The conditions for sale of Maltese citizenship have not been ‘tightened’ as has been reported, but rather the opposite
Even if you didn’t actually read the fine print of what has been said so far by the Maltese government and the European Commission (and it looks like some people haven’t even bothered to do that), the biggest, clanging, loudest indicator that it is going to be EASIER to sell those passports now is the fact that the government is going to lift or raise the restrictions on the number to be sold.
If the conditions were really made tougher, Muscat would now be worried about how he’s going to find those 1,800 applicants plus families. His reaction instead was pretty much, “Wow, now I’ll raise the capping and sell more.”
What’s the factor that makes the conditions more attractive to buyers now? Why, European Commission approval, at least on paper. And what makes the conditions more attractive to Muscat, giving him a reason to want to sell even more? The European Commission’s acceptance that 183 days in Malta make a Maltese resident, and Muscat’s quick-dawning realisation that this will allow him to give them the vote.
13 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
All I can say is that Muscat reflects the following:
‘Hey foreigners, we want your money, but not you. Leave the cash and scram.’
So much for attracting talent to stay….
There is something we are not being told, either by Muscat or by the European Commission itself.
The Commission had the backing of such an overwhelming vote against the scheme by the EU Parliament. It was preparing to take legal action. It is obvious that it would not, knowingly, open the doors for other countries to copy us.
And yet, voila’, it gives the green light to Muscat and his cronies to forge ahead and even give him a moral victory through its blessing.
I am simply not convinced.
Having said this, the PN should qualify that the one-year residency requirement is not enough, is not ideal and that the scheme is still a sale and a sham. And this, regardless of the approval just given.
What one believes in is to hold true no matter how many adversities.
It strikes me as odd that this ‘minor’ amendment and agreement with the EU was not thrashed out before the catastrophic vote in the European Parliament, two weeks ago.
It’s puzzling that the team sent to negotiate – which includes a Henley & Partners representative – managed to get the EU on their side in such a short time. I’m missing something here. What’s certain is we’ve been shafted by the EU, harsh as this may sound.
I agree. Now the Prime Minister can market the scheme as EU-approved.
The PN should stick to its guns and revoke all these passports when in office, unless residency is a minimum of 5 years.
There are some legal experts that question the validity of such a move and there are others that do not; same as the case of the impeachment process of Judge Farrugia Sacco.
Exactly! The more I read the harder it becomes to breathe.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-01-31/opinions/muscat-got-exactly-what-he-wanted-3832971265/
There is no reason to believe that negotiating with Muscat 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.
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2014/01/eu-observer-reports-today-eu-commission-prepares-legal-challenge-on-malta-passport-sales/
Yet, I was happy to note that the EU Commission statement on the discussions did actually refer to the discussions being made in “good faith,” so somehow the Commission did protect itself and it can always claim that Muscat is not observing this principle in his implementation of the agreement.
This has been on my mind for a long time.
Does it in effect now mean that anyone obtaining a Maltese passport is eligible to vote… it appears to unless a clause to the opposite has been included in the law which I doubt.
If that is the case it may have serious repercussions on matters that directly impact all those who live here permanently, the former being brought on by the interests of those who may only set foot on this rock when and as it pleases them.
It might appear to be far-fetched scenario that a few thousand votes may make a difference but two elections ago we did have a situation where a mere 1,500 votes tipped the balance, so it is not an unrealistic consideration, even if I am aware of the disparity between the two parties in the last election.
Very worrying indeed.
To think that those of us who have been born on this island and are the only citizens BY RIGHT, will have our way of life decided for by those who have enough money to buy a passport and who will hardly set foot in Malta.
Shocking!
What a disappointment these negotiations turned out to be. The ‘people of talent’ are, to me, neither investors nor citizens.
Investment adds value to a country’s economy, not degrades it. The only bit of Malta the candidates are investing in is the Labour Party.
In the obvious cases, like birthright through parents or marriage to a citizen, citizenship is only incidental. For these newcomers, on the contrary, EU citizenship is the primary objective.
The scheme is a grave insult to both genuine investors and third-country nationals. Were it not dangerous, it would still be grossly unfair.
To top it all off, Muscat can claim that if the Opposition still refute this 3rd-amended scheme, they will be going against the European Commission’s blessings of the same scheme.
The man, or his consultants, is totally amoral and dangerous.
The 1,800 capping was done to create urgency by Joseph Muscat and Henley & Partners and that is why he does not want to change the capping at the moment.
Hard sales make quick money.
Hypocrisy without limit 90% of EU members voted against the scheme. A couple of days later more than 90% of the scheme was approved.
Malta’s seemingly irrepressible drive to sell citizenships through the government’s Individual Investor Programme is in stark contrast to another citizenship-related issue: that of giving Maltese citizenship to children born in Malta to stateless, asylum-seeking parents.
http://andrewazzopardi.org/2014/02/03/incredible-malta-sells-passports-to-the-rich-but-denies-citizenshipto-stateless-children-tmi/