Politics

The PN does not need saving II

Turning a refusal into an opportunity

Roberta Metsola’s decision not to contest the leadership of the Nationalist Party will disappoint many — and understandably so. Her popularity, international standing, and gravitas would have made her a formidable candidate at a time when the PN is desperate for a resurgence. But sometimes, strength lies not in stepping forward, but in stepping aside.

This refusal is no retreat. It is a recalibration. Metsola’s decision clears the air and clarifies the path ahead. The elephant that loomed large in every speculative conversation is no longer in the room. And with that, the PN stands at a true crossroads — finally unshackled from distractions, free to look inward and chart a path forward.

The party’s woes are deep-rooted, but so too is its potential. What it needs now is not a saviour but a leader. Someone who is willing to do the difficult work of reimagining what the PN stands for — and for whom. Metsola’s step back offers this incoming leader something invaluable: a clean slate. There are no albatrosses hanging from their neck, no power struggles in the wings. Just an open field and a nation that is quietly yearning for a real alternative.

Just like Bernard Grech’s resignation, Metsola’s decision strengthens, rather than weakens, the next PN leader. She remains a loyal ally — a Maltese figure at the helm of one of Europe’s most important institutions, whose voice still carries weight both at home and abroad. The next leader of the PN can move forward knowing they have her support, but not her shadow.

Reinvention will not come easy. It will require political courage, humility, and a genuine connection with the people. But more than anything, it will require freedom — freedom from the ghosts of the past, from the paralysis of nostalgia, and from the illusion that electoral success lies in more of the same.

If properly dealt with, Roberta Metsola’s refusal to run is not the closing of a chapter. It is the turning of a page.

The PN does not need saving

When Bernard Grech finally bowed to electoral gravity and quit as leader of the Nationalist Party (PN) this week, the predictable hunt for a saviour began. Within hours social media timelines were aflutter with pleas for European Parliament President Roberta Metsola to return home and “rescue” the party, MPs were trading endorsements, and columnists dusted off familiar laments about the PN’s existential crisis. But Malta’s oldest political movement does not, in fact, need saving. It needs reinvention.

A leadership carousel that goes nowhere

Since 2013 the PN has cycled through three leaders, each initially hailed as the figure who would close the polling gap with Labour. None succeeded. The latest Times of Malta survey in March 2025 still places the party six percentage points behind Robert Abela’s PL—roughly a 18,700 vote deficit. Worse, polls over the past three years consistently show that while Labour bleeds support, the PN fails to capture disillusioned voters . A fresh face at the helm—Metsola or anyone else—will not reverse that trend if the underlying product remains unchanged.

The fallacy of the messiah leader

Treating the leadership vacancy as a superhero casting call mistakes symptoms for causes. Charismatic leadership matters, but it cannot substitute a coherent ethos. As long as the PN defines itself primarily as “not Labour”, it will grapple for identity and bleed relevance. The politics of emergency—switching captains every electoral cycle—erodes public confidence and demoralises activists who crave purpose, not panic.

As long as it continues to think of politics, of itself, of its mission, in terms of the system that created the destructive duopoly we have today. As long as it continues to define its structural template against the background of the sick politics that have brought a nation to its knees. As long as it does this, the PN will remain the empty carcass that it has become. No matter how many ‘saviours’ are heralded into the party on the wings of partisan enthusiasm.

Rediscovering — and reimagining — values

The PN’s greatest victories were won when it offered a compelling national project: EU membership, economic liberalisation, democratic consolidation. Two decades later those milestones are baked into Malta’s status quo. The party now needs a new raison d’être anchored in 21st century challenges: a green and digital economy, affordable housing, integrity in public contracts, and an education system that prepares workers for AI driven industries.

That requires more than a policy facelift. It demands a mindset shift from siege to service, from factional arithmetic to civic partnership. The PN must speak the language of young renters priced off the property ladder, caregivers navigating inflation, and entrepreneurs stifled by red tape. It must be bolder on good governance reform than Labour, more imaginative on climate action than ADPD, and more socially compassionate than its conservative caricature suggests.

A huge caveat also against those who associate the current battle against the regression in the field of rule of law as some kind of albatross holding the PN down. Those who fall for the ‘negativity’ and ‘holier than thou’ spin as though the battle for liberal democracy is for others to make. Failure to understand the basic duty of a party to underline and subscribe to the essential core values of a democracy is another non-starter.

A blueprint for reinvention

1. Open primaries and transparent financing to detoxify internal patronage networks and give every member a stake in decision making.

2. Policy co creation labs that pair MPs with civil society experts, ensuring proposals are evidence driven and citizen tested before they hit the chamber.

3. Digital first outreach that treats TikTok and Twitch as seriously as TVMs nightly news, meeting voters where they actually spend time.

4. Talent pipelines that prioritise competence over surname, bringing technologists, climate scientists and social policy innovators onto the candidate slate.

5. A servant leader culture in which the new chief acts as convener, not proprietor, of the party’s future.

From self preservation to national service

Malta does not need another leadership beauty pageant. It needs a credible opposition capable of converting protest into progress. That mission will not be fulfilled by pleading for somebody—anybody—to “save” the PN. It will be delivered when the party itself stops asking Who will rescue us? and starts asking How can we serve?

Grech’s departure is an opportunity, not an emergency. If the PN uses this interregnum to revolutionise its purpose and methods, the polling numbers will follow. If it opts instead for another superficial reboot, the country will merely witness the latest episode in a long running tragedy—and switch the channel.

The Passport Judgment Aftermath (III)

Facts and Explainers – The Mexit Fantasy

Another reaction popular on social media is the one that advocates showing the middle finger to the meddling EU and actually leaving it. How dare the Europeans dictate citizenship terms to our sovereign nation?

Where to start? A list maybe…

1. The success of the citizenship by investment scheme that generated 1.4 billion euros for Malta depended heavily on the fact that a) Malta was part of the European Union and b) the scheme practically sold (a more coveted) EU citizenship over and above (the Trojan horse) Maltese citizenship. As the Court itself noted in the judgment, agents were actively promoting the scheme as an opportunity to buy your way into the EU and not Malta. Add that to the scarce checks on the creation of any lien to Malta itself other than coughing up the cash and you may begin to understand how an EU-less Malta would not have such a successful scheme. In other words… it worked because of the EU element not in spite of it. Leave the EU and see how many citizens will comply.

2. Ironically, Malta was involved in another landmark case that has much wider implications than just in Malta. In Repubblika, the Court looked into the exercise of another sovereign competence of member states i.e. judicial reform. Repubblika was not the first case in which the Court did so. Article 19 TUE, and more specifically the obligation on Member States to maintain an efficient judicial system guaranteeing access to the EU acquis had allowed the Court to set an EU standard for judicial reforms. Again in layman´s terms: you fiddle around with your judiciary as much as you like BUT the EU will lways make sure that your new set up is not worse than the certified set-up of that was in place when you joined (non-regression principle). Same thing happened this time round with the citizenship scheme. The EU still allows Member States to determine who can become their citizen BUT given the implications on EU Citizenship the conditions for granting such citizenship may be scrutinised.

3. And this is the hardest one to get for the sceptics. It is basically summarised as you cannot have the cake and eat it (or the more expressive maltese “tridha hobbla u tredda”). Membership of the EU brings benefits. Huge benefits for both citizens and the country as a whole. These benefits come with obligations of loyalty to the system. Member States cannot expect to undermine the system while continuing to enjoy the benefits. It is really that simple. It is useless crying wolf every time you are found to have fallen foul of the common rules.

Leave the EU? Mexit? Possibly… consider it but only after you have really weighed the overall losses that will inevitably be incurred. I am quite sure you will think twice before thinking of leaving the EU again.

The Passport Judgment Aftermath (II)

Facts and Explainers

Part of the reaction, or backlash, to today´s judgment includes the incredible assertion that the fact that the solution in the judgment was diametrically opposed to the Advocate General´s Opinion somehow diminished the quality of the judgment.

Such a position displays an ignorance of procedure before the EU Court. The Opinion given by an AG is normally requested by the Court itself and is an opportunity to obtain a detailed analysis of one or more possible solutions to the issue before the Court. It is by its very nature non-binding.

The Advocate General’s Opinion at the Court of Justice of the European Union is followed in about 75–80% of cases. However, the judges are not bound by it, and they diverge in roughly 20–25% of instances. While the Advocate General provides a detailed and independent legal analysis, the final judgment rests solely with the Court, which may adopt, modify, or completely depart from the Opinion depending on its own deliberations.

There have been several high-profile cases where the Court did not follow the Advocate General’s Opinion. In **Google Spain (C-131/12)**, AG Jääskinen opposed a broad “right to be forgotten,” yet the Court recognized it, requiring Google to delist links on request. In **Schrems I (C-362/14)**, AG Bot found flaws in the Safe Harbor agreement but suggested nuanced remedies; the Court instead invalidated Safe Harbor outright.

In **Wightman (C-621/18)**, AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona concluded that the UK could unilaterally revoke Article 50 TEU, and while the Court agreed, it gave more precise conditions for such a revocation. In **Coman (C-673/16)**, AG Wathelet advocated strong residence rights for same-sex spouses across the EU; the Court upheld the outcome but based its judgment narrowly on free movement law rather than broader marriage recognition.

These examples illustrate that while the Advocate General’s Opinions are highly influential, they serve ultimately as a guide rather than a command. The Court of Justice carefully considers them but reaches its own conclusions based on legal interpretation, judicial consensus, and the wider context of European Union law.

The Passport Judgment Aftermath (1)

Facts and Explainers

Here´s an exercise for all the whataboutists active on social media defending Malta´s passport scheme. One of the arguments being bandied around is in fact that other countries still have such schemes. I knew this was not true and that Malta´s was the last one standing till today; but do not take it from me. I asked ChatGPT instead and here is the result….

How many countries in the EU currently have a citizenship by investment scheme?

As of April 2025, no European Union (EU) member state offers a citizenship by investment (CBI) scheme—that is, a program granting immediate citizenship in exchange for a financial investment without substantial residency requirements.​

Malta was the last EU country to operate such a scheme. However, on April 29, 2025, the European Court of Justice ruled that Malta’s “golden passport” program violated EU law by commodifying citizenship and undermining the principles of solidarity and mutual trust among member states. The Court emphasized that granting EU citizenship in exchange for payment undermines the integrity of citizenship, national bonds, and mutual trust among EU member states. Prior to this, Cyprus and Bulgaria had already terminated their CBI schemes following pressure from the European Commission over similar concerns.​

While direct citizenship by investment programs have been discontinued, several EU countries continue to offer residence by investment (RBI) schemes, commonly known as “golden visas.” These programs grant residency rights to investors, which may eventually lead to citizenship through naturalization, subject to residency duration, language proficiency, and integration requirements. Countries such as Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Hungary maintain such RBI programs, though they are under increasing scrutiny and regulatory tightening.

Is Bill 125 challengeable under EU Law?

Wednesday’s protest outside parliament is all about challenging Bill 125. Repubblika has already registered a court protest against the bill, showing a clear intention to use all legal avenues to stop it from coming into effect. One of the main criticisms of the Bill is that it signifies a step back, and not forward, in the protection and safeguard of citizen rights by weakening what has proven to be an effective tool in the control and supervision of executive power.

It has been argued in some circles that one possible avenue of challenging the Bill (or the law once it comes into effect) is by arguing its incompatibility with Malta’s EU obligations. In other words, the law would constitute a breach of EU law. More specifically, the nature of the law would be such that it would constitute a violation of the Principle of Non-Regression. Government exponents have been quick to shoot down this potential avenue of redress, claiming that the aforementioned principle is only applicable to judicial reforms. Bill 125, limited to reforming in genere inquiries, would not fall under that principle – at least that is what they claim.

Since its explicit acknowledgment in the Repubblika judgment (Case C-896/19), the Principle of Non-Regression has emerged as a significant instrument employed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to safeguard the rule of law within the EU. In Repubblika, the Court articulated a clear prohibition on national reforms that diminish judicial independence, reinforcing the idea that once an EU Member State attains certain standards of protection for judicial independence, regressive measures are not allowed.

Following Repubblika, the CJEU has consistently reiterated that maintaining attained levels of judicial independence and rule of law standards is not optional but obligatory for Member States. For instance, this principle was underscored in subsequent rulings, where judicial reforms proposed in various Member States were scrutinized for potentially weakening pre-existing standards.

However, an essential question remains: does this Principle of Non-Regression apply solely to judicial independence, or can it extend to other fields of EU law?

The broader interpretation, emerging from doctrinal debates and scholarly analysis, suggests potential applicability beyond the judicial sphere. Although initially associated explicitly with rule of law contexts, non-regression could logically extend to other fundamental areas safeguarded by EU law, including environmental standards, social rights, and consumer protection. In fact, the broader application aligns with EU objectives to ensure continual progress toward enhanced standards, reflecting an underlying EU constitutional ethos aimed at safeguarding and progressively developing established protections.

Nonetheless, while the theoretical scope for such broader application exists, concrete affirmation by the CJEU outside judicial contexts is yet to materialize definitively. While Repubblika has solidly anchored non-regression within judicial reforms, its extension into broader domains remains a dynamic, evolving area of EU jurisprudence, awaiting further clarification from future case law.

In any case it is not at all a given fact that a potential challenge of the Bill 125 made law based on incompatibility with EU law would be thrown out by the EU court. The principle of non-regression, enshrined in another Malta-related case is clearly ripe for the use against laws such as Bill 125.

This would be even more the case should it be proven that by enacting Bill 125 Malta is failing its obligation under article 19 of the TFUE: “Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law.” It could be argued that this article 19 obligation encapsulates the citizen’s right to access inquiries that is being curtailed by Bill 125. “The fields covered by Union law” would incidentally include issues such as corruption related to EU funds that may be the subject of such inquiries.

In short, the odds are strongly in favour of any such challenge. I harbour little doubts on the admissibility of such an action and less on its success.