The debate about the future of Europe has been launched.

Some people call me a eurosceptic, even though probably I believe more staunchly in Europe than they do. The Europe I stand for though is one which conserves the heritage accumulated in diversity, during centuries of action and creation.

Quite a number of those who criticise as sceptics people with similar views to mine, are more likely to view Europe as a fashion they need to follow, since otherwise they would find little support for their prejudices. Their problem is that the Europe they gaggle about, never actually existed.

The debate that is now being launched does not simply relate to the sixtieth anniversary of the signature of the Rome Treaty. That is surely an anniversary which should be recognized in a big way. However the current debate is also made necessary by the clear paralysis in which the European project finds itself as it faces crises that should have been foretold.

Before discussing the future, would it not be better to first conduct – in a spirit of self-criticism – a discussion about the past events which have led us to today’s crises? What was done which should not have been done?

Or is that not the problem? If not, then what is it?

***

Paradise lost

Perhaps more than many others, I know about the pressures and urgencies which in our parliamentary democracy, an Opposition party must face. On the one hand, there is the feeling that the Opposition is gathering around it, the backing of a substantial number of people.  On the other hand, there is the reality that the Opposition’s best political tool is an ability to convince enough electors who failed to back it in the past, to vote for it in the coming elections.

Till that moment arrives, the Opposition must keep its supporters mobilised. It achieves this by attacking vociferously the government of the day. It still must do so within limits – related to a “human” respect towards others, as well as to some respect for the integrity of the state.

It seems to me that the current Opposition is quite close to overstepping these limits, unless it has done so already. Certainly this is happening in its own means of communication, as is the case with “In-Nazzjon” editorials (vide that of Friday 3 March for example).

This is not meant as an attack on freedom of expression: if the PN wishes to continue using the kind of language used in that editorial, let it do so. The viciousness that is being demonstrated in political discourse will end up mainly demonstrating the bitter anguish that some people are still experiencing just because they feel themselves exiled from Paradise, once they are no longer in government.  

***

In brief

Modern media – especially social media – roll forward on news messages and comments that are very brief.

This helps to reinforce their impact.

They give the impression that in a few words, they have solved huge problems and revealed enormous abuses. The difficulty is that  their brevity actually serves to twist and confuse facts while creating even greater uncertainties, rather than to clear the air.

Possibly they make sense for some strategies of political action. Still when the time comes to carry out what is being promised, constraints arise which it is difficult to circumvent.

The support generated by messages in brief, quickly begins to unravel.       

One could query whether something smilar has been happening in the US to the Trump administration. If so, this does not seem to have tempered Trump’s eagerness to communicate his ideas “in brief”.