This Citizenship for Sale scandal has brought Labour out in its true colours and no mistake.

To start with, from what Henley's people have been saying to practitioners, though this is not evidence I would care to put forward in court, since it is only heard hearsay, the Government was advised to put a less mercenary scheme in place. Such was the rush for cash that underlies the whole thing that the simpler, pay your money, get your passport, idea was railroaded through instead.

Then we've got the sheer disrespect for Parliament and the democratic process that has been shown beyond reasonable doubt, evidence that will stand up in any court.

Instead of waiting a few weeks for the law to go through, no less a Big Wheel than the Prime Minister has been road-showing the thing all over the place, with resounding speeches and hefty sound-bites. You can check out my previous blog for a run-down on what he said as against reality, but seriously, what sort of respect for the House is this, that you go about behaving as if the law is in place, done and dusted, instead of still being debated?

It's surprising that the Hon. Joe MIzzi, usually so eager to shoot his mouth off about "the Highest Institution in the Land" has been so quiet, but there again, you can check out my reflections on the low standards to which Labour is held, and holds itself, in my Beck column.

One wonders, in this context, whether the President and the Speaker, guardians of the Constitution both, shouldn't be quietly telling the PM to cool his ardour for the new law, which remains but a bill, technically.

Since we're never going to know who the "New Maltese" are going to be, we're never really going to know what the hurry was all about, but one can speculate.

And then we've got the way that Labour is arguing about the legal issues being raised.

It is obvious, for anyone who knows even a smattering of law, that an Act of Parliament which is passed by a majority of the House can be repealed by a majority of the House. If it passed as an entrenched law, then it has to be passed by a "Constitutional" majority, which it can't be, and there's an end to it.

So, however much the Labour Party blusters and bluffs, the fact remains that if a future Government wishes to repeal the law and reverse the process whereby assorted anonymous bloated plutocrats became Maltese, then it is perfectly free to do so.

The cherry on top, in Labour's canned fruit cocktail of ugliness on this affair, is the way they're accusing the PN of having a conflict of interest, because one of its MPs is involved in the legal defence of a competitor of Henley & Partners.

The issue between these two operators is not about the scheme being brought in or not, but about whether Henley should have been given the plum in the way they were given it. The PN, quite rightly, is arguing that the plum should never have been put up for grabs in the first place, so in point of fact, they are arguing against the interests of the competitor as well, and hardly helping him.

Which means that Labour's snide remarks about conflicts of interest are nothing more, or less, than a smokescreen, untruths cynically put about to muddy the picture and try to make us forget that our Labour Government is selling off our national identity.