Citizenship for common mortals

The agreement between the government and the EU commission stipulating a year of "effective residence" before the granting of citizenship to rich migrants exposes the crass incompetence of those who devised the original scheme.

For the government ended up accepting what it had voted against in parliament in November; namely the abolition of the scandalous secrecy clause, tying the scheme to investment in the economy and accepting the principle that residency should precede the award of citizenship. 

Had Muscat proposed a scheme, which was not secretive, and which was tied to investment and residence, he would have spared Malta a lot of bad press and international condemnation.

Muscat is being economic with the truth when he claims that the commission has simply increased the waiting time between the application and the award of citizenship from 6 month to a year.  In reality the commission has forced the government to accept the principle that applicants must reside here before becoming eligible. 

In some ways the opposition should feel vindicated for most of the amendments it had presented in parliament are now part of the law.  But by pushing too hard in the past few days, by threatening to deprive citizenship and rendering applicants stateless, the opposition now faces an anticlimax.  This is because in the past days it became evident that PN's aim was that of scaring applicants and thus deprive government of the cash which may well enable it to win the next election.

In this aspect it has failed. 

Moreover the PN was hesitant in attacking the discriminatory aspect of the scheme. The only difference between the parties now is that the PN favoured a residence period of five years while Labour has accepted a minimal residence period of one year.
Moreover, Muscat now has the stamp of EU approval for his scheme.  In this sense although his original plans were thwarted, he can well claim that his scheme has the seal of EU approval on it. 

Muscat has also shown that while he is ready to fan the flames of euro scepticism by resorting to hard talk, he is sensible enough to backtrack whenever he faces the risk of legal sanctions and being perceived as an international pariah. In some ways this episode is reminiscent of the aborted push back of migrants in July, when Muscat was faced by an injunction issued by the European Court of Human Rights.

Ultimately, if the scheme is successful Muscat will still reap the funds, which will enable him to avoid hard fiscal choices.  While one expects that a one-year residence period could de-motivate some potential buyers, it will be a Labour government, which will define the terms of residence. 

By simply accepting a minimal residency period of one year, the commission's stance still does not reflect the spirit of the EU parliament resolution approved by all European political families, which in clear terms decreed that EU citizenship "should never become a tradable commodity."

One may well say that the tweaked scheme still turns citizenship in to a tradable commodity.  Neither has the commission thwarted the risk of a race to the bottom, as Malta's scheme still goes a long way in undercutting the schengen residence market.   One must acknowledge that the commission was thwarted by the lack of any EU directive defining residence and regulating naturalization processes.  In the absence of this the Commission's case was based on case law and the affirmation of basic principles. 

The least one expects at this stage is for the EU commission and the Maltese government to clearly define what they mean by effective citizenship.  For it would be an insult to common decency if residence is interpreted as meaning a short holiday in Malta.

But if the commission really means business it should be drafting a directive, which respects the competence of member states on citizenship matters but sets minimum requirements for all states. 

This case further underscores the European Union's current weakness as a political entity, which lacks any effective mechanism to defend the legal notion of EU citizenship, which is already enshrined in the treaties.

In the final instance the most objectionable aspect of the scheme; its discriminatory nature remains.

In fact the requirement of a one-year residence period further underscored the fact that naturalization of other people remains entirely under the discretion of the Minister of Home Affairs.  Effectively although these people can apply for citizenship after five years, many wait for periods of up to 20 years to be granted this right. Moreover children of foreigners who were born in Malta and have attended school here share the same plight as their parents and are not awarded automatic citizenship.

If the Labour government really wants Malta to become more European and global, it should start by proposing amendments to the Citizenship Act to grant immediate citizenship to children who have been born here or who have attended a full school cycle and to ensure that citizenship application of people residing here for a period of time, say 5 years, should be processed in six months. 

It is positive that AD has already indicated that it favours this course.  The PN can also take this as an opportunity to prove its liberal credentials by presenting such amendments in parliament. It would also distance itself from the crappy patriotism evoked during the citizenship debate by both sides.

In the end even if such amendments were approved, we would still be lumped with a discriminatory citizenship regime.  But at least the whole episode would have served a purpose; that of opening a debate on citizenship rights.