Malta's golden passport scheme was heavily slammed by political representatives deriving from all political fronts on Wednesday evening during a European Parliament debate on whether Malta's golden passport scheme - which was found to be in violation of EU law last week - enables the circumventing of EU sanctions against Russia.

Aside from the Maltese Labour Party/S&D MEPs and one Romanian rightist, all speakers within the debate spoke against citizenship-acquisition-via-transaction programmes, with an overwhelming majority calling for their immediate abolishment. Excluding the statements made on behalf of the Council of the EU and the Commission, such opinions emerged from the representatives of all present European Parliament groups.

The European Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection - Michael McGrath - stated that in this regard, "the Commission has been very clear: EU citizenship is not for sale," such investment schemes are in breach of EU law, and the Commission wishes to abolish these schemes altogether across the EU.

Commissioner McGrath said that Malta's citizenship acquisition programme jeopardised mutual trust between the Union's Member States, though welcomed the fact that Malta has since acknowledged the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) landmark ruling, as well as its intention to follow up the judgement.

Representing the Council of the European Union, Adam Szłapka (Poland's Minister for European Affairs) observed that this ruling was the first time that the European Court took a decision on a national citizenship scheme of an EU Member State. He said that according to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the granting and loosening of one's nationality is a national competence, on the condition that this is exercised consistently with EU law.

Szłapka added that the EU's series of sanctions against Russia, for its "unjustified aggression" against Ukraine, represents strong unity amongst the Member States, however, the efficiency of the measures within sanctions "relies on the uniform implementation of the EU and its Member States."

"Ensuring that there are no contradictions between our sanction enforcements and our domestic legislation is a collective effort of all Member States," Szłapka said.

Many speaking MEPs described that the ECJ's ruling came at high time and numerous speakers blasted Malta for continuing to conduct its golden passport scheme throughout the years.

What did the Maltese MEPs say?

PN/PPE MEP David Casa said that he is defending the identity of Maltese and Gozitans in saying that, with respect to this programme, the Maltese government chose greed, bribery, and a lack of seriousness.

Casa noted that a greater effort by the Commission is required to halt this programme sooner rather than later. He added that Malta cannot wait anymore years and watch the collapse of the rule of law in the country.

Casa and several other MEPs applauded Daphne Caruana Galizia for her work in uncovering some of the "abuses" taking place through this very scheme; the longstanding PN MEP continued that Caruana Galizia had been threatened by this programme's managing company and that a SLAPP lawsuit was planned against her "to try and break her."

PN MEP Peter Agius condemned that this ruling took 11 years to come to fruition, saying that the Court's ruling that nationality should only be granted in the presence of a genuine link with the concerned country was "obvious."

He said that the Maltese PL government, under Joseph Muscat and now Robert Abela, says one thing, and then does another. Agius described how Muscat had stated in 2014 that Malta's scheme will be centred around providing Maltese (and by virtue, EU) nationality to those with a "genuine link" to the Maltese islands, however, fast-forward years later and the government has never published a list of those who have acquired a Maltese passport through this means.

PL/S&D MEP Alex Agius Saliba was one of the only speakers to defend Malta's golden passport scheme during this debate.

With the topic of the debate being "Malta's Golden Passport scheme circumventing EU sanctions against Russia," Agius Saliba remarked that he could not understand how the EP was holding a discussion on Malta facilitating Russians to evade the EU's sanctions placed against them, considering that Malta had suspended all applications of Russians and Belarussians in 2022, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

He commented that the ECJ's ruling contradicts both opinions of the Attorney General and a past Commission opinion - an opinion that has since clearly been updated to be against the existence of these schemes, as McGrath stated earlier.

PL/S&D MEP Thomas Bajada said that "Malta is an island without resources" and was fortunate to have this citizenship acquisition scheme for wealthy foreigners to get through the struggles caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bajada stated that this programme was initially approved by the Commission many years ago and was amended where necessary in order to be compliant with EU legislation, prior to the ECJ's recent ruling. He also dismissed allegations that oligarchs have used the acquisition of Maltese (and EU) citizenship, citing that this was timely closed to Russians and Belarussians and has remained this way since.

The Gozitan MEP delineated that this scheme benefits the Maltese islands and compensates for the country's natural detachment from the continent, and therefore, its benefits, e.g., the Single Market.

After his speech, Bajada was asked by Dutch Renew MEP Raquel García Hermida-van der Walle, "what grants Maltese people an exception to not abide by the ECJ's decision, with respect to EU law, that everyone has followed for a long time?" She tabled this within the context that when Malta entered the EU in 2004, its accession came with accepting EU law and the ECJ's rulings, and receive billions of EU funds in return.

Bajada said that EU policies must cater for Malta's detachment to the continent so it can continue to invest in its communities.

His contemporary, Daniel Attard, labelled the Maltese passport as the fifth strongest passport in the world and therefore, "a symbol of trust," considering that it is entrusted by 190 countries.

Attard proudly stated that the right to assign Maltese nationality is a sovereign right of Member States, and is therefore, not limited by the Court.

As such, he criticised that this debate is not truly about the security of Europe, as otherwise, MEPs would also be discussing the golden residency of other EU Member States which "have less due diligence" than Malta's golden passport scheme.

The sole foreign MEP to defend Malta's golden citizenship-by-investment scheme was Romania's and the ECR's Georgiana Teodorescu.

Teodorescu stated that "it is the sovereign right of every Member State to decide who can be a citizen, and this right must not be undermined by an interpretation of Union treaties."

"Such programmes can be a legal and legitimate way of drawing capital and ensuring economic development," she said.

While over a dozen other speakers condemned Malta's scheme and other countries' similar golden visa schemes, Teodorescu called out the EU for pushing double standards over smaller countries.

She continued that if migrants were being granted overnight citizenship, then Brussels would be elated.

In contrast, the other MEP to speak on behalf of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR), Jadwiga Wiśniewska, stated that "citizenship is not merchandise."

Wiśniewska noted that such programmes are utilised by Russian oligarchs and mafia members worldwide in order to purchase a safe life in Europe. She also called for the Union to abolish golden visas in their entirety, and till then, perform background checks on those who do acquire national and EU citizenship.

How did other European Parliament groups react?

Both Renew Europe MEPs condemned the EU institutions for enabling golden passports to thrive for so long. They noted that the European Parliament had taken a stance against these schemes back in 2014, though nothing transpired following this.

"We have a second chance here to do what is right and protect our citizens - we have a chance to ban golden passport schemes for the whole EU," Raquel García Hermida-van der Walle said.

The European Greens stated that "European citizenship cannot be sold" and labelled the ECJ's ruling as a victory for Daphne Caruana Galizia.

"Selling EU passports for €600,000 is a disgrace," said German Greens MEP Daniel Freund.

Giuseppe Antoci - the sole speaker on behalf of The Left - referenced the links between such citizenship acquisition by investment schemes to corruption and tax evasion and called for Malta to not delay in halting its "golden passport era."

"The Commission must act with determination to ensure that EU citizenship is not for sale," he added.

Foreign MEPs from the PPE and S&D also denounced Malta's programme. Czech PPE MEP Luděk Niedermayer called it "wrong from all angles" and expressed his wish for this scheme to be abolished immediately.

S&D MEP Evelyn Regner declared that "Europe is not a business model" and that EU passports should not be for sale, because this would undermine the Union's credibility.