Joseph Muscat: “Other countries have the same scheme. But Malta’s scheme is better. And other countries do not have their own Opposition hindering them.”
Times of Malta’s online edition reports on the prime minister’s Sunday morning sermon to the credulous:
One such example was the individual investor programme, which other countries also had. But Malta’s scheme was better, and other countries did not have their own opposition hindering them, the prime minister said.
The people had initially been uncertain about this programme, and it could have been better explained by the government. But the Opposition’s methods had backfired on it, and the majority of the people now agreed with the scheme and the unprecedented economic wealth it would yield.
The government last week had its first meeting with the European Commission on this scheme, Dr Muscat said. It served for both sides to better understand each other’s position. Malta had consulted all EU member states before introducing its scheme. In the talks with the European Commission, the government was seeing the commission as an equal partner. But it was asking the Commission whether it had followed the same procedure with other countries which had similar schemes. Parliamentary Secretary Owen Bonnici represented Malta at the talks.
All countries sought their interests, Dr Muscat said. This week the EU started infringement proceedings against Germany for assisting its car companies in alleged breach of regulations. Germany had not withdrawn its cars, but had started talks with the EU.
Malta was doing likewise on the citizenship scheme.
——-
His insistence that other countries have the same scheme or similar is diabolical, as is the implication that those other countries are obstructing us only because they are jealous of the competition. Then we have his equation of his government to the nation-state, with the Opposition as an external and extraneous entity: ‘Other countries do not have their own Opposition hindering them’.
The Opposition is not hindering Malta, but the government.
Malta is not the government and the government is not Malta. The Opposition is a constitutionally-mandated ‘component’ of Malta.
27 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140126/local/government.504182#.UuW-zLA1gdU
LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS – how is it the same as MALTA’s IIP?
https://www.henleyglobal.com/countries/austria/citizenship/
Citizenship in Austria
Background and Legal Considerations
Several countries have adopted provisions that allow the acquisition of citizenship on the basis of an investment and/or a direct contribution to the state as a means of development of the country. In Austria, Art. 10 (6) of the Austrian Citizenship Act states that the government can reward foreign persons with citizenship in the event of extraordinary merit. This may take various forms, including economic ones, and can include investment or other economic benefit brought to Austria. However, citizenship is not granted on the basis of investment alone. The foreign investor must make an extraordinary contribution alongside his investment, such as bringing new technologies to the country or creating a substantial number of new jobs.
Requirements
Under the citizenship-by-investment provisions, an applicant is required to invest actively in the Austrian economy, for example in the form of a joint venture or direct investment in a business that creates jobs or generates new export sales. Significant direct investment is generally required. Passive investments in government bonds, real estate, etc. do not qualify.
This is the Cyprus program, again on Henley’s website:
Who want to argue that it is similar to Malta’s?
https://www.henleyglobal.com/countries/cyprus/
Citizenship by Investment
Under Cyprus legislation and specifically article 111 of the Civil Registry law 2002 (N.141(I)/2002 as amended) “…the Minister of Interior has the right to grant a certificate of naturalization, upon application by any alien adult with full capacity, who satisfies the Minister that he/she fulfils the criteria for naturalization according to the third table of the law.”
In 2011 Cyprus first introduced an initial Citizenship-by-Investment program, which has undergone several updates since. The Council of Ministers approved a plan on May 24, 2013 enabling foreign nationals to gain citizenship if they meet certain criteria set out by the Ministry of Interior, under one of the following options:
1. National Investment and Donation
With this option an amount of €2 million must be deposited with the Treasury of the Republic, as an investment in the National Investment Company. Additionally, €500 000 needs to be donated to the Research and Technology Fund.
2. Direct Investments
The applicant can also make a direct investment into the Republic of Cyprus amounting to at least €5 million including the purchase of real estate, businesses, shares or other financial assets.
3. Bank Deposits
With the bank deposits option, the applicant should have personal deposits in Cypriot banks or deposits of privately owned companies or of a trust (in which he is a shareholder, settlor or beneficiary) in the Republic of Cyprus amounting to a minimum of €5 million. Such deposits must be held in a banking institution within the Republic of Cyprus for a period no less than three (3) years.
4. Local Business Activities
This option of obtaining citizenship is more complex. An applicant must establish a new company registered in the Republic of Cyprus in which they have full control. Following this, the company must have paid to the Government of Cyprus an amount of at least €500,000 per annum for the 3 years preceding the citizenship application submission date.
Alternatively, if the headquarter of the company is located in In all the Cyprus and no less than 5 Cypriot citizens find employment there, the annual government fee is reduced to €350,000. If the business employs 10 Cypriot citizens or more, the amount decreases to €250,000. In all of the above cases a 3-year period preceding the application must be met.
5. Combination (mixed option)
The applicant can also choose to fulfil a combination of requirements stated in point 2, 3, and 4.
6. Impaired deposits with the Bank of Cyprus or Popular Bank after the 15th March 2013
A further option is available for applicants who have incurred an impairment in deposits on one or both of the abovementioned Banks amounting to a total of at least €3 million.
In all cases except the last option, the applicant must hold a privately-owned property in the Republic of Cyprus, the market value of which must be at least €500,000, not including V.A.T, and must have a clean criminal record.
The application procedures are not well defined. They include the publication of the applicant’s details in the government gazette prior to the grant of citizenship.
‘Malta had consulted all EU member states before introducing its scheme’
Why doesn’t any Opposition member or even a serious journalist ask for more details about these talks, like when exactly, with whom and on what level.
Minutes of these consultations should have been taken, so why can’t these be published?
They can lie, safe in the knowledge that no country’s embassy is going to rat on them. They don’t say what sort of consultation they mean, do they?
There’s a Maltese expression which describes him to a tee – wiccu u sormu xorta.
How about “giddieb”? Or is that libel?
Le, ħi, għadek ma fhimt xejn. Ara x’qallek: “One such example was the individual investor programme, which other countries also had. But Malta’s scheme was better.” Insejt x’wegħdna qabel l-elezzjoni, li Malta tista’ tkun l-aqwa fl-Ewropa.
Jien konvint li kollox kien maħdum u ppjanat minn qabel, mhux l-inqas minn Henley & Partners u l-kumpanija sussidjarja tagħhom li tagħmel konsulenza biex trebbaħ l-elezzjonijiet. U tgħid Shiv Nair, li ġie ‘blacklisted’ mill-World Bank, ma kellux xi suba’ mdeffes fit-torta wkoll?
This kind of reasoning is like when Joseph Muscat’s ex mentor, Alfred Sant, declared after the EU referendum that “partnership won”.
Il-partnership rebah.
I’m still celebrating like they told us to.
Referring to the Opposition’s pleas to reopen talks in a bid to reach consensus, Dr Muscat said: “You played this game. You played this card. It backfired and now we started talks with Europe.” From today’s Times of Malta.
Is he a four-year-old or what? Doesn’t he even realise that the EU is going to tell him the same things which the Opposition has been banging on about for weeks now?
Or is he paving the way to come out saying that he amended the scheme because of what the EU told him, and not because the Opposition told him to?
Like Alfred Sant, Joseph Muscat is starting to believe his own lies.
Call it the 25 years syndrome.
The underlying argument which got him elected was to what extent Labour had changed. Muscat was particularlty blatant, vouching personally for it, putting Labour behind him.
There we were, induced to sate our curiosity and see for ourselves, when the real question to ask was how much Malta had changed since 1987. It was implied Sant had tried and failed but this one wouldn’t for future’s sake.
One can’t help wondering whether Labour’s internal conversion process, formal or genuine may have led them elsewhere.
25 years is a long time, two generations long.
If Muscat accelerated the process to catch up, there’s a risk it was inadvertently self-referential and prone to irrational longing for acceptance. When history is rewritten, delusion becomes one of the criteria to hold onto.
One that recommends the familiar gut reaction for familiarity’s sake and comfort. Matrenza, Grixti et. al are simply vocing their concerns at his procrastination to seize authority from the PN.
Their mistake is that the PN gave this to the people for over two generations. They’re truly in a rut.
I think it’s important at this point to be logging info and details of that history rewritten and the current state of affairs.
From detailed factual report of what is known intimately to hearsay, that is the task one should be preparing in different circles. An activity with purpose.
For when it is needed.
We all need to play our part in lifting this scourge.
Details have a way of filling in gaps.
Facts, stray detail, rumour.
They have a way of demystifying illusion.
Mapping of details is cloak, shield, dagger and sword.
“Be prepared”?
For when it is needed.
I zapped to ONE yesterday, the newscaster kept going on and on with the piece, all pre-electoral.
I mean, why does one have to be reminded that il-kontijiet se jorhsu u nehlisu mit-tniggiz tal-heavy fuel oil, if the piece was about the technical reports submitted to MEPA?
What he didn’t say was that it’s practically impossible to have that thing ready by March 2015, and that Labour extended the supply of fuel oil for the next two years, an admission that conversion can’t take place before then.
For when it is needed, Tabatha.
Thank you, Jozef.
More.
At least Times of Malta is waking up to a semblance of critical reporting: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140127/local/MFSA-chairman-s-term-confirmed.504282#.UuYtUaV0NQI.
I tried to watch a discussion on TVM between Veronique Dalli and Gejtu Vella.
Well, Vella’s arguments could not be heard because if it was not Dalli who interrupted him, it was one or other of his hosts, Pablo or Manuel Micallef’s girlfriend.
So how is the PN going to tackle this problem of getting the message through, given the Labour Party policy of interruption?
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/national/Greens-hit-out-at-Busuttil-s-bid-to-render-IIP-applicants-stateless-20140127
“While Busuttil says Malta’s citizenship goes against the spirit of international law, his threat to remove passports could also fall foul of international rules that prevent States from rendering anybody stateless. In the case of IIP applicants, new citizens could have to renounce their original citizenship under the rules of their former nationality.”
Have the AD guys heard about the Rottman case?
The EU resolution, if I’m not mistaken, applies to all countries, even though it specifically mentioned Malta. If – as Muscat would have everyone believe – Austria and Cyprus’ investment schemes are identical to ours, wouldn’t the MEPs representing these countries have voted against so as not to have their own passport scheme outlawed?
Muscat’s “competition” argument is entirely deceitful, and it pains me to think that a sizeable portion of the electorate couldn’t see through this conman’s disguise. Why do we have to learn things the hard way?
“a sizeable portion of the electorate couldn’t see through this conman’s disguise”
That sizeable portion contains many who, when faced with rational analysis, have said “tohloqnix problemi.”
In other words, “don’t make my brain work overtime in trying to understand why the rational analysis is different to what I’ve been told.”
The conman presents Arcadia on a plate.
L-aqwa li Joseph Muscat said it. So many have their brains switched off.
To expect them to keep up with the gymnastics of the mind required to both analyze and keep up with lie upon lie, to refer back and compare, to project forward, to read beyond the Orizzont headlines or to listen to anything other than feel-good party propaganda is just too much.
“His insistence that other countries have the same scheme or similar is diabolical, as is the implication that those other countries are obstructing us only because they are jealous of the competition. ”
He even asked the Commission if it had followed the same procedure with other countries.
He is completely taken over by the “tu quoque” syndrome.
Am I the only one thinking that this guy never grew up beyond the age of 12 years? This tactic works with secondary school bullies, but not with grown ups.
Now I understand better why, out of all his secondary school results, Frankie Tabone insisted on showing us his Form 2c reports. In his mind he was comparing like with like.
The Labour-leaning columnist Lino Spiteri wrote the other day about the ‘individual investor programme’, and claimed that other countries have citizenship schemes, but was careful enough not to describe these schemes as “similar” or “identical” to Muscat’s. Perhaps Spiteri and Muscat should compare notes.
Perhaps they’ve long done so, and key appointments have taken this into account – directly or indirectly.
No country has an Opposition telling them “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” neither has any country an opposition telling them to follow in the footsteps of Cyprus. There is not one single country having its Opposition advising Iceland not to join the EU nor adopt the Euro for its currency.
Nor could any country have an Opposition telling it to be another Switzerland in the Mediterranean for there is only one sea bearing that name. No country has turned its prime minister into a salesman of passports, either.
” But the Opposition’s methods had backfired on it, and the majority of the people now agreed with the scheme and the unprecedented economic wealth it would yield.”
Joseph Muscat is King of Liars. What a deceitful Prime minister. He truly deserves to end up like Gheddafi.
It is the government which is hindering Malta, not the Opposition.
The Opposition is trying to stop more harm being done. That’s not hindering.
Ukraine’s Yanukovich said that the Opposition there is hindering his country’s progress in the EU.
They’re saying the same.