The finance minister says that it’s not a choice between selling passports and raising taxes, and that if the passports scheme is scrapped they won’t be increasing taxation.
The money raised from selling passports, he says in this interview with Times of Malta, will go into a wealth fund and used for specific purposes.
The budget, he says, can go through without income from passports.
However, as I recall, there was an allocation of Eur15 million from the sale of passports/citizenship included in the budget revenue (see the image marked here). When asked about it at a press conference just after Budget Day, the prime minister said that the government has projected Eur30 million from the sale of citizenship this year: half the money will go into the National Development Fund (which hasn’t been set up yet) and the other half will be included in normal budgetary revenue.
However, the bottom line is that the finance minister has contradicted the police and army minister’s repeated assertions that if passports are not sold, taxes will have to be raised. ‘Do you want to sell passports or do you want more taxes?’ Manuel Mallia has said.
Edward Scicluna says the opposite here, but that still leaves those Eur15 million in the budget unaccounted for if passports are not sold and the scheme is scrapped.
Scicluna objects to the expression ‘sale of passports’. He seems pretty earnest about it – he really does come across as earnest and straight, unlike his colleagues Mallia and Muscat, but he also comes across as trying to defend the indefensible and hating every minute of it.
The reality is that this scheme is described as the sale of passports because that is precisely what it is. Nobody is coming here to invest. They’re coming here to snap up a passport and run off to where they really want to be in Europe, doing whatever it is they wanted to do.
Dropping Eur650,000 in the till doesn’t count as investment. I’m going off to do my supermarket shopping now – does this mean I am investing in Scotts?
29 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140124/local/scicluna-says-his-citizenship-comments-were-twisted.503896#.UuIko8pwaUk
Funny how the Finance Minister, in a damage limitation exercise, is saying that the sale of citizenship scheme is just a wealth fund and has no consequences on the budget or taxes.
Whereas the Prime Minister is selling it to the people as if it his roadmap for improving living standards through better health services, education and jobs.
I think that Scicluna has been given the unpalatable job of slowly sounding the government’s retreat from this scheme.
God knows what an almighty bollocking Reding has given Muscat and Co.
He’s like a recalcitrant schoolboy being brought to heel by a no-nonsense teacher. Malajr tnehhiulu n- nejk u l-ardir li ghandu.
The poor sod, although possessing a PhD from the most prominent Canadian university, is sorely out of his depth, politically, swimming with these sharks.
As with the Minister of Health, down to the depths they go.
I think it was the PM himself who said that if the IIP is withdrawn, the public would suffer from higher taxes. Maybe I am mistaken or it is another zball of Joseph Muscat.
Deborah Schembri said on TV that if the scheme falls through, the government will have to increase taxation. Is there anybody in that government/party who can give a straight, truthful answer to anything?
Speaking of Deborah Schembri, seeing her in a debate on TVM, I was appalled by the depths reached in attitude and behaviour since joining the Labour Party after the divorce referendum. She has definitely matured to be fully fit for Labour’s SKIP.
That’s exactly what I thought when i saw her on TV
I thought the same as well. Her attitude on Xarabank a couple of weeks ago was disgusting to say the least. No wonder she went to Labour.
No.
Maybe it’s not, but it surely would have quenched Labour’s (alias, “The Footballer’s Wives’ Party”) thirst for quick money, control/power, celebrity and anything dodgy.
The learned professor is fast developing a knack for putting his foot in it.
I am trying to understand what gripped the man to address the European Parliament in the manner he did when, back home, his party, his PM was saying, basically, the opposite.
I do believe he is trying to defend the indefensible. To me it appears very clearly that Prof. Scicluna was never too happy with the scheme. He can’t be. He is just not the type. However, Mallia, being (by now we know) extremely powerful – more powerful than the PM, has won the day. I do feel that the Scheme was imposed on Scicluna rather than drawn up in tandem with him. I do feel that there is much more to this than meets the eye. Prof. Scicluna is quite clearly uncomfortable when he speaks about it. He has unleashed his thoughts in the European Parliament, so why should he now say his words were twisted?
I do believe he tried to damage the Scheme in Europe in the hope that the EU would fall upon us like a ton of bricks – and it did. After all, when he “plays” in the European Parliament, he is playing at home. Did he not think he would come under fire about doing so in Malta? I do not think he bothered, actually. Fact is, he hasn’t much to lose, does he? Besides, he knows that he is the only suitable person to be appointed to the office of Finance Minister. Who else is suitable and competent? His was a calculated risk, if any at all. It was his only way of getting back at Minister Mallia for hurling the Scheme at him without (seemingly) any consensus.
It could very well be that Prof. Scicluna never thought that the European Parliament would vote on the matter or that it would vote so staunchly and solidly against such schemes. I would surmise that it was his speech in the European Parliament which turned so many of his former former Parliamentarians against the Scheme. So, the matter might have grown beyond any expectations.
At any rate, the most interesting factor, for me at least, is that it would appear that simmering just under the surface, there is a deep disagreement between Prof Scicluna and Mallia about the Scheme. We’ll see how things develop.
One thing is certain: never a dull moment under Labour. By comparison, the Nationalists were as dull as ditch water.
To me, the situation is pretty clear.
I am morally convinced that Minister Scicluna has been called to the Prime Minister’s office and received a warning about the messy situation he created when he effectively criticised the scheme in the European Parliament.
He either comes on board the ship of fools and patches up the situation, or else he will be thrown overboard.
No one is indispensable on the ship of fools, especially when it starts to take in water.
And I start to get the feeling that Times of Malta is helping in this process.
Edward Scicluna has probably understood what Manwel Mallia finds it inconvenient to admit, even to himself.
Scicluna has understood that to publicly proclaim that the government is financially dependent on this scheme is to call into question the very legitimacy of the government.
Reminds me of Alfred Sant’s CET fiasco in 1996. Lino Spiteri knows best about this “Hawwadni ha nifhem” situation, as he himself was the finance minister at the time. Maybe Edward Scicluna should take some “good” advice from him.
Wrong, David. Lino Spiteri was against the removal of VAT. He resigned and Sant got the brilliant minister Leo Brincat to replace him and introduce CET.
[Daphne – Lino Spiteri was NOT against the removal of VAT. He campaigned with a political party whose main electoral platform and promise was the removal of VAT, and he was elected on that party’s ticket, with a mandate to remove VAT. The Labour Party’s slogan, I might remind you, was: THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO REMOVE VAT. Spiteri resigned because he didn’t get along with Sant.]
Edward Scicluna is walking the same path.
When will the court decide that Joe Debono Grech has to be replaced by Claudette Buttigieg who in turn will be replaced by the Mosta MP and Justyne Caruana replaced by a Gozitan PN candidate?
I can observe that there are MPs and ministers in the Labour fold who do not want to be seen supporting the insufferable spoilt Joseph Muscat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TnqBso1Wv8
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x19sehf_meps-criticise-malta-passport-sale-scheme_news?search_algo=1
I think that Edward Scicluna was never comfortable with this scheme.
He does not need anyone to tell him that while it might contribute to government revenue, this is not investment.
At best the revenue could be invested by the government, but that does not make it investment by the individuals involved.
The Finance Minister should crawl back into the hole where he was hiding. He should stop ridiculing himself. His attempt to give a different interpretation to what he himself told the European Parliament is not only ridiculous but it shows no respect to our intelligence.
Stop treating us like persons of no calibre, Mr. Scicluna. We are intelligent enough to know when someone is taking us for a ride.
Will this be another case of “this matter could have been handled better”? This habit of saying anything which comes to mind to answer a question, only to be contradicted by another government officer using the same tactic, is becoming endemic.
Look at what Mallia told EU ministers today, what a nerve:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/national/Mallia-asks-ministers-for-voluntary-responsibility-sharing-of-migrants-20140124
I imagine that this is what they thought as they were listening:
“So it’s not enough for Malta to sell our EU mobility and residence for €650,000 and keep the money for itself. It is insisting with us to allow mobility and residence to those immigrants who Malta would like to get rid of, because they have no added cash value. Who do they thing they are?”
Jekk din l-iskema isseh u l-Unjoni Ewropeja ma tistax tiehu passi kontrina, allura ma jistawx jaghmluha l-pajjizi l-ohra u irhas? U Joseph Muscat jerga jkollu jaghmel recalculating minn fuq ir-road map tal-GPS.
They are all the time increasing taxes and fees. Now they are also going to increase driving licences and related fees. A week ago they published a legal notice and so far no journalist has picked it up.
Simon Busuttil gave the PM a golden opportunity to change course but the PM decided to forge ahead with the scheme.
One wonders why the king of opportunism did not take the lead and come out clean. Even after the vote in Strasbourg he could have made a u-turn but he keeps insisting that he is right and every one else is wrong.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/chinas-millionaire-exodus-as-wealthy-flee-with-america-the-preferred-destination-9069551.html or perhaps some want to flee to Europe.
Joseph Muscat, Edward Scicluna, and Manwel Mallia are speaking in different languages that they don’t understand each other. The situation reminds me of the story of Babel.
Hawwadni ha nifmek.
I have just been watching a debate on Net TV. Toni Abela said that Portugal issues Portuguese Citizenship after a residency of only 35 days. I found that statement rather odd, so I checked the Internet. This is what it says:
PORTUGUESE CITIZENSHIP
In terms of the general law permit holders qualify for Portuguese citizenship after the holder has successively renewed the residence permit for a total of five years. The Golden Residence Permit is renewed three times:
One year (initial permit)
Two years (first renewal)
Two years (second renewal)
After the fifth year the permit holder may apply for Portuguese citizenship and passport, which will bestow on the holder all the rights of a EU national including free movement of peoples in all the EU member states, including the United Kingdom and Ireland.