The government will have talks on the citizenship scheme with the European Commission in the coming days, the prime minister said in Parliament this evening.

Speaking in an emergency debate, he said the government did not automatically bow its head to whatever a commissioner said, but held talks with them on an equal footing.

Referring to comments by European Commissioner Viviane Reding about Malta last week, Dr Muscat said the government had been informed that the European Commission's official position was the one outlined by Commissioner Reding in the European Parliament, rather than the comments given to journalists and which the Opposition quoted.

Dr Muscat also insisted that the government would stick to the citizenship scheme in the interests of the Maltese people.

The remarks were made at the end of an emergency debate requested by Dr Muscat as soon as the parliamentary sitting started.  He said the debate was being requested because the EP resolution was grossly unfair to this country.

The Prime Minister's request came after Opposition leader Simon Busuttil yesterday himself said he would request an emergency debate on the citizenship scheme today.

By making the request first Dr Muscat ensured that the government opened and closed the debate. 

Parliamentary Secretary Owen Bonnici kicked off the debate, saying that Malta had national competence to grant citizenship and indeed the former government had had various schemes to grant citizenship. He insisted that Malta's scheme was similar to what other countries had. 

HAT TRICK OF NEGATIVE ATTENTION - COMPANY DISMISSING 65 WORKERS

Marthese Portelli (PN) said that in 10 months the prime minister had scored a hat trick of drawing negative attention to Malta - first by pushing Malta into an Excessive Deficit Procedure, they by planning migrants' pushbacks and now by selling Maltese and European citizenship.

Dr Portelli said the government should have considered the consequences of its actions. Just today, she learnt that a financial services company was dismissing 65 workers.

Parliamentary Secretary Ian Borg insisted that this was not a sale of citizenship scheme but an investment programme agreed with some of the social partners after changes from the original plans including the removal of secrecy.

The funds from the investment programme were not meant to replace EU funds but were additional, meaning an added benefit for the Maltese.

Jason Azzopardi (PN) said the government was selling Malta and its reputation because it had no economic plan.

Especially worrying were the comments by the Commission Vice-President Viviane Reding who said Malta had broken EU law.

No other EU country had a scheme which granted immediate citizenship against payment. What some countries had were residence schemes which could lead to citizenship after several years, or after substantial investment which stayed in the country.

It was incredible how the prime minister just a few weeks ago had said he did not anticipate problems from Europe on the sale of citizenship, and then everyone voted against him, including his own socialist group colleagues.

GOVERNMENT 'NOT ISOLATED'

Parliamentary Secretary Edward Zammit Lewis insisted that Austria did grant citizenship without residence requirements. The EP resolution too said that several countries had schemes which led to the effective sale of citizenship. Therefore, the references to Malta in the resolution were unfair.

Dr Zammit Lewis denied that the government was isolated, saying it had the support of Finance Malta, the MFSA and the constituted bodies.

As for the sincere cooperation demanded by some quarters in the EU, one only needed to remind them of the cooperation extended by Malta for the bank bailouts.

Beppe Fenech Adami (PN) said the government should be ashamed of having produced a scheme which everybody had condemned. This was a scheme which was not mentioned in the Labour electoral programme and showed that the government had no economic plans.

It was highly significant that 90% of MEPs had voted against the sale of citizenship, and the European socialists had rebuffed their Maltese colleagues despite the efforts of the four Maltese Labour MEPs, reinforced by senior government officials including the head of government communications.

Now one was seeing the results of the citizenship scheme. A so-called Chinese billionaire who had come to Malta apparently seeking citizenship had ended up covering his face at the airport, and journalists were threatened.

How many former Gaddafi loyalists were showing an interest in the scheme?

Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi said the Individual Investor Programme would accelerate economic growth and encourage people to invest here.

Dr Mizzi said no EU country had consulted with Malta on their programmes. But the PN was working against the country abroad. Instead of Nationalist Party, this had become the Nasty Party, Dr Mizzi said to boos from across the floor.

DE MARCO: HEED EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY

Mario de Marco (PN) said this was meant to be a government 'that listens'. But it was ignoring the EP resolution.

It was not true that the granting of citizenship was national competence and nothing else.  There was international jurisprudence which showed that citizenship had to have an effective genuine link with the country involved, and in accordance with community law. In the ,citizenship was shared and therefore, the MEPs who voted against the sale of citizenship last week had been voting in their own interests as well. 

In drawing attention to the government's mistakes, the opposition was working for the country and the national interest and not against it. It was working in the long term national interest by seeking to safeguard Malta's reputation.

How could the prime minister claim that the citizenship scheme would attract high net worth investors, when they did not even have a requirement to live in Malta?

Malta was trying to sell something which did not belong to it only. As an EU member, Malta had rights as well as duties. One could not pick and choose, and it should therefore heed what the European Parliament had said. It should respect European parliamentary democracy - with the European Parliament being the EU's only elected institution, representing millions of people.

MINISTER - GOVERNMENT HEEDS THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED IT

Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia said the government heeded the people who elected it. Its interests was the economic development of the Maltese.

That Nationalist MEPs had spoken against Malta and voted against it in the European Parliament was a disgrace that only pleased the other countries who had their own schemes.

It was the Nationalist MEPs who had created problems for Malta.

Dr Mallia noted that the PN had said that whose who were granted citizenship would lose it once the PN was back in government. But this was a legal falsity as legal experts such as Prof Ian Refalo and the Dean of the Faculty of Law had said.

It was incredible how the Nationalist MEPs had not told their colleagues that they had not consulted Malta before introducing their own citizenship schemes. It was incredible that these MEPs were in effect now saying that their country could not take its own decision on citizenship.

Dr de Marco was right to speak of the need for a 'genuine and effective link'. This applied in areas such as dual citizenship, but now there were other tests to show that link.

The Maltese scheme provided for the payment of €650,000 which would go to a fund which the people would benefit from, thus creating the link with the people. Indeed, it was a stronger link that somebody getting dual citizenship because he had a Maltese great grandfather, even though he himself never came to Malta.

BUSUTTIL: WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE THE PM LISTEN?

Opposition leader Simon Busuttil said everyone, in Malta and abroad, was seeing this as a sale of citizenship scheme, except the government.

The EP had stressed that to sell citizenship went against European values and undermined the concept of citizenship.

The prime minister now needed to listen to what everyone was saying.

"I have to say that I am somehow shocked to see that citizenship has a price tag, and is up for sale, This is not how it should be. It is one of the basic rights of citizens...I am not aware that I have been consulted on this scheme but we have analysed the scheme and we have seen that it is clashing with the treaty, clashing with fair competition and the fair handling of each member state and have influence on other member states and international law which says the giving out of a passport should be linked to a strong link which the country has with the given country. You can imagine now if everyone now starts to question the real Maltese passport..."

This meant, Dr Busuttil said that while Dr Muscat had claimed to have consulted the EU on this scheme, the commissioner was stating that was now the case.

Ms Reding had also made clear that this scheme violated European Union law.

Several MEPs who were not in the PPE group said the Maltese scheme was immoral, crazy and undermined security.

What more did the prime minister need to stop ridiculing the country and instead stop and listen?

There was no doubt that there was European interest and European competence in this issue. When Malta issued a passport it was not just granting Maltese citizenship, but European citizenship.  

The European Parliament last week had defended the interest of Malta more than the Maltese government itself. It was the shield against the government's excesses and incompetence. Once the government did not heed the people, somebody else had to stop it from further harming the country.

The government was not the state and it had no monopoly over the national interest. In this case it was the opposition which was fighting for the national interest because the citizenship had undermined Malta's reputation.

The EU was telling Malta: Do not sell citizenship because European citizenship is not yours alone.

The government was being deceptive. Abroad, the finance minister had said that the scheme would yield €8m. In the Budget, revenue was put at €15m but now the prime minister was saying revenue would be €1 billion and he would list which projects would benefit. And then, the government had not published the programme of how it would spend the €1 billion already allocated to Malta by the EU.

It was a disgrace that the government had said it was receiving citizenship applications before the regulations were tabled in the EU parliament.

A RACE TO THE BOTTOM

Dr Muscat had promised that Malta would be the best in Europe, yet what was being seen was a race to the bottom.

How could Dr Mallia say the government only heeded the Maltese people, when this scheme was not mentioned in the electoral programme. Wasn't this deception as well?

It was not the PN which had harmed the country by criticising the scheme, when it was the government which was harming the country by coming out with the scheme in the first place.

How could Labour claim it was socialist when what mattered for it was money?

His appeal again was for the government to stop the scheme and not to persist in error.

The opposition would not be an accomplice in the harm being caused to the country and would continue to insist on its removal. And every passport issued under this stinking scheme would be withdrawn, Dr Busuttil said.

Winding up, Dr Muscat said Dr Busuttil was making himself above the law. Every legal expect had said that it would be illegal to withdraw passports. 

The government had noted how the MEPs had voted, but the opposition should note how the Maltese people voted in March. 

He stressed that the granting of citizenship was a matter of national competence. Malta, he said, had consulted every member state of the European Union.

Furthermore, the presidency of the European Council had said clearly that the granting of citizenship was an issue of national competence.

Dr Muscat said the comment by Ms Reding mentioned by Dr Busuttil was given to journalists, but the EU had said the official position was that declared by the commissioner in the Chamber. More talks would be held in the coming days.

Furthermore, god forbid that one had to bow his head to whatever a commissioner said. The government spoke on an equal footing with the commissioners, something which differentiated it from the opposition.

It was not true, Dr Muscat said, that the government had not declared how it would use the EU funds. The government was following the established programme and the only organisation which had not given its feedback was the PN.

Dr Muscat said he wondered if some people were pleased with the harm caused to Malta. He was disgusted how Net TV accompanied by a party official had tried to scare off a Chinese investor who reportedly was interested in the Maltese scheme. It the Nationalists intended to try to scare all investors, they would have a lot to do.

This scheme would yield €1000 million, something which the Nationalists could not stomach.

As for what was said in the electoral programme, Dr Muscat said the people were told that the economy would be transformed and that power rates would be reduced, and that was what would happen.

The government had stopped and listened about the investor programme. It changed major parts of it in agreement with social partners. The opposition had initially indicated it agreed with parts of the programme but then the leader of the opposition realised that such would be its success that it would have an impact on the elections.

Whatever happened, the government would continue to be loyal to the country, Dr Muscat concluded.