The judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on Malta’s passport scheme on April 29 raised a thorny issue for Malta that we ignore at our peril.

Does the country still enjoy the mutual trust of its EU neighbours? Is the damage irrevocable?

The bottom line is straightforward: Malta was not only selling Maltese passports but also all the EU rights that come with those passports, affecting each and every one of the other member states.

The first criticism at the time they were launched in 2014 was levelled at the fact that Malta was rubbing its hands with glee at the money derived from the programme, without bothering whether those that bought Maltese passports had the slightest interest in this country – or (more likely) just wanted a way into the EU via Malta.

The very name of the Individual Investor Programme was a clear indication of what it was: a way to buy a passport, what the ECJ judgment called the commercialisation of nationality.

Malta was not only selling Maltese passports but also all the EU rights that come with those passports, affecting each and every one of the other member states

The European Commission had immediately baulked, and by 2020, put its concerns down in writing. The subsequent changes made by the Maltese government were still nowhere close to enough: getting nationality was not based on ties to Malta but on being willing and able to pay. The European Commission was far from satisfied and, in 2021, issued a formal notice to that effect, eventually culminating in the ECJ’s ruling.

The ECJ judgment referred several times to another clause as proof that money was at the root of the scheme: the applicant had to reside here for 36 months, unless they paid an extra €150,000, in which case it would be just 12 months.

Indeed, the scheme required “very limited presence” in Malta: a 2021 leak of application documents revealed the average physical presence was a paltry 16 days.

Compare it to the requirements for those who require ‘ordinary naturalisation’ as opposed to that gained through ‘investment’. The former would have to live here ‘throughout’ 12 months before the application, and for at least four years out of the six immediately preceding that period. What a difference for those who cannot wave a fistful of euros in official faces!

The Nationalist Party has asked for the scheme to be abandoned immediately, while European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, elected as an MEP on the Nationalist ticket, wrote: “For the best part of the last decade, we have warned that… this get-rich-quick scheme was legal and economic recklessness, that undermined our economic strategy, damaged our reputation and left huge holes in the security of our country and our Union.”

RELATED STORIES

The man behind the scheme, former prime minister Joseph Muscat, did what he always does: he distracted from the seriousness of the judgment, saying he believed there was scope for a version of the scheme to continue “with some changes”, and pointed out that the US had recently unveiled a similar scheme – a claim that completely misses the point about the nature of the EU.

Muscat also resorted to cheap populism by claiming the PN and Metsola deserved a “round of applause” for “working against the country” due to their opposition to the passport scheme. Prime Minister Robert Abela jumped on the populist bandwagon and accused the PN of celebrating the ECJ ruling on the scheme which had funded many charities and social causes. It is a cheap shot, while exploiting the vulnerable.

The judgment states clearly that the scheme goes against EU law and that failure to revoke it “without delay” will have serious consequences. Even if the government does revoke it, we hope we can regain the respect – and trust – of our European neighbours.