Malta was shamed inside the European Parliament as Joseph Muscat's citizenship by investment programme - the Individual Investment Programme - was given a hammering by MEPs chiding Malta for granting EU citizenship to the rich, while being the first to demand solidarity on the influx of dispossessed asylum seekers seeking refuge into Europe.

The rhetorical bloodbath came mainly from the Nationalist Party's political family, the European People's Party, but also from socialists, radical left-wingers, as well as liberals and some greens and conservatives.

The cross-party EP resolution, which calls on Malta to repeal its citizenship scheme, will be voted upon tomorrow. But Malta, like any member state, retains the full right to determine its own citizenship rules. The non-binding resolution, which is likely to be adopted tomorrow, has legally no impact on the IIP.

LIVE BLOG OF THE EP RESOLUTION DEBATE

VIDEO of EP debate



Some of the quips were memorable: "a tale of two Europes" as one MEP described the act of granting access to the global rich by charging €650,000 for a Maltese passport while closing the door to asylum seekers.

Labour MEPs were the sole members in the Strasbourg plenary to defend Malta's embattled name. Joseph Cuschieri, Claudette Abela Baldacchino, Marlene Mizzi and John Attard-Montalto protested that their country's name was being unfairly singled out when the rest of the EU's member states had their own, albeit more onerous, citizenship-by-investment schemes. They also singled out the Maltese opposition for using the EP debate for their "partisan interests."

The European socialists are expected to push amendments tomorrow to remove the direct reference to Malta in the EP resolution, so that the Commission undertakes an evaluation of all member states' citizenship schemes.

In a statement, the Maltese government said it had taken note of what the European Council, the Commission and the Parliament had said during the debate. "It was made clear that citizenship is a matter of national competence," the government said, specifically referring to the Couincil's position.

"Many other countries have their own programmes of visas and citizenships. The IIP respects all European Treaty parameters, as stated by the Council's presidency, and it will be one of the most transparent schemes ever. The Maltese government is disappointed with the scale of misinformation on the IIP inside the EU, but it is optimist that it will create a posterity fund of €1 billion for Maltese and Gozitan families and businesses."

The Greek presidency of the European Council said it would convey the emphatic spirit of MEPs' contributions to the Council, but reminded members that Malta was sovereign in its decisions on how to regulate its citizenship and nationality rules.

But it was European Commissioner for justice Viviane Reding who made it clear that she was the EC's most vocal critic of Malta's citizenship programme.

"National citizenship is an entry door to the EU. It is an entry door to the EU Treaty and to the rights that EU citizens enjoy.... It is legitimate to question whether EU citizenship rights should merely depend on the size of someone's wallet or bank account. Citizenship must not be up for sale."

She said that under public international law, member states should only award citizenship to persons where there is a "genuine link" or "genuine connection" to the country in question. Malta's IIP also requires applicants to buy a property valued at €350,000 and government stocks or bonds of €150,000, to be eligible for a Maltese passport.

She said there was "no doubt that conditions for obtaining and forfeiting national citizenship are regulated only by the national law of each member state."

"But there is also no doubt that granting the nationality of a member state means also granting EU citizenship and the rights attached to it.... In other words, awarding nationality and citizenship to a person gives this person rights vis-à-vis the 27 other EU member states."

While Reding said she did not want the Commission to have the power to determine what constitutes nationality or the rules granting it, the EC still expected member states to be aware of the consequences of their decisions.

"Citizenship cannot be taken lightly. It is a fundamental element of our Union. One cannot put a price tag on it."

The EPP group led the barrage of criticism, with French MEP Véronique Mathieu-Houillon saying the outright sale of EU citizenship undermined the mutual trust upon which the EU was built.

"I am deeply shocked by the decision of the Maltese Government to sell passports without even a residency requirement and I wonder what they want to achieve with such a reform: an open-door policy to money laundering?

"European citizenship entails rights and duties. It materialises our common project and it is one of the pillars of the European Union. European citizenship is not just another commodity that can be sold. The Maltese Government is betraying the mutual trust enjoyed between the European Member States, something that we have been trying to build for many years."

Maltese MEP, Roberta Metsola, who pushed for the resolution to be discussed in the EP was emphatic in her opposition to the IIP: "Rights are not for sale. They cannot be bought and sold. To be European should not depend on how deep your pockets are. The selling of citizenship for mere cash dilutes the true value and worth of the citizenship we are so proud of. Each citizenship sold in this cheap fashion is an impingement on the rights of each and every one of our citizens."

"What we have heard in this Parliament today is consensus over the notion that the selling of citizenship is wrong in principle," Nationalist head of delegation David Casa said. "It is not too late, I appeal for the scheme to be changed - to make it one of real investment. Let us establish guidelines to ensure that no government - not now - nor in future sells its citizenship.”