The national interest strikes back

Simon Busuttil's attempt to reconcile liberals and conservatives by supporting civil unions, while calling for a social impact assessment on gay adoptions, seems to have failed to rein in the party's conservative flank.

Tonio Fenech has overstepped the party line, stating he will vote against the current law as long as it allows gay adoptions.

Ultimately gay adoptions are something with which one agrees or disagrees on a basis of principle. Supporters of full equality between straight and gay families tend to agree with such a measure. Those who feel that children should only be brought up exclusively by heterosexual couples, disagree. 

Holding the second position does not make you a homophobe. But it suggests that you don't believe in full equality between different kind of families. Surely a social impact assessment is a very good idea to assess the impact of the proposed change on society and assess which policy changes are required to address public concerns.

But ultimately one has to decide on the basis of principle.

Fenech is entitled to vote according to his own conscience. In fact all MPs should be entitled to do so. But political parties should take a clear stance in such issues. 

Surely the PN has made an effort to discuss its position internally, and is conditioned by surveys showing that most of its voters are opposed to gay adoptions. But the consequence of the party's current stance is that liberals and gays will remain suspicious of the PN, which essentially remains a coalition between the traditional middle class and a strategically placed liberal minority. 

While the PN struggles with its own ideological contradictions posed by its historic moral conservatism, the "national interest" emerges as the last refuge of Joseph Muscat's post-ideological party.

It seems that faced with isolation from his own European political family, Joseph Muscat has rediscovered the Mintoffian spirit by deploying the nationalist card to defend the sale of Maltese citizenship.

On Friday, I was flabbergasted when One TV reported that Simon Busuttil "was refusing to apologise for shaming the country abroad".    

Subsequently Nationalist MEP Roberta Metsola was singled out for contributing to the formulation of a motion that will be discussed by the European Parliament next Wednesday. 

On Sunday Muscat upped the ante by accusing the PN of betraying Malta, going as far as invoking Mintoff's "Malta first and foremost" battle cry to defend the sale of citizenship.

This approach suggests that Muscat is increasingly nervous on the passport sale taht puts him at odds with his socialist allies in the European Parliament. 

Simply put: a scheme reinforces the distinction between rich migrants who can now buy European citizenship, and poor migrants who are increasingly facing more obstacles, cannot get the blessing of the European left-wing.

Hannes Swoboda's article, in which he denounces the Maltese citizenship scheme as one which "undermines European values" is very telling.

Malta is not the only country toying with schemes which fast-track residence for the rich.

But by offering citizenship in the absence of a prior period of residence, Malta has gone one step too far. And this contrasts with Labour's hawkish stance on migration and the constant moaning of its MEPs for burden sharing, which effectively means a change in EU treaties.

So the contrast between Labour's insistence on a federalist solution to its migration problem, and its unilateral decision to sell EU citizenship to anyone willing to pay the price, cannot go unnoticed by the international audience.

The PN is not alien to attracting rich people through tax rebates, but attacking MEPs for voting against a policy of the national government is simply unacceptable.  Muscat himself, as an MEP, had raised the concern of civil society on the impact of decisions taken by the Maltese government like the Xaghra l-Hamra golf course and the Sant Antnin recycling plant.

Muscat says he wants Malta to be a leader in the sale of citizenship. This is hogwash. The scheme can only be successful for as long as it does not become universalised. Why buy citizenship in Malta if one can buy a French, Italian or Scandinavian citizenship?

And what would happen when every country starts selling its citizenship: we would end up with a race to the bottom.

Muscat is simply exploiting a vacuum in EU legislation, which thanks to Malta's audacity, might well be filled in a couple of years' time.

The government has rightly capped the IIP at 1,800 citizens. So this is nothing but a short-term attempt at squaring the circle: avoiding tax hikes or expenditure cuts, to keep the tax cuts for the high-income earners inherited from the previous government.

But this comes at a cost to the country's international reputation and may well create a spiral of dependency on income from schemes aimed at creating money easily, which further delays any real attempt at reform.