It is intolerable in this democratic environment that parliament should be denied access to the government’s contract with Henley & Partners
Published:
May 14, 2014 at 11:38pm
Denying parliament access to the contract means that the electorate is kept in the dark. This is not a democratic decision but an autocratic one.
The Opposition has made a formal request to the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise the contract after the prime minister refused to allow it to be seen by the Opposition on the grounds of ‘sensitive information’.
The Opposition replied that if the information is so sensitive that it must be kept even from parliament, then it shouldn’t be in the hands of a private company.
9 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-05-14/news/opposition-files-request-for-pac-to-discuss-henley-and-partners-contract-5001674752/
Irrespective of what other countries have individually put into practice, if approached from a EU regulatory and supervisory perspective, has citizenship now become an instrument or product of / for financial services institutions?
This report highlights a number of areas which, even if since updated, the financial services industry as a whole should have looked at with more attention:
on Towards further consolidation in the financial services industry
(2006/2081(INI))
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
Rapporteur: Joseph Muscat
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A6-2006-0170+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=en
F. whereas the role of EU and national policy makers is to set up a regulatory and supervisory framework that stimulates growth; improves the competitiveness of the EU’s economy; guarantees a level playing field; safeguards market efficiency, integrity, transparency and the stability of the financial system; and protects depositors, investors and insured persons,
…
2. Considers that consolidation in financial markets should not aim to reach a particular number of financial institutions and that it must be proportionate to competition in the financial markets;
…
9. Believes that diversity of financial institutions, which better reflects the variety of financing needs of corporate entities, SMEs and consumers, should be preserved and that, therefore, EC legislation should not favour any single type of business model or corporate structure or any single type of product over another
…
16. Points out that divergent national supervisory practices and standards may reduce market efficiency, increase the operating costs of those financial institutions operating across borders, and thus mitigate the beneficial effects of and ultimately fragmenting the single financial market;
…
The current level of concentration of markets, financial actors and infrastructures in the EU is high, and so is their interdependence. In this respect, in highly integrated financial markets, a crisis which could easily spread over national jurisdictions, turn into a pan-European financial crisis and ultimately hit the stability of the Euro and European economies, can not be efficiently tackled by national supervisory authorities acting on a solo basis anymore.
…
The current networks of national authorities of the 25 Member States comprise various supervisory and regulatory bodies with differing powers, responsibilities and level of involvement in crisis management, and the present supervisory arrangements and non-legally binding memoranda of understanding, are not adequate and sufficient to tackle a pan- European crisis caused by a failure of markets or systemically important cross-border financial conglomerates.
In this respect, European legislators should launch in-depth discussions on the appropriate structure of supervision of EU financial markets, clarification of powers and responsibilities between home and host supervisors and adequate crisis management procedures, and not wait for a major pan-European crisis.
The Citizenship Scam has reduced citizenship to a financial services product.
As such the insertion and exclusive handling by Henley of the product is one which creates unfair competition in the Financial Services sector.
What would Joaquin Almunia, as European Commissioner for Competition, have to say on this point?
The formal question is long overdue.
———-
Separately, the European Commission will need to log “good faith.”
This was missing when the IIP was left out of the election campaign in the first instance.
In the second instance – as an FS product – it is missing, yet again, in having Henley appointed and maintained as the exclusive handler of this FS product.
There has been no amendment to the bill passed into law, despite the various number of times that the matter was returned to the discussion table.
There has been no clarity over the stipulations of the agreement with the European Commission.
There has been no clarity over the Legal Notice that is meant to include these stipulations.
There have been no further amendments to the law to reflect the changes promised to the public. Parole si fatti no.
Now, there is the blatant refusal to publish the contract – which should be freely available to all citizens under the Freedom of Information Act.
There are a good number of firm points against this scam that could have first been established and enunciated in detail together with implication and phased consequence forecasting, and then at an appropriate stage, pushed ahead with before the Commission.
It is my belief that there is no time like the present.
Why would they be delaying and impeding the information release on the terms?
Why appear and act complacent about corruption happening before our eyes?
By 2006, when he was EU FS rapporteur, Joseph Muscat had already established his strategy on the IIP score.
—————
Some further questions on the question of residency where this blurs lines with citizenship:
a) How does the nature of the 183 days (technically 6 months + 1 day) effect tax residency of these new citizens?
Is Malta where they file their tax returns or send their children to school – a key factor in determining tax residency abroad?
b) Is any tax applicable on worldwide income or on income remitted to Malta?
c) Is there in place an intentional blurring in with the status of permanent resident – where residency would in effect be very quick under the new scheme as amended/ reintroduced by the Labour Government?
d) Effectively, do the changes mean that property purchase and “x” taxes paid confer the automatic right to a residence permit and ID card from Day 1?
e) In my opinion, since Double Tax Treaties /DTT’s allow a fair amount of leeway, the Maltese Government’s intention was to applying its “discretion” with this lee-way in any tax due, to control/ influence how voting is effected by these new citizens using the ID cards with “electronic features.”
f) Note the timing of the press release that informed the public of the new ID cards. This was the day after the EU “go-ahead.”
g) Malta will – if tax is indeed due but waived and nonetheless settled in and by Malta – be effectively assisting cases of tax avoidance where cases of dual citizenship exist and questions as to dual tax-residency arise.
f) The commissioner for Fair Competition should also investigate the position of Malta Developers’ Association – members of which are now unethically and directly affiliated to the Labour Party in Government.
These members campaigned visibly for changes to the Permanent Resident scheme before the elections and were also visibly assisting at the launch of the IIP scam.
Unless this is where Malta wishes to position itself for the future, the thinking was very short-term on several fronts.
—————
Bannister must have known of this way beforehand:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130428/local/permanent-residence-scheme-to-be-relaunched-by-end-of.467335#.UusZns0UXu4
Look at the build up and deceit lodged in these articles:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/national/PM-pledges-revamped-permanent-residency-scheme-by-end-of-month-20130515
http://www.malta-expatguide.com/1/post/2013/05/may-15th-2013.html
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-01-16/news/muscat-to-revise-permanent-residence-scheme-702152705/
The introduction of new Permanent Residence Laws and a comparison with the old:
http://www.move2gozo.com/buyers/item/79-new-global-residence-scheme-2013
This evening there were PN/PL debates on TVM and Xejk TV.
The people representing Labour had one mantra on their lips which they kept repeating after every criticism levelled at them by the Nationalists: the Opposition needs to stop being so negative. Look at us, we’re all about positive energy.
This is getting ridiculous. The opposition opposes. It’s in the name. And it’s not like there is nothing to be negative about. How can the opposition not be negative with all that is going on?
People need to be made aware of the subliminal messages being sent by Labour before they start repeating them ad nauseam: ‘U daqs kemm huma negattivi n-Nazzjonalisti!’
The Nationalist Party is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. When it legitimately criticises the government, it gets labelled negative and when it doesn’t, it gets labelled too soft.
What do people expect the Nationalist Party to do exactly? Organise a fancy dress party to show positive energy about being denied access to yet another contract which is of public interest? Or maybe take a lorry full of thugs to Cospicua to smash the place up to show that it isn’t soft?
The message is out there; on TV, in the newspapers, on the radio and in meetings being held around the country. People need to cut the Nationalist Party some slack, listen carefully to its message and reflect on it.
This is sensitive information and that is why parliament must know about it.
That is why Maltese citizens must know about it, because it is OUR Future this government is playing around with.
This is not democracy; this is autocracy.
No better than Russia.
Don’t worry..want to bet he will soon come out with a doctored version of the agreement..taf int wara li jnehhi ..’ The bitts which are commercially sensitif..’ Actually those are the bits we really should know about
Muscat: ”Ma ksirtx wieghda wahhhhhda li hi wahhhhhda”.
Le?
Trasparenza
Meritokkrazija
Tista’ ma taqbilx maghna imma tista’ tahdem maghna (ghalhekk fost elf li htart, tajt bicca kuntratt lil Lou Bondi halli nzeffnu fin-nofs meta nigi attakkat b’dil-weghda)
Disgusting behaviour. And then when Labour were in Opposition they constantly attacked the PN for lack of transparency.
Has something like this ever happened before? Is the government allowed to keep such things from parliament?