The fact that the government’s contentious citizenship scheme is once again going back to the figurative drawing board to consider taking onboard the opinions of Malta’s social partners is at once surprising and not surprising at all.
It is not surprising in that, for the third time now, the government is seeking wider approval for what is undoubtedly the most controversial policy of its nine-month-old administration of the country. What is surprising is how the government has actually had to revisit the programme three times over now due to the ham-fisted way in which it hurriedly attempted to push the legislation through without question.
This should be a cause for embarrassment on the part of the government, and it reveals how on every step of the way the government has sought to ‘get away’ with the most liberal and market-friendly programme possible.
In a nutshell, the government first retracted the secrecy clause following the substantial European and international outcry over the scheme. Then, when that was deemed to have not been good enough, it entered into negotiations with the Opposition in an attempt to quell the local outcry. Now it has said it will tweak the programme yet again after the country’s social partners were at long last allowed the possibility to pitch their own ideas for the programme.
First was the surprise announcement that the government was to remove the highly controversial confidentiality clause from the Individual Investment Programme. However welcome it is that the clause has been dropped and that those acquiring citizenship through the IIP will have their names published in the Government Gazette like the common mortals who become Maltese citizens, this one step was not enough to placate enough of the country.
After that, the government went into negotiations with the Opposition to find a middle ground, and agreement on a way for the scheme. This bid was, however, doomed from the get-go.
Parliament had already approved the amendments to the citizenship law, but the government only stopped short of publishing the accompanying legal notice following local and international outcry.
The government and the Opposition were locked in negotiations over tweaking other unsavoury aspects of the legislation for weeks. And while both sides of the political equation said they were attempting to reach a compromise, it was more than apparent that such a goal would remain far out of reach, and it was very difficult to imagine any sort of compromise between these two very contrasting opinions.
On the one hand there was a government willing to grant citizenship to whoever could afford it, provided they pass the correct due diligence tests, without ever needing to set foot in or invest one cent in the country over and above the price of citizenship.
On the other hand, we had an Opposition demanding that citizenship comes at a higher price – that would-be citizens will be required to reside in Malta for some period of time and that they tangibly invest in the country in such a way to create jobs.
The end result, the added obligation to purchase Maltese financial instruments and either rent or purchase a property – each obligation having a five-year shelf life – was far from what the Opposition was after.
Then came the reaction from Malta’s social partners, who were, perhaps quite rightly, aghast over the fact that the government had not bothered to consult with them on a scheme that has such potentially wide-ranging ramifications.
The next chapter in this sorry history will come next week when Malta’s citizenship programme is debated in the European Parliament after practically every political grouping in the EP raised the alarm. And even more ignominiously, the debate will be officially entitled “EU Citizenship for Sale”.
Joseph Daul, the chairman of the European People’s Party, summed up the perception of Malta’s citizenship sale succinctly when he recently stated: “The citizenship scheme as adopted by the Maltese Parliament in recent weeks seems to be a clear abuse of EU citizenship and Schengen rules. Even if the Maltese give in to reason, and drop this scheme, it remains important that the European Parliament debates this issue. EU citizenship comes with rights and obligations. We will remain vigilant to make sure that these rights and obligations are respected.”
Mr Daul is, of course, the chair of the political grouping to which Malta’s Opposition belongs, but his statement neatly reflects what many across the European political divide feel as regards the prospect.
Malta’s reputation has undoubtedly suffered a great deal of harm through the IIP, and the programme has not even been implemented yet, and with next week’s European Parliament debate that reputation is bound to come in for some more tarnishing.
But at least, at the very least, the government - despite its eagerness to pass the original legislation through as unscathed as possible – can say that it is listening.