After the government’s negotiations with the European Commission, the situation for Malta is worse than it was before, not better
I did not have a column in The Malta Independent today. It will be published tomorrow instead, because it is on the subject of the government’s negotiations with the European Commission, announced late yesterday evening.
That is also the reason why I have not written about the subject on this website. What follows is an excerpt from my column for tomorrow, to get the discussion going. Please read the rest in The Malta Independent in the morning.
———–
When the prime minister said that the aim of his government’s talks with the European Commission was to persuade them not to interfere, he meant it. And that is exactly what he did.
He chucked them a sop of a one-year residency, which means nothing because it is exactly what we had before, the European Commission used this as an escape clause from the hassles of a full-blown law suit or infringement proceedings, and Muscat got exactly what he wanted – the scheme he already had – with the major bonus of European Commission ‘approval’.
And over and above that, he has used his concession to the European Commission, which is no concession at all, to raise or remove the restrictions on the number of passports he will sell. It is no longer going to be 1,800 families. It is going to be more.
So he has kept the scheme he already had, got the European Commission off his back, and beyond that, has used all this as justification to sell even more passports than he told us he would sell.
(…)
Those who say that the citizenship scheme is now a good one because it is tied to residency have lost their minds or were never bright to start with. Or they are spectacularly naive. The government was never going to agree to tie the sale of passports to residency and in fact, it has not.
The prime minister said, loud and clear in his press conference, that a one-year residency does not mean the person has to live in Malta for one year, though “it does not mean that he won’t come to Malta at all”. He also issued a warning salvo to the European Commission: “The European Commission agrees that residency is a matter of national competency,” he said. In other words, we define residency, and ruddy well stay out of it if we decide that a person who is resident in Malta for a year need only spend a day on the island.
The prime minister said that the passport applicant’s residence status will begin as soon as he rents a flat or buys one in Malta, whereupon his Maltese ID card will be issued. He can fly right out again and never return to that flat and after a year, exchange his Maltese ID card for a Maltese passport and citizenship.
———–
In other words, this latest amendment to the scheme is no amendment at all. The same situation will prevail as previously. The person can rent a flat and fly straight out of Malta, but the difference is that we will now give him an ID card and call him a resident to shut the European Commission up, even though he is not a resident at all in real terms.
Muscat has already set the Facebook mantra scene by giving people the argument to use for justification: that he and the leader of the Opposition were residents of Malta even though they lived in Brussels. False logic: but when has that ever stopped somebody clutching at straws to defend the indefensible?
1. He and the leader of the Opposition have Maltese citizenship as their birthright and irrespective of where they live. They will have it even if they emigrate permanently to Australia and take on Australian citizenship as well.
2. Diplomats, government envoys and politicians serving Malta while living elsewhere retain their legal status as a resident of Malta. That is why they don’t lose the vote even if they live away from Malta for 20 years.
70 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Kevin Plumpton prospective PN MEP candidate should withdraw or be withdrawn.
I can understand why Joseph Muscat came to this agreement with the European Commission, but I cannot for the life of me understand why the European Commission came to this agreement with Muscat.
If the Commission was concerned about the Maltese citizenship scheme, why would they accept a cosmetic 1-year residency which is no residency at all, just to avoid the hassle of infringement proceedings and/or a full-blown lawsuit? Isn’t that what the Commission is there for, after all?
But isn’t the system discriminatory?
To get Maltese citizenship if you are married to a Maltese you need to be a resident for 5 years.
If you buy your citizenship, you need to be a resident for 1 year.
Yes.
What a smoke screen.
So effectively, the government can issue an identity card or a visa to a Henley and Partners client and when a year has gone by, the residency criteria will have been satisfied irrespective of where that person has been living.
Done and dusted.
Under the new permanent residency scheme which has been appropriately renamed, the residence permit is available pronto upon fulfillment of two easy conditions.
I guess Kasco neglected to inform the EU commission negotiating team of this loophole.
Right. Now go and explain that to the Leader of the Opposition and MEP candidate Kevin Plumpton, because I bloody give up.
The former said that the Opposition’s position has been vindicated, and the latter has gone all the way and has declared this massive conspiracy to be “in the national interest”.
A 183-day residence requirement does not turn night into day, and bad into good.
If Kevin Plumpton was previously objecting to the scheme on the grounds of the disastrous message to investors that Malta is starving, then he should know that nothing at all has changed on that count.
And if the Leader of the Opposition was previously invoking the EU as our “shield” against this evil government, then he should know that the shield is no more, and there is no one but him to put up some form, any form, of opposition.
The crooks and scoundrels from the Gulf States, Central Asia and China can still get their Maltese and EU passport. To the Chinese billionaire’s minder, we are still chicken thieves. And to anyone with an ounce of intelligence, this scheme will do jack shit for the Maltese economy.
Plumpton belongs to the Gonzi Generation (or ‘Gonzi Generation’, ain’t we cool?), which was so fond of chucking about glitzy phrases like “attracting investment”. It’s all a bunch of bullshit marketing spiel. Define investment, and then we can talk.
If Plumpton thinks that 650,000 Euros divided between Henley & Partners and some secretly-administered Maltese government fund is the definition of investment, then he shouldn’t call himself a Christian Democrat or whatever it is they call themselves nowadays. I think I’ll be giving his name a miss come May.
Dr Busuttil’s statement significantly weakened the position of the Opposition.
It has demonstrated a lack of consistency. The PN were against the outright sale of citizenship and demanded a minimum 5 year residency requirement.
The long term requirement would place obvious burdens on the investor but would work out for the good of the country in terms of spending time and money here, employing people, injecting capital into the economy, building links to Malta and so on.
I feel cheated by Dr Busuttil’s statement.
Dr Busuttil has correctly said that he is awaiting the publication of the Legal Notice before expressing his full opinion.
Grant him the benefit of the doubt.
To act out against Joseph Muscat, one is only wrong if one is rash and hasn’t taken into consideration all the possible factors. Joseph Muscat would have been smirking away at just the potential of such a muddle.
Kevin is young and naive. Don’t forget that the man has style and has pulled a good/ brilliant stunt or two. People need guidance.
Kevin may well have had a correct feel of the pulse:
How many people are complaining about the economy being stagnant?
About opportunities being safe-guarded for the in-crowd.
I feel that what he expressed was the frustration of the economy being held back by neo-Mintoffian tactics.
Today is month end and responsible employers have salaries to pay. If the economy is stagnant, how long must they wait before this translates to something else?
I believe these were Kevin’s frustrations.
This is not a normal government.
Rashness is not what we need at the moment.
Introspection for clarity of where this will lead us, and a steel resolve is.
Stamina to play out the right moves is vital.
So do I. I’ll be blunt: does he want my vote or not?
The absentee resident argument is not a new one. It is a variation of the one Muscat’s mafia has used all along: “new citizens will be exactly like descendants of Maltese emigrants – citizens of Malta who live elsewhere.”
Except that now they’re “resident” in Malta, they’ll also have a vote which Muscat can use to keep himself in power.
We know the script. It’s the one he wrote before the election. His pre-election Evil Clique narrative has turned out to be his roadmap.
There could be a way out of the vote.
Ensuring one’s citizenship doesn’t render it a free vote. Whichever way I vote or don’t, I remain a citizen.
I understand the vote to be a consequence not the other way round.
Which gives one an idea where rights stand with Muscat.
The question now remains: what will the European Commission do about it and what will happen to Malta?
Well, well… put it this way.
If they can issue ID cards so quickly for these people that means they will be able to reduce the horrendous waiting times for normal citizens.
Right?
http://euobserver.com/justice/122925
A case of discrimination has now been created with the negotiations agreed yesterday with the European Commission. Why does a foreign person married to a Maltese have to wait five years to apply for citizenship?
The one year residency should apply in these cases as well.
Some will say that such cases are different from the scheme. It will only be a matter of time that it is challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.
Privitera’s at it already; Plumpton fell for it.
Explains yesterday’s questions by Labour journalists, an obsession whether Busuttil intends to remove the judicial protest.
Meantime, no way is Muscat publishing the juicy bits. That leaves him free to twist facts and approximate figures.
This has to be the slimiest prime minister we ever had.
Not only the European Commission, but he also managed to get Simon Busuttil to agree that this is what was required, without changing anything this third time round.
As he said – the amendments are minor.
Simon Busuttil never said anything of the sort. If anything, he outlined discrepancies.
This is simply version 3.0.
(When you can’t beat them…)
Are the applicants for a passport going to have to fill in all the forms and present them like everyone else who has applied for a residency in Malta?
This should take longer or is the vetting going to be express?
And there’s another thing that nobody seems to have honed in on.
The legislation regarding IIP which is in place at the moment is the one that allowed ‘the chicken thief saga Chinese man’ to come to Malta to pick up his passport. The current legislation neither requires disclosure of names nor investment in property or government bonds.
My point is that the government can drag its heels to amend the legislation to meet the new criteria set by the EU. By which time, we will never know who or how many people have acquired citizenship under the original legislation.
Excuse my ignorance, but will these new citizens be eligible to vote as well? If in the affirmative, that’s an extra several thousand votes for Labour.
My thoughts exactly. I feel so let down by the European Commission. I do not understand this continuous harping that Muscat has had to bend before the EU because it does not seem so at all.
On the contrary, he now has the blessing of the European Commission to steamroll over Malta. The future is indeed bleak for Malta as I am sure the 90% of European Parliamentarians who voted against the scheme are still of the same opinion as no substantial changes have been made.
A mere one year residency, and questionable at that.
Malta will be looked at as a pariah with all the disadvantages that brings. For me it is still a cheap sale of our citizenship. Shame indeed. I hope cross-voters are happy with themselves. Look at the consequences.
I hope and trust the PN and all constituted bodies of goodwill will still resist this offensive act.
If Joe Muscat and his aides have no pride of their Maltese citizenship and are too willing to sell off Malta’s pride, I for one am more than proud of being a Maltese citizen by right and am not all allowing this lot of imbeciles to dispose of what I am partly owner.
Joe Muscat, the people did not vote to sell off their pride. This is not your and your party’s property. Bear this in mind.
So that makes our PM smarter than the EU Commission, once the Commission bought this.
[Daphne – No, it means that the European Commission has misinterpreted his culture as European. Read my column tomorrow.]
I do not think the European Commission will let Joseph Muscat cheat so easily.
The Malta Independent quoted a spokesperson for Commissioner Reding saying that the Commission will be “closely monitoring Malta’s implementation of the newly amended scheme and it will be keeping in touch.”
To me that sounds like a warning.
Muscat did more than accept that citizenship should be preceded by residency. He conceded that the Commission has jurisdiction over the issue of passports and I think this is a very important point.
He is now saying that residency is of national competence but 48 hours ago he was also saying that citizenship is of national competence.
When the commission gets ‘proof’ Antoine.
You can see where this is going.
I have now lost faith in the European Commission; we’ve been let down.
We can only rely on ourselves at this point which, to be honest, I feel is useless. It seems as if there is a surreal force pushing us down whatever the circumstances.
The cunning and the naive.
True. In fact I don’t know why the Opposition came out jumping in triumph on this “agreement” with the EU.
Is it that hard, even for the Opposition, to realise that this man is a deceiver? He got what he wanted and more.
His next step is to make the Opposition part of his scam.
I have completely lost hope and trust even in the Opposition. Muscat can get away with murder and the Opposition seems to be living on Mars.
Good faith negotiations (EC) vs Joseph Muscat’s statement that he would persuade them to lay off.
They are miles apart and Muscat probably thinks he pulled a fast one by agreeing to increase the “due diligence” period.
The devil will be in the detail of the legal notice, once it is published. The smart money is on them barging ahead with mark 4 of the IIP and having to re-amend.
Did Kevin Plumpton read this? How quick was he to say Labour now is bringing investment! Jeez …
I think Kevin Plumpton was just too quick to trust. Personally, I can’t for the life of me actually trust Muscat, or the Labour Party, ever.
Agreed, following the electoral defeat, the PN found itself at odds with the vote, which the party always upheld as confirmation of its direction and policy making.
The main argument being Labour’s credibility, or lack of. What Muscat’s doing lately, a real three card game, may have however tipped public opinion back in their favour.
The risk the PN carries is actually going back to ‘Labour ma nbidlux’, even because there’s no need for it, not when this Labour has its own unsustainable faults and insurmountable defects.
Thankfully, Jason Azzopardi saw to it that those blessed negotiations will out. The details uncovered point in one direction, they’ll do everything to bend the rules and cheat the EU Commission, cash urgently required.
Lesson learnt no.2, never subscribe to Labour’s pledge that it will ever keep its word. Or better, why should Labour be trusted because they said they would, if the PN’s position was always averse to Labour’s credibility?
Time to be consistent, and enough of the cosy cooperation, with Muscat it soon becomes collusion. The country needs an Opposition, not a caste.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-02-02/news/manuel-mallia-pledged-to-resignif-any-residency-requirement-is-introduced-to-citizenship-programme-3845357575/
Thing is Daphne, that whatever you say on this subject, is now……irrelevant….
[Daphne – Nothing that I or anyone else says is ever irrelevant in a democracy, Mark. This concept is alien, I’m afraid, to Labour thinking, which tends towards the totalitarian.]
Don’t think little Joey figured this out, sneaky but too thick. I would give credit to his handlers, Henley and Partners, to whom he owes a great deal. (no pun intended)
What does he owe Shiv Nair?
The PN might be caught between two stools here. They could decry the changes as cosmetic and continue to oppose the scheme as a matter of principle, on the lines you suggest here.
They then run the risk of being seen as bitter and petulant, and opposing a scheme that now has the “approval of the EU” (the average Joe does not appreciate the distinction between a position adopted by the European Parliament and the opinion of the European Commission).
Furthermore, the government will seize the opportunity to trumpet every project between now and the next election as one that ‘would not have happened if the PN had got its way and stopped the IIP’.
Alternatively they could close their eyes to the details, claim a moral victory and make a big deal out of saying that it was their persistence and hard work that brought about at least three significant changes in the principles of the scheme.
This would not preclude criticising the way the government appears to be subverting the very agreement it has reached with the Commission. Of course every act of whistle-blowing in this sense will be met with cries of ‘traitor, traitor’.
In either case, they should also start paying attention to who is going to be getting these passports, and how the money is to be spent.
There is so much that worries me about this scheme that it is hard to know where to begin, but let’s start with one.
I have heard conflicting information on whether or not these new citizens will have the right to vote in Malta. Is there a clear legal position on this?
Remember that the 2008 elections hinged on a mere 1800 votes. Wouldn’t these new ‘citizens’ have an interest in voting for the party which made their citizenship possible rather than for the one that has made noises about retracting their status if voted in?
He’s slicker than we think.
In the EU, an ID card is as good as a passport. So now we re selling passports and ID cards.
This has changed absolutely nothing.
We are screwed.
Meantime,
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140130/local/din-l-art-helwa-calls-for-planning-policies-to-be-put-on-hold.504810
Touchy. And what’s this obsession with appearances?
Well said. I think even Dr. Busuttil is surprised with only one-year residency requirement demanded by the EU Commissioner.
Dr Busuttil scored greatly in forcing the issue all the way to the EC, but in the final analysis Dr. Muscat got his way.
With millions of euros standing to roll in, Muscat will have the leverage needed to suppress freedom and instill fear. The PN is facing an uphill battle.
Yes, it is an uphill battle. But we have seen worse.
Yes, correct, that’s what it means. Official residence here but one could practically spend months abroad on work or holiday for instance. Don’t know why Simon couldn’t understand this and wants to see what effective residence means.
[Daphne – That’s because he distinguishes, as the law does, between citizens who are not residents, residents who are not citizens, and those who, like the passport applicants envisaged under this scheme, are neither citizens nor residents. Unfortunately, the deliberate misinformation being fed out by the prime minister and his government/party seeks to confuse people as to the very different legal status of a Maltese citizen who chooses to live abroad, and a non-Maltese citizen who applies for Maltese citizenship without being a resident in Malta, or being resident for just a year. You and I don’t have to satisfy any conditions for citizenship because it is ours by birthright, wherever we choose to live in the world.]
I feel betrayed by the European Commission decision after the vote against the sale of citizenship in the European Parliament and general disapproval.
Why did they settle for 1-year residence? I am beginning to think that the European Commission couldn’t be arsed about the Maltese who are against this scheme. It is as though the Commission has said: “Let them screw themselves.” How very disappointing.
I don’t think the Commission has the ability to do much else.
Spot on.
“It is as though the Commission has said: “Let them screw themselves.” I have to disagree with you here.
It is the whole of the EU that will get screwed. Malta will simply be getting the money from the sale of citizenship and the EU will get lumbered with the ones who bought it.
I doubt any of them will be wanting to live in the totalitarian state we are heading for.
We have ridiculed our citizenship and let our government turn it into a cash cow, simply to generate revenue.
As a matter of principle the Nationalist Party should have taken the stance that no price value should be pegged to our citizenship as this is something you need to earn and not buy.
I still cannot understand why the PN has declared victory when there hasn’t been any significant change.
What happened is that our prime minister has taken everyone for a ride including our Opposition and the European Commission. No one seems to be acknowledging this, not even the leader of the Opposition who seems oblivious and even claimed that Joseph Muscat had to bow his head to the EU.
At this stage we truly need to worry as the country has no Opposition and Muscat can rule without any hindrance whatsoever.
Let’s hope, Daphne, that your blog-posts and the comments of your readers might induce the opposition to some lateral thinking and the need to see the wider picture of Muscat’s actions.
100% agree with you. No price, full stop.
As a matter of principle the Nationalist Party should have taken the stance that no price value should be pegged to our citizenship as this is something you need to earn and not buy.
Can you tell me how do the illegal imigrants earn our citizenship? So for you PN supporters it is ok we give our citizenship for free then to give it to billioners ?
Stop crying and give Malta a break..
Not sure how much this warrants a response (as I’m sure you wouldn’t believe anything which doesn’t come out from Super One and/or Joseph Muscat’s lips), but I’ll do my best.
‘Illegal immigrants’ do not, as in any country in the world, gain the host country’s/Maltese citizenship. They arrive here, stay in detention centres (at least in the case of Malta) and, if their case of persecution is found to be genuine, then they are given refugee status, which is not citizenship. The rest, whose cases are found to have to basis for granting asylum, are sent back because they aren’t considered refugees.
The long time all such migrants seem to stay in Malta is due to the fact that finding out the facts related to processing their application for asylum is a long process.
Apart from being grossly misinformed, your argument would also have some gaping holes if it were true. Do you really think migrants would be allowed to stay in open/detention centres if they were being given Maltese citizenship as you claim? Wouldn’t granting them citizenship entail the right to vote; and which party in government would treat potential voters that way (unless it’s a dictatorship)?
Let’s hope that Simon Busuttil takes this further and presents some protest to the EU Commission. Even if the one-year residency is respected, that would be ridiculous meaning that the rich have been granted a privilege that the poor are not entitled to.
I think we were all grossly let down by the European Commission, no matter how brave a face we try to put on it.
The Prime Minister has been given it on a silver plate, getting even more than he ever bargained for, and the Commission was gullible enough to believe that the talks were held in a spirit of mutual understanding, cooperation and good faith.
Well, Joseph Muscat lost no time in giving us the benefit of his own flimsy interpretation of residency, and of course Identity Malta will be the sole arbiter of whether that requisite has been satisfied in each individual case.
The point is that this is now a closed debate, the programme having been given the official seal of approval by Brussels, which the Opposition will now be foolish to disregard. Malta’s good name has been salvaged. Or has it?
No, Malta’s name is tarnished and still hangs in the balance.
“The commission noted the deal was “done in good faith.” Justice commissioner Viviane Reding also tweeted that Malta did it in the spirit of “constructive co-operation.”
But the level of good faith is open to question.”
Point 2. This is not a closed debate and while the Opposition should not disregard the approval given by the EU, it should speak out against the scheme as it is. The approval given does not render it any better than it was.
I was of the opinion that a requirement of a minimum five years residency was the right thing to do. I am not going to say that one year is enough just because of the approval given. It is still a sale and still a sham and something that we should be ashamed of.
There is a saying in Maltese – izommuna talli ahna. That is how we will be treated in future. Just wait and see.
Malta bows to EU ‘pressure’ on passport sales
EUobserver -
Simon did well not to commit and await details of the legal notice. We need to know how exactly this 180 or whatever days of residency is going to be implemented, monitored and controlled. Interesting to see what Muscat’s next move will be.
[Daphne – How is that the point? The issue is not the control of the ‘180 days of residency’ but the 180 days themselves. By what stretch of the imagination does one become a resident of any country by staying there for six months?]
There could be tax implications.
The number of months a person spends on the island is irrelevant unless that person makes a genuine investment in the country. Without an incentive to invest, the obligation to stay here for a few months sounds more like a house arrest order than an investment stimulus.
Everybody is forgetting the reason why such schemes have a residence criteria. It’s not so that the person can enjoy his property, try the local cuisine and learn a few words in the vernacular. Nor is it so that the locals get themselves photographed with a millionaire.
It’s so that the person feels bound to invest.
The agreement reached goes against the spirit of the law. There’s nothing to make the person want to invest. Even if the applicant spends a full twelve months on the island, s/he won’t generate much more wealth than an average tourist. It will be just like an extended holiday.
The law is an ass. The European Commission has let Joseph Muscat off scot-free and the Maltese have been screwed over by their own government. Again.
Some basic facts:
a) Muscat is not as silly as he looks;
b) Busuttil is not as wise as he looks;
c) we’re screwed
Joseph Muscat and his party can never be trusted in good faith.
I hope that some time has been bought in which the EU can draw some policy on the subject, although even here, if individual countries do not cooperate, matters may become more complex.
That said, I am looking for a business partner to set up a Henley & Something firm, advising on residency and citizenship. First mission is a visit to Cyprus to convince the government of Cyprus to replicate the scheme of Malta exactly, including the rubber stamp “EU Commission-Approved,” but with a price per passport of Eur 500,000. Joseph Muscat’s IIP will be dead.
Then we will head to Greece, Italy and Portugal, to further replicate the scheme.
This will be the point at which the EU giants will smell the coffee and Joseph Muscat will be left stamping his feet.
It’s obvious to any normal person that the European Commission expects an applicant to be physically present on the island for the minimum time required for tax purposes i.e. six months and one day.
How sweet to hear our Culture Minister Jose Herrera say he is introducing ‘satira’ in our Carnival, but without any idea how it should be pronounced.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-01-30/news/citizenship-schemetalks-based-on-183-day-a-year-residency-model-3825893376/
Effective residency of 183 days in a year means that the citizenship can be granted within 183 days from application. After 183 days in Malta, the applicant will say that in the past 365 days he/she has spent 183 days in Malta, and can obtain the passport. Meaning that Mark 3 is similar to Mark 2 in this respect, since Mark 2 had a 6 month period for due diligence.
If this scheme has been accepted that easy by the European Commission, so other EU countries will do the same. That is what I think.
That will be easy money for that country. Besides Malta’s reputation has been severely tarnished and has been publicised in a bad light. So whoever is interested in this type of scheme will choose other countries with less spot light shown on them.
Just read your column.
I think your use of the term ‘oriental’ is exactly right.
We often fall to the temptation of ascribing all these machinations to Muscat. It is more likely that there is a whole army of oriental advisors planning these moves and preparing the ground.
This chicanery does not have the makings of a Maltese job.
There is another, quite Maltese, alive and kicking, who game-plays this chicanery to perfection.
Fact has shown, against all odds of them ever coming to light, that he does have oriental links. They have been rendered suitably invisible.
If he sells 10,000 passports, this is still a drop in the ocean of immigrants flooding into Europe every year. The EU Commission were/are only ever interested in making things ‘appear’ to be acceptable.
So now Mr Muscat has accepted a compromise ‘everyone’ should be happy. Horseshit – it’s the start of a long slippery slope – and pity us where it might end.
I wish the same energy was spent discussing the illigal emigrants in Malta, we would have solved that problem too.
Is ‘residency’ something that is defined by every individual nation in general? Or is it something that is specified for a particular law?
As far as I know being a resident in Malta is currently defined as spending 183 days on the island in any given year. Will this definition be changed across the board? Or will a new definition be used for the IIP scheme?
If this definition is changed across the board, I expect that there will be some very serious economic repercussions.
At the moment any company registered in Malta needs to have at least one company representative who is a “resident” of Malta.
If the requirement for residency in Malta is changed, companies would no longer need to have any real physical presence in the country and presumably they wouldn’t even have to employ anybody from Malta – effectively throwing away a good chunk of the benefits that come with having foreign investment in the country.