It is a pity if the general Maltese public was deprived yesterday from watching the real, live, debate in the European Parliament on Malta.

For that was the subject of the debate, as the president himself admitted despite the official title which spoke of the ‘sale of citizenship’.

Not one (except the four dutiful Labour MEPs) spoke in its favour. Not one party, of all represented in the Parliament, not even the Socialist one (to the very evident discomfiture of Marlene Mizzi who was sitting right behind the speaker) spoke in favour of the IIP.

Whether the name of Malta is still on the cross-party resolution which will be voted upon today at 12pm, whether it has been toned down on the insistence of the PES, the debate and the consequent resolution were very much about Malta. Malta got some very negative comments yesterday – ridiculous, unfair, horrible being among the least hurtful.

The three Labour MEPs who spoke (for Claudette Abela Baldacchino, as she angrily pointed out, was not included among the speakers) did not give a cogent, coherent and reasoned explanation of the Maltese IIP scheme. All they bleated about was that focusing on tiny Malta was unfair since Malta is the smallest of EU Member States.

Some pointed out that other countries practice much about the same but then they did not mention specifics. It was another speaker who listed the countries with dodgy residence requirements – Cyprus, and Britain itself being mentioned. And of course there was that angry sub-debate between two Portuguese MEPS about the situation back home – but even then they are offering residency permits. Not one country has thought of offering citizenship.

For Malta, it would seem, has found a chink in the entire legislative structure of the mighty EU. Establishing the legislation extending citizenship is very much a national right. But as Commissioner Reding said, and others too, giving out citizenship of Malta also means giving out citizenship of Europe. It means giving you the key to my house but also the key to the houses of others.

So at some point, the right of the Maltese Parliament to draw up citizenship legislation must be checked against the demands of the European treaties.

The representative of the Council said the Council has no opinion to offer about this issue and batted the ball back to the Commission. The Commission promised it will look deep into the matter.

Some MEPS gave helpful hints to the Commission in this regard.

For instance, the Schengen rules: if a country offers citizenship for sale can the other countries refuse to admit all citizens of that country because they do not agree with the Maltese citizenship law? The people of Bulgaria and Romania have fulfilled all the Schengen requirements but are still out of Schengen while a Russian oligarch, for example, will be able to enter anywhere, without living in Malta at all.

There are, a speaker said, particular points in the European treaties that Malta might be infringing. Those will be examined with eagle eyes.

An important issue, which has not been heard much in Malta so far, but which was mentioned by speaker after speaker yesterday, was the sheer unfairness of it all. Why accept a person as a citizen solely on the basis of money?

And a rider to this referred to the present Maltese government’s rhetoric about pushing back asylum seekers: why reject the poor and privilege the rich?

No amount of bluster and spin can wipe out the shame Maltese viewers would have felt as they listened and watched the debate. The entire debate was not manipulated by the two PN MEPs who courageously spoke: the anti-Malta rhetoric was caused by the unsophisticated Maltese IIP proposal for which it is now clear no consultation with the European authorities was ever held.