The slippery slope of passport sales

Dr Peter Agius is a PN candidate for the European elections, Former Head of the European Parliament Office and cabinet member of the President of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani How much do you care for your Maltese passport? We boast of its standing as a door opener all over the world. That commodity risks however losing value if we keep on trading it without regard to the needs of those who are to give it value.

The recent debacle about the sale of European citizenship, with European Commissioner Jourova openly contradicting the statements of Prime Minister Muscat, risks passing by as another bleak chapter in the Labour Government’s disrespect to our European commitments and hence to our European values. The report submitted by the European Commission to the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament highlights however another, more bread and butter element, which should be brought to the attention of the readers.

The report says unequivocally that Malta’s sale of European citizenship is a continuing risk to European security in so far as “Security checks run on applicants are not sufficiently robust and the EU’s own centralised information systems, such as the Schengen Information System (SIS), are not being used as systematically as they should be”. Translated in layman terms this means that the Commission is not convinced with Identity Malta’s reassurances of rigorous checks and sees the Maltese passport sale scheme as a potential loophole to European security safeguards.

Translated further to the concerns of Mr and Mrs Borg, this as yet orange alarm by the European Commission means that the achievements of freedom of movement, freedom from lengthy passport checks at every European border by Maltese citizens, is being put into question through our own insistence of selling passports to the highest bidders.

That orange alarm has all the thrust to turn red, and with that we risk the liberties achieved through the work of previous administrations when we joined the Schengen zone giving us way easier movement within the European Union.

There is more than security on the European Commission’s mind. The same report by the Commission is peppered with concerns of structural weaknesses that the sale of citizenship poses to Europe’s fight against corruption, money laundering and tax evasion.

The commission tells Malta very clearly that it is not satisfied with the current due diligence checks to avoid money laundering risks with the sale of Maltese citizenship, telling us black on white that “enhanced checks are necessary to ensure that rules on anti-money laundering are not circumvented”.

Now tell me, how can a Prime Minister who is told that his country is becoming the ‘weakest link’ (words from European Commission statement published on 23 January) on corruption, money-laundering and security rebut by saying that the same European Commission had endorsed the scheme ‘in writing’?

I might have half an answer for that. I say half because it requires a degree of moral flexibility as to the parameters of what includes agreement and the respect thereof. Let us go back to 2013 when labour presented its scheme to the general uproar of public opinion in Malta. The Honourable Prime Minister goes to Brussels and is welcomed by Viviane Reding then Commissioner in charge. He comes back announcing that the European Commission agreed to the scheme on a number of conditions.

There was in fact a joint statement published on 29 January 2014, which does not qualify as an agreement, but which highlights that for any such scheme to be at least tolerable it has to include a real genuine link between the country and those buying the citizenship. The statement is clear that no Maltese citizenship will be issued “unless the applicant provides proof that he/she has resided in Malta for a period of at least 12 months”.

Is the Prime Minister misleading us when he says that the Commission had agreed to the scheme? Let us assume for a second that the above statement amounts to an agreement. But, did Malta keep its word of respecting that ‘agreement’ if there was one? We cannot tell, because contrary to what the Government promised back then it never published the names of our new compatriots, making it therefore impossible to assess whether there is indeed the 12 month residence for the new Maltese citizens.

So, what is the way forward on this? The Nationalist Party believes that our citizenship amounts to our identity. It is simply priceless. Not for sale. We should cease the current IIP immediately. But given that Government seems intent in defending the scheme notwithstanding the serious opportunity cost, it should at least honour its word, ensure the 12 month residence for all to see and respond with collegiality and integrity to the legitimate concerns of our European partners. Most importantly our government is to ensure that its risky adventures do not put in peril our hard-fought rights as Maltese in Europe.