I cannot agree more with the statement recently made by one of our parliamentary secretaries.

I am a fervent patriot as well as a fervent European and, as such, like the parliamentary secretary and all other Maltese citizens, we have in common, since 2004, a dual identity. That of European and that of Maltese.

These two identities should not be in competition with one another like in a sick schizophrenic. These two identities are complimentary to one another; that is why we sought and obtained membership of the European Union in 2004. As Maltese we have strengths and weaknesses. As Europeans we enhance those strengths and reduce or, hopefully, eliminate those weaknesses.

We are currently facing a most difficult conflict between these two identities in the issue of the selling of Maltese citizenship.

After 1964, when we became an independent country with our own constitution, we have the right to define the conditions which have to be fulfilled to be born into or to acquire Maltese citizenship. This right is a sure sign of sovereignty. After 2004, some things changed: we transferred some of our sovereign rights when we signed up to the EU, after a popular referendum and an election on the subject.

We not only have Maltese nationality but, now, our passport is also an EU passport. An EU passport offers more than a national passport because, through the EU treaties, we acquire rights to move freely, to establish our residence, to work, to enjoy healthcare and educational rights and so forth which, pre-EU membership, we had not the right to.

These rights are rights that belong to all EU citizens jointly since they are reciprocal. Pre- EU membership, our passports only gave rights in Malta and in other countries that recognised and reciprocated certain rights thereto. But the EU grants jointly to all EU member states signing up to the treaty and its voluntary additions, like Schengen and the euro, more rights than a national citizenship alone offers.

The criticism from the European Commission and from several other member states to the sale of EU citizenship, to non-EU citizens, by some member states like Cyprus, Malta, Austria and Bulgaria is not about the right to change the rules for obtaining nationality and citizenship in the narrow sense (that is, granting rights within the national borders of any given country member of the EU) but it is about the use or misuse of the common and jointly-owned elements of EU citizenship. Commission president Ursula van der Leyen has consistently stated that European values are not for sale.

Just like Solomon offering to cut the baby in half to satisfy both mothers, I see a very good Solomonic judgment coming out of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg if the case ever gets that far.

We can always follow the UK and leave the EU. I am sure we will not be missed. We alone will be the losers- John Vassallo

The court could state that, whereas all member states are free to change the rules concerning their citizenship and nationality conditions, when a person from outside the EU seeks citizenship in any member state, he/she should submit the application to an EU body set up for that matter allowing a vetting, for all applications, from all the other member states. If any member state vetoes EU citizenship, thus being applied for, then, the member state where the application had been made cannot grant an EU passport.

However, that member state should still be free to grant its nationality and citizenship to any applicant for any sum of money, or investment, or political favour etc. This new type of passport would be coloured any other colour except burgundy. Such national passport would not have EU stamped on it. It can issue a passport for its own country, granting rights only within the borders of its own country with rights attached thereto that are limited.

With such a judgment, a set of common rules for EU citizenship will evolve in time, which are common to and accepted by all member states, so that vetoes on pure racial or frivolous reasons would not be allowed. The sacred right for member states like Malta to sell or donate Maltese passports would not be affected but some of the passports that Malta would grant in the future would be green, blue or any other colour without the EU passport stamped on them. Others, acquired at birth or fulfilling EU wide conditions and not subjected to a veto, would be Maltese burgundy-coloured passports with EU stamped on them, as today, with all the rights that these grant.

In this way, the “defending what is ours by right” argument would succeed.

I wonder how many Saudi, Chinese, Russian, Azeri, Libyan or other third country escapees from tax, justice or crime or importing terrorism or espionage into the EU via backdoors would still be willing to become Maltese. Then, the true citizens of Malta would, once more, regain respect due to them as to all other bona fide EU citizens and not be looked down upon as pariahs or sellers of European values.

For Malta, it would be best to adapt and follow the rules even though this would entail economic losses. However, if we do not like that, we can always follow the UK and leave the EU. I am sure we will not be missed.

We alone will be the losers.

John Vassallo is a former ambassador to the EU.