Time to call it a day?
Malta launched a new citizenship-byinvestment scheme a few months ago which, it says, is an improvement of the highly controversial IIP. But its future is all but certain as the European Commission is still mulling taking Malta to court.
The EC launched infringement procedures against Malta in October. Two months after the government replied to its formal letter, the Commission is still evaluating Malta’s argument.
And things are not looking good because, despite the fact that Malta says it addressed all IIP concerns and that the ‘new’ scheme will lead to a more ‘genuine’ link between the island and the applicants, the concept remains the same. And it is the concept of these ‘golden visa’ schemes that the EC is concerned about.
Robert Abela’s government, keen to distance itself from the Muscat administration’s IIP, phased out the IIP and replaced it with something else. But call it what you will, the new scheme is still a means of having mega rich foreign individuals dish out a substantial amount of money in return for a Maltese passport.
And a Maltese passport, of course, is also an EU passport, giving its holders several rights enjoyed by EU citizens, such as the right to move, reside and work freely within the bloc, and the right to vote in local council and European Parliament elections.
The government argues that this is an issue of national competence, but this is a flawed argument when the ‘service’ we are providing could have ramifications on the entire 27-member bloc.
The government has also argued that there will be a more genuine link because a bigger effort is being made to entice the applicants to invest and start businesses in Malta, but will this be enough to convince the EC?
After all, there were times where foreign businesses were successfully attracted to Malta without the promise of a crimson passport for the owner. Why can’t we keep doing that instead of opting for something so controversial?
One might argue that Malta is not the only EU country operating a citizenship scheme, but then again not all schemes proved to be as controversial as Malta’s.
The IIP proved to be notorious not only because of shortcomings and due diligence concerns but also because of the closeness the concessionaires – Henley and Partners – had with the Office of the Prime Minister. Indeed, the company did not only use former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat as its main travelling salesman but also consulted him on its plans to silence the late journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia with crippling lawsuits.
The damage caused to Malta’s reputation through the IIP might be irreparable. It is very unlikely that we will ever convince the EU that we have now changed things for the better, especially since the Commission is against the very principle of selling passports.
Malta brought in a lot of cash through the IIP, and most of that money was put to good use, but perhaps it is time to call it a day and focus on other, less controversial ways of making money, such as by attracting foreign businesses in the good old fashioned way.