We are living, both locally and internationally, through transitional times. Many parts of Europe and the US as a whole are slowly creeping out of the dark days of recession.

One can safely say that we can look at the global economy with a degree of cautious optimism. In this country, we are living in a period of change coupled with sustained economic growth. The new government has set in motion numerous exercises aimed at, among other matters, reducing bureaucracy, updating planning policies, reforming the justice systems and facilitating investment in our island.

There is little need to remind readers that it is one of the economic incentives that has recently stirred up a storm (whether this is in a teacup or not depends on which side of the fence one sits).

The investment programme has, at one and the same time, been put to us as: a) an innovative initiative that will bring much-needed foreign investment (in some form or other) or b) a proposal that has dragged and will continue to drag Malta’s good name through the mud, although exactly who is doing the dragging has yet to be established.

With regard to the second point, the Nationalist acolytes were quick to point us to articles that attempted to ridicule the investment programme. Of course, no such attempt was made to bring to our attention more balanced reporting such as the article published by Forbes when the programme was first launched.

In this same report, it is stated that the programme can be improved. Discussions and consultations, primarily with the MFSA chairman and the Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry, has brought about some very valid adjustments that go a long way in polishing, and giving added value, to the programme and which severely erodes the very basis upon which the Opposition bases its arguments in its attempt to block the investment scheme.

Numerous investor programmes exist around the world. When one studies such schemes, one will note that no two residency/citizenship programmes are alike. This is because each country has its own needs and exigencies.

The United States of America accepts residents for $500,000. After spending time in the country, these obtain US citizenship.

Australia opens its doors to young people with desirable academic qualifications or trade skills, obtaining full citizenship after a period of residency. These programmes do not offer citizenship for sale but, rather, a ‘lease with option to buy’!

On the other hand Austria, a fellow European country, offers a citizenship programme (complete with passport) for a minimum of €2.4 million. Despite attempts made by Austrians to dismiss comparisons, a quick look at the official Austrian website advertising the scheme proves otherwise. Over and above the price, the four main points listed as prerequisites for individuals to apply for and obtain Austrian citizenship and a passport are the following: 1) excellent financial background; 2) certificate of no criminal record; 3) solid business background information; and 4) good references with a good CV of the applicant.

For the opportunist, whether the glass is half full or half empty, it is as an opportunity to quench his/her thirst

What is glaringly different is the fee. What criteria can or should be used to determine whether or not such a difference makes Malta’s programme cheap? And I mean this in the context of both the monetary and moral aspects of these citizenship schemes.

The question to ask here is whether the Nationalist Party would have accepted a carbon copy of the Austrian system without scurrying off to discredit it both locally and overseas?

Now that the Maltese programme has been tweaked and the MCESD have given its proposals to further fine tune it, surely it is time for Simon Busuttil to dismount his moral high horse and start to work seriously towards helping this government through consensus on what, after all, may prove to be a winner for our economy. If he persists on his current course, he risks undertaking a modern Quixotic quest that will lead him nowhere and which will only cause further damage to our nation and to his party.

This is a unique opportunity for the PN to prove that it truly means business when it comes to a new way of doing politics.

Opinion is still very much divided and history will judge this bold initiative taken by a small but brave European nation. Whether the glass is half full or half empty is up to each individual to decide but, according to a well-known business creed, the pessimist sees the glass half empty, the optimist sees it half full whereas the opportunist sees it as an opportunity to quench his/her thirst.

Veronique Dalli is a lawyer.