Nobody can sell something which isn’t his to sell

Daphne Caruana Galizia Sunday, 19 January 2014, 09:15 Last update: about 11 years ago

The government’s current set of problems all stem from its apparent inability to understand a basic principle of law, which is quite surprising given that one of its main men on the passports project is a criminal defence lawyer of many years’ standing. This basic principle is that you can’t sell something which isn’t yours, which you own only in part, or which you have the use of but not the ownership.

Did the government really believe that there would be no reaction and no consequences to its decision to sell EU passports – not Maltese passports, because there is no residency requirement and that is what has made it so blatantly offensive to our fellow member states? Perhaps yes, it did believe that, and was taken by complete surprise by the worldwide negative press coverage and the 90% vote against it in the European Parliament. But now there is no such excuse, and proceeding in defiance of all that will lead to some definite consequences, the first of which we are experiencing already: the erosion of trust.

The relationship between EU member states, most particularly those of the Schengen area to which we are privileged – as Maltese citizens – to belong is one based on trust, consideration and mutual respect. In that way, it is not much different from the factors which underpin a marriage, professional association or business partnership.

The proper functioning of the relationship is wholly dependent on none/neither of the parties or individuals doing anything to undermine the interests of or upset the other/s. Once you have a major breach of trust, there are serious problems. And if the person/party who breached trust persists in defiantly pursuing the same course and not showing any regret for having done so, then it should be obvious that the relationship cannot continue and that it will break down at some point or eventually through the erosion of trust.

To put it simply and in terms that are easily understood, if your spouse, life companion, professional associate, business partner or fellow board director announces that he intends to proceed unilaterally on a course of action to which you have objected and which causes you harm, and that he will do so in defiance of your objections and protestations because it is good for him even if it is bad for you, even if you are deeply upset at the lack of respect and consideration shown for your concerns, then what he has done there is make a clear and unequivocal declaration that he doesn’t care about you, about your concerns or about the relationship. For all he cares, it can break down and he doesn’t give a damn: “Do your worst, because I don’t care. I will pursue my own narrow, personal interests regardless.”

Those who care about Malta are those who don’t want Malta harmed (further) by the sale of passports for cash. Lots of people can see only the ‘one billion euros’ they’re being told will pour into the country’s coffers and lack any understanding at all of what, in accounting terms, is called ‘cost of sales’.

The prime minister explained to his audience that these one billion euros will be ‘ma jmissu ma’ xejn’ – which means that they will come in clean and free of overheads, expenses incurred in making those sales and so on. That’s not quite the case as you immediately have to deduct the four per cent commission that goes to Henley & Partners, plus all the other costs incurred in running this scheme. And there’s more - if the government must insist on thinking in terms of ‘running Malta like a business’ (it has just had its first salutary lesson as to why countries can’t be run like businesses – because they have other considerations and obligations), it has got to consider the impact this business decision is going to have on other areas of its business operations.

Again, I shall put the matter in simple terms that are easy to understand. A successful business which sells mainstream products to families stands to make a lot of money by sponsoring or producing hardcore violent films or anything which is seen to encourage, say, the use of crack cocaine. It can make a huge amount of money by doing that, but it takes a decision not to do so because it will otherwise ruin its core business by angering its customers who will boycott its mainstream products in protest or because they think their favourite company is turning ‘bad’. The money this corporation stands to make from the violent films is big, but it is a one-off – so it is not worth ruining a sustainable business developed over decades for the sake of a quick and easy big sum made in an unsustainable manner. The corporation knows that if it decides to go in for the violent films, then it will probably have to stick with them because as the rest of the business peters off, the violent films will become its main source of income even if it is itself subject to ever-diminishing returns. In the same way, if Malta begins selling passports for cash, it will become – like those who sell illegal drugs and can’t give up the ‘easy’ money no matter the risks – increasingly dependent on doing so. Not only will we then have a severely weakened economy, but we will also have a war with the European Union on our hands. All this for the equivalent of four months’ worth of our annual budget, which is how one billion euros factor into an annual budget of three billion euros.

To use the vernacular term, it’s just not wertit.