointed-rapporteur-on-upcoming-asylum-dossiers-3767533568/
Brilliant.
Din Viviane Reding zgur Nazzjonalista.
http://www.rivistaeuropae.eu/europee14/verso-le-elezioni-europee-2014-uno-sguardo-a-malta/
The photo they chose to emblazon their article with makes me cringe.
Viviane Reding has been awarded the following prizes and distinctions:
1992 Creu de Sant Jordi (St George’s Cross) from the Generalitat of Catalonia
2001 Gold Medal of the European Merit Foundation
2004 Doctorate Honoris Causa from the Fu Jen Catholic University of Taiwan
2004 Doctorate Honoris Causa from the University of Genoa
2004 Robert Schuman Medal
2004 Doctorate Honoris Causa from the University of Turin
2005 Gloria Artis Medal of Honour from Poland
2005 Officer of the National Order French Legion of Honour
2007 Internet villain award at the UK Internet Service Providers Association Awards
2007 Deutscher Mittelstandspreis
2009 Doctorate Honoris Causa from the Sacred Heart University, Luxembourg
2010 BeNeLux Europa award
2012 Doctorate Honoris Causa from the University of Glasgow
2013 Award for furthering the destruction of the native European peoples
Equal footing eh? sure right.
She will be the next EU president.
Better Joseph takes President Abela with him and bestows on her Gieh ir-Repubblika for some excuse.
Or his new award ‘Gieh it-Torok’
2014 Aenne Burda Prize for Creative Leadership
Is the last entry in your list a mistake?
Il-Prim ried jaghmilha tal-macho. Imma nahseb li mar zmerc.
Those who the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
A legal challenge will be a waste of time. It’s tight laws that are needed.
Remember it’s the European Commission that would be the plaintiff here, not a private individual or even a corporation. You can be sure they wouldn’t undertake a legal challenge against a sovereign government unless they had a case that was as watertight as a mermaid’s brassiere.
And I know which side I would be on.
The European Commission needs to act fast. As we speak someone’s passport is most probably being processed.
By the time they actually make a ruling on this, the Maltese government will have sold many hundreds of passports behind closed doors.
But they said they weren’t going to be kept secret.
How could they lie to us?
Even if they wanted to (and that’s an enormous IF), as the law stands the scheme still has not been amended to remove the secrecy clause. Their hands are tied, poor sods.
The Schengen system requires that each member state conforms to the rules required for the implementation of the Visa Information System (VIS).
Through the VIS when a third country national requiring a visa applies for one, all other Schengen countries are automatically in receipt of the application through which process consultation kicks in to ascertain whether the visa should be granted.
If any member state has an objection, the visa will not be granted.
So if two honeymooners who require a visa to enter the EU plan to go to Italy but have had issues with authorities in Malta, the authorities in Malta can block the entry of these tourists to Italy.
It is all about collaboration and consultation in order to create a secure border.
In the unilateral sale of passports scheme there is no such system.
Once such a secure system exists for visa applicants whereby the issuing of a visa depends on the consent of all other states, how could the granting of far more privileges through cash-for-citizenship be in accordance with the Schengen agreement?
I suspect that this argument will also be used against Muscat.
The reference to the Nottebohm case is really most interesting.
It could possibly lead to other EU states adopting a position wherein they refuse to recognise as legitimate all passports issued by the Maltese government pursuant to the Individual Investor Programme, on the grounds that the recipients thereof have no genuine link with Malta, whilst continuing to recognise all other legitimately issued Maltese passports.
That would really scupper the fast one Joseph Muscat thinks he has pulled on Europe and the rest of the western world.
I reiterate, our Prime Minister cannot relate or deal with strong authoritive women. They rattle him to the core as they can see through his BS.
Viviane Reding must not underestimate Muscat’s attitude – especially his ‘tu quoque’ capabilities.
There is no reason to believe that negotiating with him is being done in good faith. One really has to look forward, sideways and behind one’s back when Joseph Muscat proposes something. There always tends to be a trap in his deals.