As more controversies arise over European options, the clearer it becomes that the way forward by which the European Union can become more effective and united is through a recognition that it is a union of nations – indeed a Europe of nations.
In the present European Parliament, this view is considered heretical by a substantial majority of its members, not least among the socialists and democrats. As a result of the position that they and like minded people have adopted, an enormous political territory has been opened up for “extremist” parties, especially on the right.
The logic for European union must be confederal.
It has to ensure that in economic and social terms, there is truly a convergence between the different nations. If this is not going to happen – and it is not happening – whenever an economic recession or a political crisis emerge, half-baked compromises must be established in order to guard against a collapse. It is when the world (or the European) economy is on a roll, that the contradictions can be fluffed over.
Perhaps it would make sense were the present generations who are active in Europe’s management (of the Juncker type) to be replaced as soon as possible so that the ideas they have inherited and pushed forward, can be renewed in a radical fashion.
***
Transparent media?
In statements that are made about the freedom and security which journalists should benefit from when carrying out their profession – an aim with which I totally agree – one issue continues to bother me: the institutions in which journalists work rarely get a mention. It’s as if journalists operate in a bubble of their own where nobody interferes from the “inside” of the organizations which employ them.
But these structures have their own objectives and interests. If they want their operations to be recognised as having a national and/or public significance, they too should be subject to criteria of transparency which would not allow them to hide behind excuses by way of commercial confidentiality.
The Malta Times is a big player in this hypocritical game. It consistently proclaims the importance of transparency in good governance, but then refuses to shed any light on the case of its former executive director Hillman.
***
Maltacom scheme
Some things that happen in Malta are hardly believable.
About twenty years ago, when the Telemalta of those days was being partly privatised to become Maltacom (today Go), we created a fund endowed with a good number of shares of the new company – a fund that was held in the name of its employees and should have been run for their benefit.
What has happened since then to that fund? Who was/is responsible for it?
The answer seems to be a profound mystery. You somehow get to know that for one reason or another, the fund got badly hit but that it might still recover... Yes, but how did this happen? And for what reason?
It seems like there is no straight reply.
People come and ask me about the matter and I have to admit I do not know. That is anything but a reassuring reply. After all, the funds in question were/still are public funds.