I was quite surprised this last week: in three separate conversations with (Maltese) individuals who do not know each other, the same word turned up. They employed it to pinpoint what in their view, is the deepest flaw in the ongoing economic activity. They did not mention it because they feel somehow sidelined by the general run towards greater business success. Indeed they had no problem at all to agree that the economy has been and remains on a roll which has now persisted for a number of years.

Greed: that’s what we need to watch out for: so they said. Too many people in Malta are eager to make lots of money in double quick time and with minimal effort.

In the rush that’s fired by greed and that makes one chase the slightest opportunity that could offer the prospects of easy takings, one could in short time lose the skill by which to make sure that what glistens is gold not dross. Prosperity would then be built on foundations that might rapidly collapse.

***

Nihil obstat

We’re again coming to the end of the process by which every year, the European Coommission inspects the budgets prepared by the governments of eurozone member states, to judge whether they correspond to the targets set for them under the zone’s rules.

The Commission had little to say about Malta. Eurozone rules have not only been observed but our performance goes well beyond what they require.

And the Commission had to consider other matters that were much trickier than the Maltese dossier – primarily the Italian issue.

Actually, the annual exercise covering national budgets does seem to be clumsy and complicated. It is difficult to assess the political inputs that feed it. Here too, the size of a country, big or small, does affect the decisions that are taken about it – although one and all in the Commission will roundly deny this.

It had to be Jean Claude Juncker of all people who for once in past years, was honest about this, probably because he happened to be distracted. Referring to how France was failing to respect eurozone rules, he exclaimed: Oh yes, but that’s France! How can one issue a warning to France?

In a way, the process has come to resemble the ceremonial by which the Catholic Church grants an imprimatur to some new theology book that’s being published. Even so, the procedures followed by the Church are more effective that those adopted by the European Commission. 

***

The chicken of an agreement

At last, France and Germany have reached an agreement about what they should propose to their associates by way of the first steps towards a reform that has become necessary in eurozone management. They did so by finalising a two-page text which mainly describes how to establish a “budget” for the eurozone.

The Franco-German proposal left most people cold. In its sheer timidity, it delivers much much less that what a year and a half ago, President Macron had prospecteed as he relaunched the idea that eurozone reform had become an urgent matter.

Despite being so weak in content, the proposals advanced have still met with resistance. Why do we need this? has been the query of those who contest the whole idea of “reform”. Their scepticism gains in appeal when one considers how shallow the suggestions for change have turned out to be.