The government’s citizenship scheme did not make the grade the first time round, even though, to their shame, it was passed by Parliament and even signed by the President.

The government was forced to withdraw it in the face of massive opposition from world public opinion and possibly other governments.

Then it went into negotiations with the Opposition and with selected ‘Constituted bodies’ – or at least we presume those whose representatives were sitting next to Prime Minister Muscat at Monday’s press conference as we do not know if other constituted bodies, invited to participate, had excused themselves. The Opposition, as we all know, remained steadfast against the selling of Maltese citizenship.

The upshot were some changes, described by the government as ‘radically changed’ conditions and by the Opposition as ‘insufficient’.

Let us try to list the changes:

Originally, the scheme was a ‘simple’ matter of paying €650,000 to get a Maltese passport. This has now seen an increase of a further €500,000 investment in property and government stock.

Originally, the scheme’s participants were going to be secret. The secrecy clause has been removed, and those who aim to benefit must not have a criminal record, be wanted by Interpol, or the International Criminal Court, or facing charges of terrorism or paedophilia, and enjoy good health.

Originally, Henley and Partners were going to be charged with the processing of the applications. Now there will be a five-layer process with MFSA being the last gateway. The contract with Henley and Partners will have to be amended.

Originally, the process was open-ended. Now it is to be capped at 1,800, although it was not made clear if that is per year.

Originally, Henley and Partners were given the almost exclusivity of the processing of applications. Now any professionals, whether lawyers, accountants or financial services providers can apply to become agents.

If there were more changes introduced, the country has not been made aware of them.

There are other things the country has not been made aware of. One asks, for instance, whether the people sitting on either side of Dr Muscat had consulted the bodies they represented. In one case, for instance, MHRA clarified that Tony Zahra, its past president, was there on a personal basis. It would have been far better if, instead of this mad rush, MCESD was properly consulted with the final draft and asked to express itself.

Then there is the far weightier issue with regards to the Opposition’s stance which goes directly against the basis of the proposal. Maltese citizenship is not for sale and can never be offered for sale. The difference between the government and the Opposition on this issue is so wide and fundamental that one wonders why the two leaders spent all that time negotiating when the chasm separating them was so wide.

There is no doubt now, that with its parliamentary over-majority, the government will push this amended version through Parliament, just as it did with the previous version, now discarded. Whether that will assuage the opposition, if not the derision, expressed by the world, remains to be seen. Certainly, if one puts a monetary value on citizenship as such, then the concept of the value of citizenship in itself has already been greatly devalued. It is no excuse to argue that non-Maltese are becoming Maltese citizens all the time because of marriage, although even here, as many times suggested on these pages, this procedure must be tightened up. Instead, the present government proposal simply opens the doors to Maltese citizenship even wider – for those with the cash.

The new ‘revised version’ is just as bad as the previous one and must, if the House were to be made up of people who have the country at heart, be rejected. The improvements have not changed the negative impact of the law at all.