“Flexibility” in the manner by which eurozone rules are being run has become a critical issue. As developed some two years ago, when it became apparent that France would not be able to meet the targets set for it under the rules, the concept of “flexibility” has been invoked to cover the special conditions that an economy could be facing for reasons ouside its control. In such situations, so it was announced, the rules do allow for new concessions in favour of that economy.

Since then, the same approach to flexibility has been used for Spain and Portugal.

Now, the Italian government is expecting to be given similar treatment, even if the annual budget it has prepared clearly breaches aims that were already agreed. The government is referring to the exceptional circumstances that Italy experienced with the arrival of refugees and other migrants, and the earthquake tragedies. However its major concern is the constitutional referendum due in December.

The dilemma is as follows: how far can the flexibility concept be taken without undermining irreparably eurozone management rules?  

*** 

Gozitan expectations

During a regional conference my office organised in Gozo on behalf of the S & D group in the European Parliament, two contradictory points emerged.

On the one hand, the claim was raised, as is frequently done by young people in Gozo, that there is no future for them there due to a lack of jobs.

On the other hand, the point was made that a number of Gozitan enterprises, especially in tourism, are failing to find employees from Gozo. They are actually having to “import” European workers.

Clearly, the reply to this will be: if entrepreneurs are not willing to pay decent salaries, what do they expect? People will just keep back.

It is a good idea to explore whether this reaction explains satisfactorily all aspects of what is going on.

***

Regime change

In the ongoing controversy about Syria between Russia, and the US plus the EU, a fundamental cleavage arises from the latter’s objective to remove Assad from office. Meanwhile, Russia considers him to all intents and purposes, as her ally.

Europeans and Americans want regime change. It is the same objective they set for their interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. In Afghanistan, following the atrocity of September 2001 in New York, perhaps they had no alternative. However in Iraq and Libya, all that regime change brought about was the death of many innocent people and persisting instability.

What Europe and the US are achieving in Syria hardly gives hope that they will get better results there. One can agree that the Assad regime they want to overturn is oppressive and operates in barbaric mode. But the alternative they have does not hold much promise for unity and progress in the future.

Without having to condone Russian military tactics in dealing with the siege of Aleppo, one can still conclude that about Syria, Russia’s position has much more to commend it than the Europeans and Americans would like to admit.