My parents have taught me that nothing worthy in life comes for free. There is always a price to pay. The present government would sell it that there is no opportunity cost in selling our citizenship. My thesis is that in the longer-term the reputational damage and the risks to European standards of security and governance will outweigh the benefits from the Individual Investor Programme short-term bonanza. Recent Commission statements indicate that the effect of that may be carried by all of us holding a Maltese passport.
Way back in 2014, a huge hue and cry was raised when the scheme was launched. It was clear to all that labour had struck pre-election deals with a prime actor in the sale of citizenship market behind all our backs. The ploy encountered serious objections from the European Commission. Eventually, the programme was amended after a visit by Prime Minister Muscat to Viviane Reding, Commissioner in charge at the time. Most importantly, at the time Malta agreed with Brussels that no certificate of naturalisation would be issued ‘’unless the applicant provided proof that they had resided in Malta for a period of at least 12 months immediately preceding the day of issuing of the certificate. ‘’ (quote from the Joint European Commission and Government Statement of January 2014)
It is immediately clear therefore, that for government to quote a deal with the European Commission it has to abide by its words. For the European Commission, or the general public, to determine that an applicant has actually resided in Malta for 12 months, we need to know who the applicants are. We do not know. This objective is being flagrantly defeated. When the list of new citizens is published, there is no indication as to who acquired citizenship via the sale of citizenship programme as all new citizens are listed together. This can only mean that we might have people who land here in their private jet, sign the papers and get their certificate, and then fly out again to go to London or Frankfurt or wherever else they are really based.
When a Maltese citizen marries a foreigner, there is the implicit understanding that the Maltese spouse plays the role of unofficial guarantor for the new citizen. The nation sort of delegates the “screening process” to one of its nationals. If one national thinks that the new citizen is worthy of citizenship, the entire nation trusts that judgment and endorses it. Same thing when a foreigner acquires nationality through nationalisation, they need to have lived in Malta for a number of years and be of good character. The link between the two requisites is clear: the time factor. You need time to assess a person’s character. Whereas this is the common-sense procedure for common mortals, this government has provided a way for the rich to flout the system and bypass the requisites.
These new Maltese citizens may be persons of the highest integrity and I am sure that most of them will be, but by any standard in the civilised world, wealth on its own is not indicative of one’s law-abiding character. This is one reason why our EU partners are worried about the system concocted by Labour and the foreign contractors who administer it. It should also worry us, not only because of the strain it puts on our relationship with other EU Member States but also because it may, in the longer term, affect our the validity of own passport. The European Commission has made it very clear in its report of 23 January that the Maltese system is putting at risk the integrity of the Schengen Information System. The Commission also explicitly indicates that it is not convinced that our due diligence is as rigorous as the present checks done in the Schengen zone, and that the passport sales can be a means for money laundering and corruption in Europe.
Should these concerns not be quelled, the Commission, which is powerless to stop our passport sales, is however empowered to take damage limitation measures to safeguard European security and may hence impose limits on our own free movement in the Schengen zone. Given that this government has made it impossible to identify the new Maltese citizens, Europe may be constrained to put limits onto all those holding a Maltese passport.
The words coming from the European Commission should therefore be red alarms to anyone caring for his and her Maltese passport. Having worked for the EU institutions for the last 16 years I know well enough that Commission action starts in a few words in a report and may well end up with enforcement actions restricting the freedoms to which we hold so dear as Maltese.
The Cypriots have understood this it seems. They too are in the target of the Commission’s bold words in the said report, but contrary to the denial approach of the Maltese, the Cypriots have announced a revision of their own citizenship programme. We, on the other hand, try to cheat the Commission by saying that it endorsed our programme.
Let us change tack on this topic cause we are risking the freedoms to which we all hold so dear. As an MEP candidate I will not cease to defend the freedoms we acquired with European membership in 2004. All of us should be working to widen those benefits not put them at risk with risky adventures for short-term gain.
Dr Peter Agius is PN candidate for the European Parliamentary elections, Former Head of the European Parliament Office and Cabinet member of the President of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani