The pro-free trade consensus that spread worldwide provided the basis for globalisation to accelerate. Developments in communciations technologies for travel and by way of transmitting messages to all corners of the earth, also boosted the process.

The same “liberal” consensus propagates the view that humanity stood to make sensational gains via the freedom that was being established for people, products, services and capital to circulate freely. Social progress and economic prosperity would thereby surely follow.

That consensus has now been broken. Many people left behind by the changes taking place, or who lost out, at last have discovered how to give power to their voice. They are protesting, not least through the ballot box, against a society which while chasing economic growth in the total absence of a social vision, ended up undermining their aspirations.

It is a pity that this change is occurring under a populist callsign. The populist momentum will in its turn give rise to new and enormous problems.

At the forefront of moves to dispense with the “liberal” consensus, there should have been democratic socialism. Its values were always tied to the need to maintain a just equilibrium between economic freedom and social justice.

***

Bergoglio interviewed

The interview which Pope Francis gave to the El Pais newspaper in the same weekend as Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration was of great interest. Indeed what got most attention was the Pope’s remark that before passing judgement on it, one needed to wait and see how the Trump administration would act when dealing with real life problems.

I also found intriguing a different side of the interview. The Pope was asked about the disquiet that has gathered among the middle classes of the economically advanced countries. They feel that their situation has deteriorated. Yet leaders, including the Pope himself, do not give enough attention to the difficulties they face.

If I understood his position correctly, instead of apologising for this, Francis recalled the parable in which the son who has led a correct life, taking good care of his inheritance, feels that his father is discriminating against him, when giving more attention to his brother who is mired in misfortune. 

***

Failing to understand

Naturally, history is written by the victors. The views of those who won the political controversy regarding whether Malta should join the EU or not, today “naturally” dominate the story to date of how accession happened and what has occurred since. With the passage of time, when the story is revisited by scholars who will not have lived it, a more balanced version will prevail.

Even so, I am still impressed by the belief held by some people, that Malta’s membership of the EU has been a narrative crammed with positives. It seems as if for them, all along there have simply been advantages and no disadvantages. Or at least that up to now, the latter were very few, practically non-existent.

When one mentions the fate of industry – the situation in agriculture and fisheries – what has happened with the Dublin 2 agreement on immigration – how Malta only has an intermittent voice in decisions regarding the euro as a currency – it seems like they couldn’t care less.

It’s a waste of time trying to explain a situation to those who do not wish to know.