Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1190498
17 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 8 DECEMBER 2019 INTERVIEW gue that even the consistent application of environmental law in Malta would help your country. Do you think that Malta would be a more attrac- tive place if everything is full of concrete? European and national legis- lation already puts Malta un- der much more environmen- tally-friendly obligations; but there seem to be systematic problems in the planning pro- cess, which do not allow their consistent application because there is simply too much mon- ey at stake. Well, this newspaper has consistently flagged problems in the planning process… I know; and you are right be- cause your islands are not end- lessly large; Malta is an attrac- tive tourist destination; a great place to learn English; a great place to study. Do you really want to risk it all because of a corrupted planning process? Therefore, I think better rule of law is not a threat; it is an op- portunity for Malta. On the subject of our reputation: some Maltese feel they have been dealt an unfair blow since the Panama Papers broke, for example, because the European Commission took greater interest in issues such as the Pilatus Bank affair, than it did with Deutsche Bank or Danske Bank. Do you think this criticism is valid? I would say that, for me, fi- nancial crime does not wave a national flag. The German Greens are the toughest crit- ics of Deutsche Bank in Ger- many. We have pushed for the strengthening of anti-money laundering supervision. In Deutsche Bank today, there is a permanent money laundering supervisor positioned in the bank's headquarters. He has been placed there because of public pressure. In Malta, on the other hand, we received lots of promises; lots of announcements of anti- money laundering strategies, and so on… and then, we re- ceived a damning report from the European Central Bank on the important Bank of Valletta. Clearly, the words and actions of this government do not fit together. But I agree: money laundering is a big problem everywhere. You mentioned Danske Bank; and rightly so, it was the big- gest money laundering scandal we have had so far in Europe. We Greens, together with oth- ers in the European Parlia- ment, ensured that this had a direct consequence when we reformed the European Bank- ing Authority. In the Council we success- fully pushed for the support of the creation of European anti-money laundering bodies which will take over important functions from national bodies, because many member states have failures. So you can rest assured: I'm as brutal in Germany as I am in Malta. I don't make any distinc- tions. And I would appreciate it if, in Malta, such questions were de-nationalised. If Eu- ropean actors push for strong rules, it is not 'against Malta' or the Maltese identity; as it is not against German, French or Ital- ian identity or structures. It is in favour of common European values, and in this we are all together. The fight against financial crime is a Eu- ropean issue. But the problem with Malta was that… nowhere else in Europe did we have members of the government revealed to have offshore accounts, and who were allowed to stay in of- fice. This is unprecedented. And this is why, at that point, Malta attracted a lot of attention, de- spite being a much smaller fi- nancial centre than others. In past missions, you also came to Malta to learn about its role in international tax avoidance policies. As you know these are schemes employed in various countries of the EU. Is a small country like Malta justified in acting as a financial centre to raise money and finance government spending, when it suffers so greatly from a lack of resources and imbalance in international trade? If countries are on the pe- riphery of a common market, I would say they have a good ar- gument in favour of lower tax- rates on profits made in those jurisdictions: compared with the tax-rates of other, longer established and better-posi- tioned jurisdictions. But there is never a justifica- tion for devising a tax system whereby money that has been earned elsewhere is shifted to your own location, using loop- holes in European legislation, which allow to create a more attractive tax regime. Malta has done just this: it has designed its tax system in such a way that transnational com- panies can shift their profits to Malta, using European legisla- tion which can only be changed through consensus. This is just a modern way of stealing mon- ey from others. I say that very openly. I can see justification for tax attractiveness when it comes to value-added earned in Malta; and equally in Ireland, and so on. But I see no moral justifi- cation is shifting transnational profits to one's own jurisdic- tion. In particular, I value that moral debates, in Malta, are se- rious debates. Part of the Maltese identity can be seen to be very strong on morals; but then, read what the Vatican has written about such tax structures and tax ha- vens. It's very clear. This, too, is part of the double-standards. I think that should also be a reason to rethink the imputa- tion system for corporate prof- its. The European Parliament has been scathing about Malta's IIP scheme, yet at Commission level nothing has been done about it. Do you think the EU will ever come down hard on the sale of citizenship schemes like Malta's IIP or Portugal's Golden Visa? The problem with Malta's scheme is that it does not re- spect the agreement with the EU that all those who get a passport must have a genuine link with the country. And a 'genuine link' doesn't mean 'to pay money'. It means living or working in the country, being integrated, and so on. All this is not respected by the Maltese government. There- fore, the question is: will Eu- rope, under the new commis- sion, continue to accept this? What I hope is that [new Com- mission President] Ursula von der Leyen will adopt a more pro-active approach than Mr Juncker before her. Mr Juncker and Mr Timmer- mans were not ready to really act on any of the systemic rule of law problems in Malta. This now has to change; in fact, it's a test-case for the new Commis- sion. It is not yet decided what the outcome will be; but of course, I think the European Commis- sion should open an infringe- ment case, because of the vio- lation of the obligation of loyal cooperation – as laid down in the treaties – with those coun- tries which misuse their pass- port and Golden Visa schemes. So I hope that the new com- mission is ready to do some- thing about it. You criticised von der Leyen in recent comments, suggesting that she was weak, not just with Malta but also with Poland and Hungary. Isn't there a danger that Malta will become – as you yourself put it – a 'test- case', that will rally together all the EP's opposition to the New Commission? First of all, we made progress with regard to Poland: an Ar- ticle 7 procedure has been opened; and the EP has called on the Commission to do the same with Hungary. You can see that we are not playing this as a national question, where we only look at certain coun- tries. Also, we Greens don't care which party is in government. The rule of law shouldn't have a party colour, either. Now, of course, with all the facts in the public domain concerning Malta, this is naturally a test- case for the Commission. But rest assured that this doesn't earn them any credit from any other country. We want our common val- ues to be applied everywhere. We will criticise Germany, if it ignores the environmental standard for its car industry. And we will criticise Malta if it is weak on corruption; or Hun- gary, if there are problems with media freedom. This is often unfortunately portrayed in this country as us being 'against Malta', as the EU's smallest state. No. The rule of law is to be defended everywhere. 'misjudgement'