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.
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.
Inevitably, the shift of the “Citizenship for Sale” controversy to the European Parliament has brought along with it a severe case of tabloid-itis to the Maltese discussion fora and social media. The British tabloid press is hugely responsible for a variety of EU myths and thrives on stoking anti-EU sentimentalism among the lesser informed throngs of the population. Malta, with its passionate partisan electorate, was never going to manage to avoid the pull of the fantastical baseless controversy.
As the European Parliament debate could have (might have) proven, the question of the value of European citizenship cannot remain confined to mentioning one or two countries that have initiated a rush on the gold standard worthy of Klondike in the 1890’s. The European Union still has to take the proverbial bull by the horns and (probably, hopefully) redefine the notion of citizenship- a crucial point in the definition of a demos that has hitherto only been loosely attempted at the various steps of Maastricht and Amsterdam. Nationalism being what it is, council meetings (or failed constitutional conventions) tend to treat the matter of nationality with gloves – and this also thanks to the huge backlashes in the tabloids that would occur should the Holy Grail of nationalistic sentiment be touched in some way.
On Citizenship, Traitors and Europeanism
Back to the tabloids though. We were treated in some papers to the idea of “traitors” – those dastardly nationalists doing the unthinkable in Europe. This should have nothing to do with “betraying one’s country” and much more to do with a concern for the future of the European Union and the benefits that it brings to every single member of its rather exclusive club. Concern that the values of the European Union are being diluted are not anti-nationalistic concerns if you are a Europeanist. A Europeanist wants a stronger Europe because he wants a stronger nation. A Europeanist sees a stronger Europe as a solution for his nation.
The other perspective on citizenship involves seeing the whole sale of passports business as some form of competition between individual states. In one fell swoop this perspective ignores the very package of rights and gains for citizens that have been obtained since the 50’s. Admittedly in fits and starts, admittedly not without huge margins for improvement but being an EU citizen in 2014 has much more value and rights and benefits than being, say, a BENELUX citizen in 1957. Seeing the issue solely as a market where every team plays ‘away’ and solely for its own interests is missing the point. Worse is the perspective that looks at Europe as an “us vs them” game.
On Myths
Malta was not the only nation that was “hanging its linen in public” so to speak. We did witness a vociferous exchange among two Portuguese MEP’s. These national rivalries are the collateral effect and should not be the focus at a European level. The focus should be on strengthening the EU citizenship – not, as some mistakenly supposed, via some Commission masterminded plan to overrun national sovereignty, but by the Member States themselves agreeing to redefine the concept of EU citizenship for their own benefit. Why? In order not to lose what they have achieved until now.
I received an email yesterday. Funny how some “myths” go viral just at the right time. This one was supposedly about the European Parliament and the laggards that work there. The title was simple “MUST SEE!”. Then it opened with a very typical Maltese English-ism: “Following are some of the reasons why you will vote next May !”. Next we had these phrases: “European Parliament in session …..according to the time sheets all members are present….The reality is they all clocked-in in the morning and then went about their personal affairs !” followed by a series of pics that I will put into two sets for the sake of presentation.
First there was this pic of an empty EU Parliament.
European Parliament in session. These photos must be circulated… time and again and again.. … PRODUCTIVITY AT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT… THEIR SALARIES ARE 12,000 EUROS A MONTH !
Then there was series of pics under each of which was written simply €12,000. I put these pics together as a collage to make them easier to post. You’ll get the gist.
€12,000
The email ended this way:
AND YOU, YOU HAVE TO WORK UNTIL YOU DROP
..
OF STRESS… UP TO THE AGE OF 60-65 OR OLDER !
THIS EMAIL MUST BE CIRCULATED once,
a hundred times,
a thousand times,
a million times !
These people above give directives,
to fill their pockets!
.
AND WE ARE FORCED TO VOTE FOR THEM
They’re not the dummies !
WE ARE!
DON’T HESITATE TO CIRCULATE THIS
Shocking isn’t it? There is only one problem. Apart from the first photo that could very well be a photo of the parliament building before a session starts or right after it ends, all the other photos are not of the European Parliament. My guess is that it is the German parliament but I could be wrong. In the eagerness to badmouth the European Parliament (especially because it is currently debating a motion that puts Malta in a bad light) some geniuses somewhere (and I have a good idea where) came up with this hopeless email.
Now I am not going to imagine that all Europarliamentarians are saints and that they attend each and every session. The EP is as afflicted as national parliaments with lesser dedicated parliamentarians – in a parliament that is just as full of the kind of Eurosceptic politician who would encourage the above email incidentally. What is pathetic is how easily such an email gets picked up and forwarded while we are on the cusp of a wave of anti-EU enthusiasm.
The EU institutional machinery works along defined lines. They are not being invented now because Malta has come up with this Golden Passport plan. They have always been there. Besides, the EU has EU-wide matters that need tackling (the question of redefining EU citizenship being one of them). Looking at the goings on through the eyes of the tabloids and their copycats will only make fools of ourselves.
There is a cure. Get informed (and don’t be so damn gullible).
It’s the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination today. Back in 1963 Kennedy was in Berlin addressing a city that had just seen a wall erected by the Soviets in an attempt to curb its citizens freedoms. Kennedy wanted to send out a message, he wanted to encourage the Berliners in their fight for freedom and to show them that they are not alone – that they had the solidarity of the whole of the west.
To underline that sense of solidarity and oneness through freedom, Kennedy chose the famous phrase “Ich bin ein Berliner”. Here is how the President put it:
“Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was civis romanus sum [“I am a Roman citizen”]. Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is “Ich bin ein Berliner!”… All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words “Ich bin ein Berliner!””
The sense of pride of being a citizen of Rome in 60 A.D. or of Berlin in 1963 was underlined by the set of values that being a citizen of a certain nation (or city-state – hence, “citizen”) represented. Kennedy was tying the sense of Berlin-ness to the sense of freedom that the West was meant to encapsulate (not always too well) in the times of the Cold War. Granted, he did end up saying that he was a doughnut (ein Berliner) but that was more due to grammatical shortcomings than anything else.
I wonder what resonance the phrase “Ich bin ein Malteser” would have nowadays. The pictogram below shows four possible ideas that might have sprung to mind in jest or seriously should you have stated that phrase to a passer-by in Frankfurt for example.
An aficionado of canines might think of the “Maltese dog“, a sweet tooth might think of the chocolates, a traveller yearning for sun and sea might have thought of that poster he saw at the travel agent. Germans would also think of the Order of Malta’s relief agency that is present on German streets. That was before our government decided to turn salesman and sell citizenship over the counter as though it were pastizzi or hobz biz-zejt. Without any shadow of doubt, as those of us who work in international environments have discovered much to our chagrin, the instinctive reply now would be “How much for your passport?”
You see, our salesman in Miami either has not grasped this fact or just prefers to ignore it. “Jiena Malti”, “Ich bin Malteser”, “Sono Maltese”, “I am Maltese”, “Je suis Maltais” … it has lost that proud ring to it. It’s not only a matter of pride for pride itself. It’s also about meaning and values. What does being Maltese mean nowadays? Enterprising? Welcoming? Jovial? Sunny?
The sale of passports – no matter how refined – ends up becoming an even further denigration of all that is Maltese. Standing by and justifying such a sale with a “cosi fan tutti” attitude is only symptomatic of how devalued our sense of citizenship has become. Ironically only 8 months after a campaign that banked hugely on the concept of “being Maltese” we find the very idea of citizenship and belonging being eroded at a rapid pace.
50 years ago to this day JFK died in suspicious circumstances. His spirit and yearning for a free and better world did not die with him. I strongly doubt whether we can really say “Ich bin ein Malteser” today and feel just as involved and in solidarity with the struggle for a better world.
It just occurred to me that we now have full confirmation that all the TaghnaLkoll talk of roadmaps and costings was nothing but an elaborate bluff. The information that we now have in hand regarding Henley’s role in the Passports for Sale scheme shows us that far from projecting Malta into the age of modern business as Muscat was so eager to highlight, we are witnessing a regression to Medieval business. Yep, that’s the Middle Ages – definitely before your grandpapa was alive.
You see, ever eager to make a quick buck, the current Maltese government has hatched a scheme that makes a mockery of the prized possession of Maltese and EU citizenship and all this simply to create a very-medieval scheme of exclusive monopoly. What was done by medieval towns is now being practiced by the dinosaurs in charge of our economy with more than a little connivance by those supposedly in charge of our safety and security. In the past Medieval towns would grant traders exclusivity over a particular merchandise and then take a cut on all the trade that occurs. Simples. No sweat, just a seal and a little tax.
Muscat could not exactly come up with some form of government approved monopoly in, say, colour televisions. Of course not. This is not 1984 (meh). He took one thing that could not really be commercialised (and this for obvious reasons such as national security and integrity) and changed it into a cheap trick available to someone who could relatively afford a mezzanine in Luxembourg’s outskirts. Nobody in his entourage could be trusted in selling this kind of merchandise so he found an outside company that will get a huge cut on every transaction. No time for niceties so the same company getting the cut will be trusted (please, stop laughing in the back) to vet applicants and possibly refuse a potential killing simply because it might develop a conscience and believe that Malta’s territorial integrity is at stake.
This medieval scheme is now having the not so welcome result that international agreements with states such as the US of A might be imperiled insofar as VISA waiver schemes are concerned. Would you blame them? They can tell a trojan horse when they see one – not that Muscat would know. He’s busy going medieval on our citizenship and transforming our nation into a peddler of the cheapest kind.
It’s a tough time for the opposition. That it is so is surprising since the Labour government is generously providing all sorts of opportunities for an alert opposition to be critical. Having said that, it is also true that the long-term effects of the Taghna Lkoll wave will continue to be sustained so long as the party in government acts and thinks as a party in opposition. Bad as it may be for governance (and harmful) it still seems to do the works in the perception polls.
Back to the PN. Their nominations for the MEP elections are shaky to say the least. It is hard not to look at the list of candidates announced up until now and not to think of them as a motley result of the push and pull of different inner strands of the party. Some are totally new to the field of politics (Jonathan Shaw or Helga Ellul) and still ride on the obsession of one part of the PN that still confuses corporate and political guile/power if and where it exists.
Bar the tried and tested Metsola who should hopefully make it back to Brussels to build on what turned out to be a positively surprising performance there is not much hope that shines out of the PN list. The list though is just made of people. It is the policies and politics that are still rather unfathomable – what kind of party will people be voting for?
Unfortunately for the men and women from Pietà there is no easy answer to that one. The PN still betrays signs of inner tensions. To begin with the party whose internal politics depends very much on the formation of factions has not managed to shed the inner fault lines that turn out to be debilitating in the long run. Add to that the fact that the party has still not managed to have a long hard think about its value base and what it wants to represent. Not a good place to be in when we are in the times of Civil Union Bills.
It is just such a bill that exposes the frailties of the PN as a party. On the positive side the political differences as to what position to take on various aspects of the bill are commendable. They are signs of a party that still has some vestiges of political thinking or ticking going on. Whether you agree or disagree with any of the factions is not the point – what is clear is that the PN has clear symptoms of multiple personality disorder verging on schizophrenia.
Without going into much detail as to the different sections themselves we can still see how the PN’s outside front can turn out to be shallow and non-committal. A telling moment was when the PN managed to confirm that it would back the Civil Union Bill but then went on to say that it would propose amendments that would differentiate the Unions from marriage. The cake and eat it. It’s why it is easy for Joseph to go on riding the opportunist bulldozer and claim that the PN is being equivocal on this point.
The danger for the PN is that having so many different political backgrounds really means that the PN is constantly in the position of being more parties than one. There is a conservative strand and a social democrat style of Christian-Democracy that often swings to the left side of the spectrum. Unlike the PL that has reneged completely on any kind of association with value-driven politics, the PN is simply at a point of having to define its priorities and possibly decide whether the different strands can be accommodated in one monolithic structure.
Another aspect of PN’s schizophrenia is related to its having to deal with the past. The corollary to Muscat’s constant jibes at the PN’s history is that any new position by the PN has to take into consideration its very recent track record. A case in point is the Passports for Sale saga. The PN might have unearthed a Fenech Adami refusal to one such proposal in its early days of government but a simple search as to who the main protagonists in the new scheme are clearly indicates that Gonzi’s government might have had similar plans on the backburner itself.
These are tough times for an opposition still trying to get on its feet and one that is in search of a clear identity. I’ve written this before and don’t mind repeating it again now – before venturing to sell its message to the people the PN must first be sure that it knows what that message is.
Know thyself. Then go out and fight the behemoth that is threatening to run riot with this country.
