International

Next week in Strasbourg at the European Parliament plenary one of the subjects under discussion will be the new law in Malta which allows you to buy a Maltese passport for €650.000 (about £549,000/$890,000). This will then enable you to travel freely around almost every country in the European Union (UK & Ireland are the only permanent negotiated exceptions) with all of the rights that freedom of movement carries. A burdensome matter, because this is of course not a good thing at all: anyone with a well-stocked wallet, even the greatest of criminals, can set themselves up in the EU. Questions of naturalisation, however, go right to the heart of state sovereignty: quite correctly the Commission is not empowered to take action in this area. The question then arises as to whether we, if Malta wants to extend citizenship to foreign nationals on this basis, must go along and allow access to our country for these new citizens. A protest is, in any case, on the cards.

The European Parliament is never behind the door when it comes to raising issues for which the EU has no competence, as we saw recently in the resolutions on abortion. This week the EP will adopt a resolution on an equally awkward matter, Malta’s sale of its passports. Even the Lisbon Treaty didn’t transfer powers to decide on naturalisation of foreigners – i.e. giving them citizenship – to the EU. In a federal state, on the other hand, the central authority does enjoy this competence, as in the United States, where it is the federal government which can grant or withhold US passports, not the separate states of the union. But the EU is fortunately not a federal state and it is therefore the member states as separate entities which can determine who to naturalise and under what conditions.

For Malta the new regulation is important, as they are hoping to gain billions from what is of course a totally asocial measure. People seeking asylum via the Mediterranean are thrown out as quickly as can be, while rich criminals are more than welcome; the purest class justice. Moreover, an increasing number of member states have comparable rules and even in the Netherlands you can get a residence permit if you invest at least €1.25 million in Dutch businesses, a regulation introduced last year by Rutte’s government.

We should nevertheless not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If the European Parliament launches an attack on Malta, for instance by asking the Commission to take action, then by doing so we will be acknowledging that even naturalisation has become an EU competence. Brussels could in that case determine who might become Dutch, just as the US government can say who can become an American. In my view this is not where we should be going. Instead, we need to discuss the recognition of passports which can simply be bought without further conditions. Is such a document indeed a valid permit to take advantage of freedom of movement? Shouldn’t a criminal who has simply bought a passport be refused admission to the Netherlands?

It’s difficult, because how you can keep a check on this without amending the European regulations and yet avoid punitive action by the European Court of Justice isn’t clear. That’s why I see more potential in a series of protests to Malta from the member states, including the Netherlands. It is likely that threatening not to admit these pseudo-Maltese would in itself have a salutary effect, though these protests must not mince their words. This also means, however, that member states must beware of putting themselves in a situation – as the Netherlands has with its rules allowing wealthy foreign nationals to reside here permanently – where Malta can simply turn around and say ‘look who’s talking!’