This is about European competition: nothing more, nothing less

I have never been terribly impressed with the quality of MEPs at the European Parliament. No, not the handful of MEPs elected to represent Malta... and who, with maybe one or two exceptions, seem permanently incapable of ever thinking outside the narrow confines of 'trying to trip up the other side'... and not those of other countries either; who from a distance seem to resemble a motley crew of comedians, mavericks, rabid extremists, ultra-nationalists and retired porn stars... with perhaps a few career politicians thrown in for the sake of appearances.

As institutions go, few would deny that the European Parliament attracts loonies much like a piece of rotting meat attracts maggots and flies. The reason, I suspect, is that when the chips are down it doesn't actually wield very much power; and most European populations have long seen though the charade, and tend to use EP elections for purposes other than electing their own representatives to Brussels and Strasbourg every five years.

Examples of such purposes would include 'sending out a message' to the government at home; or simply registering a vote of no-confidence in the structures of the EU as a whole (which explains why Eurosceptic parties such as UKIP tend to consistently do well in EP elections).

And the events of this week are likely to further consolidate the EP's growing reputation as a glorified confederacy of European dunces. Even as I write this article, the two MEPs representing the Nationalist Party are boasting all over the local press about how they have successfully humiliated our country at EU level... by forcing the EP to take a (largely inconsequential) vote on Malta's controversial citizenship-for-sale scheme.

Yes, I am aware many of you find the idea of selling citizenship distasteful. I'm not too crazy about it myself, for reasons I have outlined in another article. But the simple fact of the matter is that Malta is not the first country to view its own citizenship as a cash-cow... and as international criticism becomes more vocal, it is becoming increasingly clear that the real objections from other EU member states do not concern the principle of the matter at all. Only the mechanics, for reasons I shall come to in a moment.

Meanwhile, the scheme as it was initially (and clumsily) proposed has since been taken back to the drawing board. Practically all the Nationalist Opposition's original demands have now been taken on board: the anonymity clause has been removed; citizenship has now been linked with residential property acquisition and local investment... exactly as the PN has all along (quite rightly) demanded. Yet of course their objections have not been withdrawn... which need not surprise us, seeing as the underlying motive for wishing to capsize the scheme never had much to do with 'principles' to begin with.

Which brings me to this week's debate. To be blunt, the European parliament has simply no business to be discussing the issue at all. The acquisition of citizenship in any EU member state is very much a matter of national, and not EU competence. It is outside the EP's jurisdiction, and if you don't believe me, you may want to take the word of the European Commission instead.

This is what a Commission spokesman told the same EP last month: "This is a national matter. The Commission has no competence in this area and thus there is nothing for us to say."

And this is what was reported in this newspaper last Monday: "The UK believes that decisions about who is a citizen of Malta are a matter for the Government of Malta, British High Commissioner Rob Luke said in a right of reply to The Times of Malta..."

At which point you may well be wondering... hang on, why did the British High Commissioner even get himself involved? If it is not within the EP's competence to decide on Malta's citizenship rules... how much less is it within the competence of the government of the United Kingdom?

The answer to this question is, to my mind, the key to understanding what is really going on in Brussels this week. This is how the Financial Times - arguably the only international paper to have covered this issue properly - described the situation a couple of weeks ago (and it was in response to this allegation that the High Commissioner felt he had to comment).

"UK ministers are under growing pressure to intervene against plans by the island of Malta to sell EU passports for €650,000, allowing buyers immediate rights of residency in all member states... The plans have already prompted a backlash from UK and European politicians warning of a risk to national security, while immigration experts point out the threat to the UK's own 'investor visa' programme." (my emphasis)  

Got that? So, cutting through the enormous amount of bullshit that has piled up around this issue - i.e., all the talk of 'patriotism' and 'embarrassment to the country', etc. - what we are essentially left with is a very simple issue of competition between various EU member states, each trying to attract investment by fabulously wealthy, non-EU foreigners. And it seems that Malta's passport sale has thrown a spanner into the works of Britain's recently unveiled plan (which, if you ask me, is even messier and tackier than our own) to simply auction off 'investment visas' to the highest bidder... visas which will in time transform into permanent EU residency permits, complete with all the same entitlements and benefits as our own passports.

So according to the FT (which I might add is usually a rather credible news source) the UK is pressuring the EU to bully tiny little Malta into withdrawing its scheme altogether... not because of any moral objection, but simply because they can't actually compete with it themselves. It is a naked, undisguised attempt to quash the competition, in a move which many local businessmen will no doubt recognise as part of the typically mercenary, cutthroat environment in which they themselves operate every day.

And Britain is not the only EU member state to be playing this game... and to be rather pissed off at Malta for having swept the investment carpet from right under its feet. Austria likewise has a similar scheme which our own passport sale evidently threatens. And lo and behold: out pops Austrian MEP Hannes Swoboda, hastily donning the hat of President of European Socialists, to argue that Malta's passport scheme 'undermines European values'.

What he meant, of course, was that Malta's scheme might be more successful than his own country's equivalent scheme, and might therefore divert a few tens of millions of euros away from Austria and towards Malta instead. And being bigger, stronger, and better represented in the European parliament than tiny little Malta, Austria will pull no punches in its efforts to crush the puny upstarts once and for all.

And there you have it. Stuff all your fanciful notions of Malta having 'embarrassed herself' by selling citizenship. The truth is that Malta gave competing EU member states a good run for their money... and our competitors are not at all happy about having been outflanked. Which I fully understand, by the way. It is quite natural for Britain and Austria - and maybe other countries too - to try to damage Malta's commercial interests in order to protect their own. Not a nice thing to do, I know... but hey! This is the ugly, vicious and dangerous territory where commercial and political interests converge... so I suppose you can expect daggers and betrayals all round.

But what I (perhaps naively) do NOT expect is for Maltese MEPs to themselves enthusiastically lead the cavalry charge in defence of our competitors, and against their own country's interests. Which is precisely what Casa and Metsola have done - unwittingly, I would like to think - by seeking to engineer an EP condemnation that would in fact work directly to other countries' commercial advantage, at the expense of our own.

I for one would like to know why they are doing this. Why are the two Maltese MEPs representing the Nationalist Party actively doing Britain's (and Austria's) dirty work for them, instead of objecting to efforts by competing nations to drive us out of the market altogether?

I think we all know the answer to that one - I alluded to it myself in the first paragraph of this article - but I'd like to hear it from these two MEPs all the same. Wouldn't you?