The aftermath of a vote
Unfortunately the Labour Party is sending all the wrong messages to the very people who are most ready to offer Malta solidarity on themes like migration.
As a Maltese and European citizen and first and foremost a human being, I am not shamed by the resolution approved in the European parliament condemning the sale of citizenship, something which offends my dignity as a person who values citizenship not as a mark of national identity but an embodiment of the political rights and duties endowed to us as members of democratic societies.
In many ways, I felt represented by speeches like the short speech made by French leftist MEP Marie-Christine Vergiat.
"While crocodile tears abound on the hundreds of deaths in the Mediterranean, while the gates of Fortress Europe slam shut ever more brutally to migrants who ruin themselves in their efforts to arrive on our shores, the selling of passports can only be abhorred by those who are committed to the values of freedom, equality and solidarity. Obviously, commodification has no limits for some, and money has no odour."
My only disappointment was that the approved resolution failed to condemn discrimination between different categories of migrants; those who immediately accede to freedom of movement simply because they are rich and those denied basic rights like voting despite working and contributing to their countries for a number of years.
Neither did the specific mention of Malta offend me even if it was not so necessary to the cause. It was our government which took ownership of the concept condemned by the European parliament, to the extent of claiming a role of leader in the business condemned by the resolution.
In a sense, the insistence on mentioning Malta offered the government the opportunity to label opponents of this scheme as traitors. Still, I considered the mention of Malta as somewhat irrelevant in the sense that the resolution clearly condemned the policy of selling citizenship. The whole point was that such practices go against the spirit of European treaties sanctioning the free movement of people.
Some have argued that some MEPs may well have been motivated by a fear of having their own country's citizenship by investment schemes undercut by Malta's scheme. This may well be the case with some conservative pro-business MEPs but surely not with left-wing MEPs who abhor such schemes because they uphold the values of equality and solidarity.
Moreover, Malta was truly a leader. Its audacity in selling citizenship without any residence obligations has exposed a fundamental reality; either these schemes are brought in line through EU legislation or we will have a race to the bottom with countries undercutting each other, devaluing the value of citizenship in an auction of citizenship where even more concessions are offered to the rich migrants.
Probably what we will see in the future is a slow and steady movement towards regulation. I hope that the EPP MEPs who voted for this motion will not be the first to put obstacles to defend less abrasive but still questionable schemes.
Ultimately the debate has exposed the rift between the Labour Party and the European left. Unfortunately the Labour Party is sending all the wrong messages to the very people who are most ready to offer Malta solidarity on themes like migration.
This is truly sad because on a number of important issues like gay rights, social policy and education the Labour government is standing up for progressive values. Unfortunately it is seeking to avoid fundamental fiscal realities by relying on revenue from a neo-liberal scheme which has turned our country in to a mini-pariah state.
Moreover, by promoting the scheme as one which is more profitable then EU funds and one which comes with no strings attached, it not only risks creating the illusion of easy money but may well feed a latent euro skepticism which is already raising its head. Combined with its hawkish stance on migration, the government defiance of the EU parliament may well create a toxic cocktail.
As regards to the PN, it has yet to prove whether its commitment to European values is skin deep or not. On many issues it remains crippled by moral conservatism which is not so European. Moreover if it truly abhors the discrimination between rich and poor migrants, I would expect it to propose a revamp of citizenship laws to make naturalization a fairer process.
Lets not forget that while previous Nationalist governments had facilitated citizenship for the descendents of Maltese migrants living in Australia and other countries, naturalisation for people who lived in Malta remained at the discretion of the Minister for Home Affairs and many are granted citizenship after as much as 17 years.
Ultimately, Malta may well ignore the resolution approved by the vast majority of MEPs. But I find it hard to understand why Labour is making so much fuss about the forthcoming MEP elections.
If the European Parliament can be ignored on such a basic issue, why bother campaigning under the banner of a European party which fundamentally disagrees with what has become one of the Labour party's main economic policies?