For some time immigration had departed centre stage but this summer it came back with a vengeance as a main problem... or better, crisis. About it there still persists a profound disagreement among EU member states. As a result, the differences between them are again out in the open.

Italy is quite right to expect the “solidarity” of other European countries as it struggles to cope with a new wave of migrants reaching its shores. I doubt whether it will be successful in this. Greece is still waiting to receive the resources needed to extend the treatment promised to migrants who are still on its territory, as well as for their repartitioning among EU members.

What can be done about this? Unless there is unanimous agreement, progress will be minimal.  Prime Minister Muscat told the European Parliament that the divergences among European countries go beyond simple disagreement; the fundamental dispute is now about “values”.

Perhaps he’s right. However values upheld by states always reflect national interests, in accordance with the strategies adopted by those who are appointed to defend such  interests.

***

G 20

The G20 gathering in Hamburg triggered fierce street protests called mainly to contest capitalism. Protesters and police, both highly mobilised, indulged in violence.

It is a pity that the criticism of capitalism we get to hear is mostly made on such occasions. Political parties and social movements which speak and act in order to counter capitalism are practically extinct. The consensus is that there is no better way to manage economies than capitalism. So now this is the driver in all countries as well as on a global scale.

We only go as far as agreeing that capitalism should be “regulated”. The state is no longer expected to act as an economic agent but as a referee to ensure that the economic game is being played according to “fair” rules that enable capitalism to flourish.

***

Strasbourg

There has been another round in the ongoing controversy about whether the European Parliament should continue to meet in Strasbourg. A big majority of MEPs consider correctly that the monthly appointment of the plenary in that city is a huge and unnecessary inconvenience. In addition it involves the Union in incredible extra expense.

It was during the first years of the Union’s life that it was decided to establish Strasbourg as the seat of the European Parliament. That decision can only be reversed by unanimous agreement among member states. Obviously the French, no matter who is in government, will never agree to have the current arrangement reversed.

However as part of the latest round of controversy, a new take on the matter has emerged; one which ties in with the idea that after all, Brexit might offer new opportunities. Due to Brexit, the headquarters of the European Banking Authority must leave London. The suggestion has been made: would it be a fair bargain if the EBA is relocated to Strasbourg instead of the European Parliament, which would migrate to Brussels? I think it would.