The Labour Party should inform its catastrophically ignorant reporters that ‘residence’ is a legal term and not a literalism
Now that all its ‘girl reporters’ have been subsumed into government service and the public payroll, the Labour Party has had to find new recruits, including one called Charmaine Something who has been chosen in the time-honoured Super One tradition for her ‘face appeal’ and sarky attitude rather than her brains and insight.
At the Opposition leader’s press conference last night, she left him open-mouthed with her unbelievably ignorant statement that people don’t have to be resident in Malta to be Maltese citizens (we know that, Charmaine, but that is not the point here), and then using the Opposition leader himself to illustrate her nutty point:
“Look at you, for instance. When you were an MEP you lived in Brussels, but you were still a Maltese citizen even though you were not resident in Malta.”
The cringe was collective. You could feel it. Somehow, I think they even cringed in the Labour Party control tower.
This Charmaine Something obviously has no idea that residence is a legal term/legal regime and that it is governed by law for purposes that range from tax, to healthcare, to voting rights to banking.
People who represent their country abroad – members of the European Parliament, for instance, or diplomats – are, according to law and for very obvious reasons, considered to be residents of their home country even if they are posted elsewhere for three, four, five or 20 years.
And this is quite apart from the fact that members of the European Parliament live between two places: Brussels and their home country.
Il-vera mara injoranta. Miskina.
I think the next report the newspapers should run is a thorough explanation of the meaning of residency and its implications at law, distinguishing between this and the other legal term/regime of ‘domicile’. The government is going to milk ignorance of the distinction between the two, and the different legal implications, for all it is worth.
30 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Don’t dare mention also the term ‘domicile’. There would be a Google shut-down with all those people looking it up to see what you mean.
Or ‘domisajl’, a new word to add to the Dictionary of the Maltese Dialect
Googling “domicile” would not do as the term has different meanings in different countries.
“Residence” has a much more uniform application.
As applied in Malta, “domicile” is closest to the concept as applied in the UK and English jurisprudence is relevant. In some other countries, it differs little from “residence”.
In our case, it is much more abstract than residence since the matter of whether one is domiciled in Malta or not hinges on the subject’s intention which is mainly demonstrated by circumstantial evidence.
One who spends 30 years in Australia but always intended to return to Malta remains domiciled in Malta. One who lives one day in Australia with the intention of never returning to re-establish himself in Malta, even if he dies on that first day, will be held to have lost his Maltese domicile and gained the Australian one.
There is English jurisprudence on this in connection, for instance, with the payment of succession duties.
The term residence under Maltese tax law means that a person is to reside in Malta for a period exceeding 180 days in any calendar year to be deemed a resident.
Therefore, the aspiring EU passport holder needs to reside in Malta for a least 6 months and not the 12 months that everybody is being led to believe.
Anyway, I am sure this has been thrashed out with the European Commission during yesterday’s discussion with the Malta delegation. Unfortunately the whole matter is now a “fait accompli” but I was wondering if these “residents” will now file an income tax return in Malta as they are now liable to tax.
[Daphne – You’re not liable for tax purely by dint of being resident in Malta. There are other considerations.]
Well, Marlene Farrugia could be in charge of that then, considering her interest in pre-sensitizing the media for her Government.
Yep, guess who’s got properties all around this place.
I understand the market for old people’s homes is saturated.
Isn’t the taxman rubbing his hands in glee at all these billionaires who will now be resident for a year?
[Daphne – No, because it doesn’t follow that residents pay tax. They might be domiciled elsewhere. There are thousands of Maltese citizens who are registered as residents of Malta but who pay tax elsewhere because elsewhere is where they make their money. That’s why double taxation treaties exist.]
It seems that due diligence isn’t actually a requirement by the EU.
Now what is the role of Henely & Partners in this scheme?
This may help her understand.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-01-30/news/reding-tells-malta-to-show-greater-flexibility-3827335172/
So what’s Labour’s reaction here, tindahalx?
It is with this type of ignorance that Labour wants to build the nation, increase its wealth and amass money to be distributed among the folk.
If this is the best Labour has to offer, then by the end of Labour administration our pockets are bound to be lighter, having paid soaring prices and taxes, than heavier with Labour`s quintessential dream of putting money in our pockets.
Here’s the Prime Minister of Malta confusing residency with domicile being quoted on The Independent.
A residency period for someone taking citizenship is a national issue and how long a person stays here is regulated by a country’s naturalisation law. Dr Muscat told the news conference that 12 months did not mean that one had to stay here 365 days. When he was an MEP, Dr Muscat said, he was not in Malta for 365 days, but he still retained his Maltese citizenship.
But that’s vintage Muscat, slip in the extraneous word at the very end.
He was in hindsight, convinced of the referendum result following the electoral defeat suffered by Alfred Sant a month later.
You tell me what he means.
Muscat, after a record-breaking four U-turns on this scheme (very appropriately named) will try and squiggle his way as usual around the interpretation of ‘residence’ to basically not change anything anything else and keep his promised time-frames with the oligarchs of evil.
You know as Alfred Sant used to say “bazwar ftit l’hawn u bazwar ftit l’hemm”.
That is the language which the Super One/GWU/Malta Today/PBS newsroom seem to understand better. Talk of ‘evil clique’!
The PN has had Muscat by the proverbial ‘b…s’ for the past months, and mustn’t let go until ALL the details of this Legal Notice are in conformity with a transparent system of residency.
And even then they have to keep an eye on the operations of the scheme as I don’t trust the buggers.
I trust also that Vivienne Reding will be kept informed. And now how about Muscat giving us the answer on whether any incognito passports have been already delivered while all this discussion was taking place?
That was truly a dumb question to ask.
She graduated last year or the previous as a lawyer.
Some lawyer. The quality of the law course must really have plummeted even further.
Imagine preventing David Casa from voting in the next EU elections just because he has ‘lived’ (I know he hasn’t for reasons you’ve already explained) in Belgium for the last 10 years.
She even asked Simon Busuttil three questions that he had already answered. He pointed out to her that he had just answered them and said “Were you not in the room when these questions were answered? I’ll repeat my replies.”
We have another Ramona in the making. Give her chance, something Labour always begs for and we will see the new Ramona in full bloom.
It was orchestrated, as usual reading from their phones.
How shallow could they get? She has no sense of comparison. She, and others like her, reflect exactly the line of thought of their own Progressive-cum-Liberal-Leader. He too is in the habit of making comparisons between Malta and other countries only for this to blow in his face at one point or other.
I was pulling what’s left of my hair at her unbelievably stupid questions. Are there more of her around or is she unique?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140130/local/pn-candidate-says-citizenship-scheme-is-now-in-the-national-interest.504829
What a tragic misuse of language. So all it took to turn something that was harmful and damaging and would spell disaster for our country, into something “in the national interest” was 183 days a year of physical presence in Malta?
Are the PN off their chock? Or are they using our inadequate language with all the finesse of a sledgehammer, as we’ve come to expect from the Maltese?
Trid tkun veru hamalla minn One biex taghmel dan it-tip ta’domandi
Hmar u injoranta tal prima klassi. Tal biki ir reporters tas Super 1
This is a confirmation that these people actually have a different DNA. The way they interpret or rather misinterpret information is outrageous.
There was case regarding Prof Arnold Cassola who was contesting his exclusion from voting since it was claimed he was not resident in Matla before the elections. I understand a person can have more than one residence, eg in Malta many have their “main” residence and also a summer residence.
[Daphne – You occasionally pop in for the sole purpose of making readers despair, David. I have come to believe that you are not a real person but a work of fiction.]
Can you imagine local council elections?
I think the public sorely needs an explanation of what constitutes citizenship, residence, nationality and domicile.
This is evident from the shockingly ignorant assumption of many people that the minimum 6-month waiting period for IIP applicants is the same as residency, i.e. living in Malta.
Many comments on Times of Malta’s online edition have been littered with this outrageous assumption and it seems that they have got their cue from equally ignorant politicians.
[Daphne – Yes, and it has been officially confirmed: 183 days in Malta and you are officially a resident. But only if you plan to buy your passport.]
Simon Busuttil’s answer should have been more direct and specific. He should have told her that he is Maltese by birth right.
Exactly, Jus soli.
Now there’s an argument against granting our new compatriots the vote.
IFTAĦ ĦALQEK U NGĦIDLEK X’INT……….