Imnawwar minn ġewwa

Sal-ħin li qed nikteb, l-investigazzjoni interna tal-Pulizija nfirxet minn waħda iffukata fuq it-taqsima tat-traffiku għal taqsimiet oħra tal-korp. Bosta huma mnixxfa kif dawk li suppost iżommu l-ordni u jħarsu l-osservanza tal-liġi qed jiġu nvestigati huma stess dwar allegazzjionijiet ta’ abbuż minn fondi pubbliċi kif ukoll allegazzjonijiet li talbu flus biex ma jagħmlux dmirhom (speċi ta’ protection money).

Supretendent u numru ta’ uffiċjali oħra, rinfaċċjati bil-provi rreżenjaw mill-korp. Numru mhux żgħir ta’ pulizija ġew interrogati.

M’għandniex inkunu sorpriżi b’dan kollu, għax dan huwa kollu riżultat dirett ta’ kultura ta’ impunità li ġiet imxettla b’mod kontinwu mill-Partit Laburista fil-Gvern tul dawn l-aħħar snin. Xejn mhu xejn. B’xi mod jew ieħor kollox jibqa’ għaddej, jew kważi.

Il-Prim Ministru Robert Abela stqarr li l-fatt illi l-Pulizija stess qed jinvestigaw lill-pulizija li dwarhom hemm l-alegazzjonijiet huwa indikazzjoni ċara li l-istituzzjonijiet fil-pajjiż qed jaħdmu sewwa. Fil-fehma tiegħi din hi analiżi skorretta. Dak li qed jiġri trid tarah ukoll fil-kuntest tal-ħbiberija żvelata bejn dak li kien Deputat Kummissarju tal-Pulizija Silvio Valletta u Yorgen Fenech, (l-allegat mandant tal-assassinju ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia). F’dan il-kuntest, l-investigazzjoni tindika li l-korp tal-Pulizija huwa mnawwar minn ġewwa.

Fil-waqt li l-parti l-kbira tal-membri tal-korp tal-Pulizija huma persuni serji, għandu jkun sottolinejat li mhux l-ewwel darba li rriżulta li uffiċjali anzjani tal-korp tal-pulizija kienu viċin ta’ persuni li kienu taħt investigazzjoni. Kaz ieħor riċenti li niftakar hu ta’ uffiċjal imlaħħaq fit-taqsima tar-reati ekonomiċi (spettur) li kien viċin ħafna ta’ operatur fl-industrija tal-logħob tal-ażżard. Tant kien viċin tiegħu li anke kellu l-aċċess biex jutilizza karozza privata ta’ din il-persuna, Ferrari. Il-każ imur lura sal-2015 meta missier l-ispettur, kien agent Kummissarju tal-Pulizija. Għax il-każ taz-ziju Silvio ċertament mhux l-uniku wieħed.

Kien il-kandidat laburista Andy Ellul li f’artiklu ppubblikat fuq it-Times tat-28 ta’ Jannar 2020 li stqarr li “Police commissioners form part of the executive and they have to toe the electoral programme of the government of the day”. Huwa ċertament ta’ sfortuna li Andy Ellul jikkunsidra li l-pulizija għandha funzjoni politika għax l-implimentazzjoni tal-manifest elettorali hi funzjoni tal-politiċi u tagħhom biss.

Dak li qal Andy Ellul jispjega ħafna dwar meta, kif u għaliex (uħud) mill-Pulizija jaġixxu u jinvestigaw. Andy Ellul kien hu nnifsu membru tal-korp tal-pulizija u allura suppost li jaf ferm iktar minn hekk!

Meta l-Panama Papers saru materja pubblika x’investigazzjoni għamlet il-pulizija? Abbażi ta’ dak li ġie osservat min-naħa tal-uffiċċju tal-Prim Ministru f’Kastilja, il-Pulizija ġew jaqgħu u jqumu. Konrad Mizzi u Keith Schembri ma ġewx mitluba biex jerfgħu ir-responsabbiltà għall-azzjonijiet tagħhom meta waqqfu kumpaniji sigrieta fil-Panama: ħelsuha ħafif. Għaldaqstant wara dan il-messaġġ ċar li qiesu ma ġara xejn, ħadd ma għandu jkollu l-ebda dubju x’kejl kellu japplika għall-pulizija u għall kull min jagħmel affarijiet li s-soltu ma naċċettawhomx. Kien biss meta l-whistle-blower saffar li l-investigazzjoni kellha tibda. Hawn xi ħadd li jemmen li b’mod ġenwin ħadd ma nduna b’xejn? Hu ċar li bosta ħadu sehemhom u allura b’mod konvenjenti “ħadd ma nduna xejn”.

It-triq biex tissewwa l-ħsara li saret lir-reputazzjoni li Malta kisbet illum il-ġurnata mhix triq faċli. Li tkun stabilita mill-ġdid il-fiduċja fil-korp tal-Pulizija hu pass wieħed żgħir minn ħafna meħtieġa.

Malta bil-mod qed tiġi trasformata f’soċjeta amorali fejn il-prinċipji aċċettabbli ta’ imġieba korretta qed jintremew il-baħar. Hemm min jiddieħaq bihom ukoll.

Rappresentanti tas-settur tas-servizzi finanzjarji qalulna li hemm bżonn is-sehem ta’ kulħadd biex naslu li nnaddfu isem Malta mill-ġdid. Huwa ftit diffiċli biex wieħed jifhem kif nistgħu naslu meta hu ċar għal kulħadd li l-korp tal-Pulizija hu mnawwar minn ġewwa.

 

ippubblikat fuq Illum : 16 ta’ Frar 2020

Rotten to the core

At the time of writing, the Police internal investigation has widened from one focused on the traffic section to other police units. Many are shocked that the upholders of law and order are themselves under investigation in respect of allegations on the fraudulent use of public funds as well as the allegation of being in receipt of protection money.

Faced with the available evidence, a Superintendent – as well as a number of other police officers – has resigned. It is reported that substantial number of officers were interrogated, with some being released on police bail.

I am not at all surprised because, in my view, this is the direct consequence of the culture of impunity which the Labour Party in government has continuously nurtured for the past six years during which it has been in office.

Prime Minister Robert Abela has stated that the fact that the police are investigating their own is, in itself, an indicator that the institutions are functioning properly. His assessment is, in my view, incorrect. Together with the revelations regarding the close friendship of former Police Deputy Commissioner Silvio Valletta and Yorgen Fenech, (the suspected mastermind of Daphne’s assassination), the police investigation is more of an indication that a section of the Police Force may be rotten to the core.

While most of the members of the Police Force are beyond reproach, it has to be underlined that this is not the first instance, in recent years, when senior police officers were reported as being too close to people under investigation. A specific case that comes to mind is that of a senior police officer in the Economic Crimes unit who was so close to an operator in the gaming industry – then under investigation – that it was then reported in the media that he had access to, and made use of, the operator’s private vehicle, a Ferrari. The case goes back to 2015. Uncle Silvio’s case is definitely not a one-off.

It was Labour Party candidate Andy Ellul who, in an opinion published in The Times on 28 January 2020 stated that “Police commissioners form part of the executive and they have to toe the electoral programme of the government of the day”. It is indeed unfortunate that Andy Ellul considers that the police have a political function, as the implementation of the electoral programme is the exclusive function of holders of political office.

Andy Ellul’s utterances explain quite a lot as to when, how and why (some of) the police act and investigate. Andy Ellul, a former policeman himself, certainly knows much better than that!

When the Panama Papers revelations hit the headlines what investigations were carried out by the Police? Taking the cue from the Office of the Prime Minister at Castille the Police were not bothered. If Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri can get away with shouldering responsibility for their actions through the setting up of secret companies in Panama, one should not wonder as to the yardstick applied to misdemeanours of some of the members of the Police Force. It was only when the whistle-blower sounded the alarm that matters took a new direction on the allegations relative to police in the Traffic Section and beyond.

Repairing Malta’s reputation is not an easy task and restoring confidence in the Police Force is only one small step of the many required. Our country is being slowly transformed into an amoral society in which principles of ethical behaviour are being scourned and thrown overboard.

We have been told by representatives of the financial services sector that we need all hands on deck to repair Malta’s reputation. It is difficult to comprehend how this can commence in earnest when key elements of the Police Force are rotten to the core.

 

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 16 February 2020

Ir-reputazzjoni tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar

Hu tad-daħq li iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa skoprejna illi l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar hi mħassba dwar li possibilment saret ħafna ħsara lir-reputazzjoni tagħha.

Din kienet aħbar, għax sal-lum, l-impressjoni ġenerali ta’ bosta minna kienet li l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar tiġi taqa’ u tqum mir-reputazzjoni tagħha.

F’numru ta’ protesti u kontro-protesti ppreżentati l-Qorti f’dawn il-ġranet, residenti ta’ Pembroke talbu d-danni mingħand l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar f’konnessjoni mal-mod kif din imxiet fil-konfront tagħhom dwar il-proġett tad-dB. Il-Grupp dB, min-naħa l-oħra lagħabha tal-vittma meta bi qdusija artifiċjali akkuża lill-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar li ma għamlet xejn dwar il-kunflitt ta’ interess ovvju ta’ wieħed mill-membri tal-Bord tal-istess Awtorità – l-aġent tal-propjetà. B’riżultat ta’ dan, qalet li sofriet danni sostanzjali meta l-permess ta’ żvilupp dwar l-iżvilupp massiċċ fil–Bajja ta’ San Ġorg tħassar mill-Qorti.

Fit-tweġiba tagħha, l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar akkużat lill-Grupp dB li kien hu stess li ħoloq il-kunflitt ta’ interess li dwaru kien qed jilmenta. Dan billi għamel użu mis-servizzi ta’ aġent tal-propjetà li kien ukoll membru tal-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar. L-Awtorità kompliet temfasizza li hi ma kelliex idea dwar, u ma kienitx taf illi l-propjetà tad-dB kienet diġà fuq is-suq qabel ma biss il-kaz tela’ quddiem il-Bord għall-approvazzjoni, sintendi bil-vot favorevoli tal-aġent tal-propjetà membru tal-Bord.

L-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar kompliet tgħid li l-Grupp dB, bħala riżultat tal-mod kif opera ikkawża ħafna ħsara lir-reputazzjoni tagħha. Din kienet sorpriża, għax ħafna ma kellhom l-ebda idea li l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar kella xi reputazzjoni x’tipproteġi!

L-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar taf li kull membru tal-Bord tagħha, hekk kif jinħatar, jeħtieġ li jimla formula li fiha jagħti informazzjoni dwar l-interessi tiegħu jew tagħha. Il-membru tal-Bord li qed nitkellmu dwaru, l-aġent tal-propjetà Matthew Pace, diġa iddikjara pubblikament li hu mexa mal-proċeduri stabiliti, li jfisser illi f’din il-formola huwa iddikjara l-interess tiegħu fl-aġenzija tal-propjetà.

Jekk dan hu minnu, x’għamlet l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar hekk kif irrealizzat li wieħed mill-membri l-ġodda tagħha kellu interess f’aġenzija tal-propjetà? Kieku jkollna tweġiba onesta għal din il-mistoqsija bla ebda dubju jkollna idea tajba dwar kif l- Awtorità tal-Ippjanar tħares “ir-reputazzjoni” tagħha. Imma, safejn naf jien, ma għamlet xejn: jew minħabba li m’għandha l-ebda reputazzjoni x’tipproteġi, inkella minħabba li tiġi taqa’ u tqum!

Apparti dan kollu, waqt il-laqgħat tal-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar, kull membru tal-Bord għandu l-obbligu li kull meta l-interessi tiegħu jew tagħha jkunu f’kunflitt mar-responsabbiltajiet bħala membru tal-Bord jiġbed l-attenzjoni għal dan billi jagħmel dikjarazzjoni f’dan is-sens waqt il-laqgħa. Wara li jkun għamel dikjarazzjoni ta’ din ix-xorta, imbagħad, il-membru tal-Bord għandu l-obbligu li jimxi skond kif jipprovdi l-artiklu 13 tal-Att dwar l-Ippjanar tal-Iżvilupp u ma jipparteċipax fil-laqgħa jew laqgħat li jista’ jkollhom x’jaqsmu mal-interessi tiegħu. Minn dak li hu magħruf, dawn it-tip ta’ ċirkustanzi huma rari waqt il-laqgħat tal-Bord tal- Awtorità tal-Ippjanar.

L-interess ta’ dan l-aġent tal-propjetà fil-proġett tad-dB illum huma magħrufa. Ikun interessanti, imma, dwar kemm kien hemm iktar propjetajiet li kienu fuq il-kotba tal-aġenzija tiegħu li kienu ukoll suġġett tal-aġenda li hu kellu sehem biex jiddeċiedi dwarha! Din hi informazzjoni li s’issa l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar ma għamlitx pubblika, għax li kieku kellha tagħmel dan bis-serjetà, malajr inkunu nafu kif l-Awtorità ndukrat ir-reputazzjoni tagħha tul is-snin!

Fil-fehma tiegħi, l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar hi awtorità amorali, fejn il-prinċipji huma irrelevanti. Għax fl-aħħar mill-aħħar, l-unika ħaġa importanti għall-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar hu li ma tkunx ostaklu għal min irid idawwar lira!

ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 4 t’Awwissu 2019

The Planning Authority and its “reputation”

It is quite hilarious to discover that the Planning Authority is worried about possible damage to its reputation! This is news, because, to date the general impression that most of us have is that the Planning Authority does not give a f..k about its reputation.

In a spate of protests and counter-protests presented in Court over the past days, Pembroke residents have requested the payment of damages from the Planning Authority over its handling of the dB project. The dB Group, on the other hand, has sanctimoniously accused the Planning Authority of not acting on the obvious conflict of interest of one of its Board Members – the estate agent – thereby causing it damage as a result of the annulment by the Court of the development permit for the St. George’s Bay City Centre project.

Not to be outdone, in its reply the Planning Authority has accused the dB Group of giving rise to the very conflict-of-interest subject of its complaint. This, it argued, was carried out by making use of the services of an estate agent who was simultaneously a member of the Planning Authority Board. The PA further emphasised that it was not aware that the dB property was on the market even before the matter was decided upon with the estate agent PA Board member voting in favour: obviously!

The Planning Authority also pointed out that, as a result of the way it acted throughout, the dB Group has caused considerable damage to its reputation.

Really? I was not aware that the Planning Authority had any reputation worth preserving!

Now the Planning Authority is aware that each and every member of its Board would, upon being appointed, have submitted a detailed form listing his/her interests. The member in question, the estate agent Matthew Pace, has already declared in public that he has followed all applicable procedures which means that, among other things, he has declared an interest in an estate agency.

If this is correct, what did the Planning Authority do when it realised that one of its new members had an interest in an estate agency? Having an honest answer to this query would throw considerable light as to how the Planning Authority guarded its “reputation”. To my knowledge it did nothing, either because it has no reputation to protect or else because it was not bothered!

In addition, during meetings of the Planning Authority Board, every member of the Board is duty bound to point out instances where his/her private interests conflict with his/her responsibilities as a Board Member. After making a full disclosure of his/her interest the Board Member is obliged – in terms of article 13 of the Development Planning Act – to refrain from participating in the meeting or meetings which could have a bearing on his/her interest. From what is known, such disclosures are a very rare occurrence at PA Board meetings.

The estate agent’s interest in the dB project is now well-known. It would be interesting to know how many other properties on the estate agent’s books were also items on the agenda he had a role in deciding. This is a question that the PA has not answered yet. Maybe an answer could give a significant boost to its reputation!

In my books the Planning Authority is an amoral authority, where principles are irrelevant. At the end of the day, what counts is not being an obstacle to making hay, while the sun shines!

published in the Malta Independent on Sunday : 4 August 2019

Madwar il-mejda aħjar

Iktar kmieni illum flimkien ma uffiċjali oħra ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika iltqajt ma’ Adrian Delia l-Kap tal-PN. Iddiskutejna l-qagħda politika attwali u l-veduti taż-żewġ partiti dwar dak liqiegħed iseħħ bħalissa.

Il-klima politika li qed tiżviluppa fil-pajjiż qed twassal għal ħsara rreparabbli għar-reputazzjoni internazzjonali tal-pajjiż u iktar minn hekk qed ikunu imminati l-istituzzjonijiet tal-pajjiż li diġa huma dgħajfa. Dan ifisser li issa, iktar minn qatt qabel, hu meħtieġ li l-partiti politiċi f’Malta jaħdmu flimkien biex insibu soluzzjonijiet li jkunu effettivi kemm immedjatament kif ukoll fit-tul.

Din kien l-ewwel laqgħa. Il-ġimgħa d-dieħla ser niltaqgħu ma’ Joseph Muscat u l-Partit Laburista.

Nittama li din l-inizjattiva żgħira ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika tkun ta’ kontribut biex iġġib lill-partiti politiċi flimkien madwar il-medja, fejn jistgħu jinstabu s-soluzzjonijiet meħtieġa fl-interess tal-pajjiż.

Joseph’s  helicopter view

ey-attractiveness-survey-2016

The Chamber of Commerce is rightly concerned about the reputational damage that will inevitably result from a lack of institutional transparency as well as ever-diminishing good governance.

This was emphasised by Chamber President Anton Borg on Monday when addressing an event at which the Prime Minister was present. Mr Borg was quoted as stating: “Our business community fears that we are regressing on an important non-cost element of competitiveness. I refer to the country’s reputation in terms of the transparency and the integrity of our institutions.”

Well said, Mr Borg. It is about time that the business community says publicly what most of its members say in private. Mr Borg’s message was clear – even though he was very diplomatic in driving it home. He referred to the recent Ernst and Young attractiveness survey which reported a 15 per cent drop over 2015 in the perception of Malta’s political stability and regulatory transparency. He even referred to the 10 point drop in Malta’s placing in the International Corruption Index published by Transparency International.

The next day, Malta Employers’ Association outgoing President Arthur Muscat drove the message further home by emphasising that a 10 place fall in the corruption index is not an indicator of good governance.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, who was present when Mr Borg delivered his stern warning, immediately activated an ostrich line of defence by retorting that investment was still being attracted to the country and emphasising that business does not invest in corrupt countries.

Well I am not so sure about the Honourable Prime Minister’s statement.

Anton Borg and Arthur Muscat are very decent chaps and they will do everything it takes to stay above the political fray. But they are conscious that these are not normal times. On behalf of their members, they have stood up to be counted.  It is very positive that, through Mr Borg and Mr Muscat, the business community is prepared to take a definite stand against the ever-increasing lack of transparency in public administration as well as in favour of good governance.

In an introductory note on the EY 2016 attractiveness survey entitled The future is today, EY’s Ronald A. Attard says:    “Malta remains attractive to foreign investors. Indeed, this year’s scores are the highest in the last three years. Yet, this ‘helicopter view’ hides significant shifts on the ground, that cannot be ignored. To get the full picture, we need to install a telescope on the helicopter.”

Apparently Prime Minister Joseph Muscat prefers to limit himself to the helicopter view, as a result ignoring the significant shifts on the ground. The view from the ground – as attested by the attractiveness survey – reveals that over a period of 12 months the percentage of those surveyed who consider  that the stability and transparency of the political, legal and regulatory environment  is very attractive or attractive has dipped from 85 per cent to 70 per cent.

The reality on the ground is changing, but this is not immediately obvious to those enjoying a helicopter view.

The Corruption Perceptions Index for 2016 published by Transparency International, on the other hand, sees Malta classified at 47th place, down ten places from 2015. This is certainly not a good sign and only maybe encouraging to government advisor Shiv Nair, blacklisted by the World Bank for corruption activities.

Joseph Muscat is apparently worried and wants to protect us from “abusive” journalists.  It would be much better if he ensures that the institutions established specifically to protect us are allowed to function as intended. This is apparently not so obvious from high up in the helicopter but is pretty obvious to an ever-increasing number of those on the ground.

This country has much to offer – its potential is immense; but we must weed out the parasites at the earliest opportunity.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 5 March 2017

 

Il-gimmick ta’ Simon Busuttil

Busuttil-Muscat

Il-ħsara lir-reputazzjoni ta’ Malta bl-iskema tal-bejgħ taċ-ċittadinanza imfassla minn Joseph Muscat u l-konsulenti tiegħu Henley and Partners hi waħda kbira.

Il-bieraħ Simon Busuttil kompla żied ma din il-ħsara billi ddikjara li ser imur il-Qorti u jippreżenta protest ġudizzjarju kontra l-Gvern u kontra Henley and Partners. F’dan il-protest ġudizzjarju Busuttil fi ħsiebu jibqa’ jemfasizza illi meta l-PN ikun fil-Gvern hu determinat illi lil dawk li jkunu xtraw iċ-ċittadinanza jeħodilhom lura.  Dikjarazzjoni ta’ din ix-xorta minn Simon Busuttil tfisser li l-PN taħt Simon Busuttil jiġi jaqa’ u jqum mid-drittijiet tal-bniedem. Simon Busuttil jaf li dak li qed jgħid ma jistax jagħmlu. Jaf li ma jistax b’daqqa ta’ pinna jħassar id-drittijiet akkwistati anke jekk għandu raġunijiet validi li minħabba fihom ma jaqbilx mal-liġi li ħolqot dawk id-drittijiet.

Din id-dikjarazzjoni ta’ Simon Busuttil hi tebgħa kerha fuq il-PN. Busuttil fil-ġimgħat li għaddew iġġustifika dan billi qal li għandu parir legali f’dan is-sens. Busuttil imissu jippubblika l-parir li qed jgħid li għandu kif diġa għamel il-Gvern meta ippubblika l-parir tal-Avukat tar-Repubblika.

Li Simon Busuttil jinsisti li l-Gvern ta’ Muscat jibdel drastikament l-iskema hu tajjeb. Li jikkompeti miegħu dwar min minnhom jagħmel l-iktar ħsara hu tal-biki.

Subsidiarity and loyalty

malta passport

The Prime Minister has a generational transformation in sight which he wants to bankroll with the monies generated by his sale of citizenship scheme. His supporters see traitors everywhere as they cannot stomach any form of criticism.

Does any EU member state have the right to introduce and implement a sale of citizenship scheme?  Government spokesmen have repeatedly stated that the Malta Government has been advised that it is in line with EU legislation. In line with the subsidiarity principle, nationality issues, we were told, are the sole and exclusive competence of EU member states.

No one is contesting that nationality issues are a national competence. In fact even Commissioner Viviene Reding made this amply clear. There is however much more to it than state competence. There is the duty to be loyal to the Union and other member states. Article 4.3 of the European Union Treaty explains this as the principle of sincere cooperation, also referred to as the loyalty principle: loyalty, that is, towards the other European Union member states.

Government has opted to milk citizenship in order to generate finance so as to be in a position to implement its electoral programme. It has excluded taxation as an option. Moreover it has reduced income tax as part of its electoral strategy in order to outwit the former government, knowing full well that this necessitated alternative financial avenues. Never did it place its plans to put citizenship on sale before the electorate for its consideration. Ethically the Labour Party cannot claim to have an electoral mandate on the matter.

The local political debate has revealed diametrically opposed positions. Government’s position is dictated by its strategy of requiring cash in order to finance its political initiatives. Time is of essence in its strategy. It cannot afford to wait for would-be investors to take initiatives of their choice. There is no direct link between the prospective citizen and the manner in which the monies he pays are “invested”. It is in fact an exercise of selling citizenship with a commitment to use the proceeds in a specific manner. The funds generated are hypothecated. A residential criterion has so far been ruled out, most probably,  as this would only serve as a delaying factor. It would delay the flow of the monies required depending on how long the residential criterion runs.

The warning shot fired by the EU Parliament is not to be discarded as the EU Parliament is the only democratically elected EU institution. Nor is Commissioner Reding’s statement  one that could be ignored. Reding has stated that:

While I am not calling for the Commission to receive legal power to determine what constitutes nationality or the rules granting it, the Commission nevertheless expects that Member States act in full awareness of the consequences of their decisions.

Our debate today shows the growing importance of these questions in a European Union where national decisions are in many instances not neutral vis-à-vis other Member States and the EU as a whole. It is a fact that the principle of sincere cooperation, which is inscribed in the EU Treaties (Article 4.3 of the Treaty on European Union), should lead Member States to take account of the impact of decisions in the field of nationality on other Member States and the Union as a whole.”

Clearly the competence of member states on issues of citizenship is not absolute. Given its impacts on all the other members of the Union in areas of national security, freedom of movement in the Schengen Area, rights to residence and employment, it stands to reason that both the EU as well as member states require consultation which apparently was not carried out.

The capping of the citizenship scheme at 1,800 passports for sale is certainly not enough. A residential condition of reasonable length is also  required as an additional and essential element. This would however be a sticking point as whilst it could render the proposed scheme less un-acceptable and in line with some of the practices elsewhere, it may fail to deliver what the Maltese Government requires on time.

It is with this in mind that the Greens in Malta have time and again called on Government to suspend the implementation of the scheme and concurrently to initiate a dialogue with Brussels. The problem at an EU level may eventually be resolved around the negotiating table. This would result in less reputational damage for Malta. A meeting called between the EU Commision and the Malta Government seems to be imminent. Hopefully matters will take a positive turn.

That would leave the political issue to be solved locally, either in Parliament or at the ballot box through a public consultation. The Prime Minister has already indicated that he is willing to submit the issue to a national consultation.  It is the decent way forward, part of our learning curve as a nation.

published in The Times of Malta, Saturday January 25, 2014