We are failing to reach our environmental targets as set country by country within the EU. And therefore we must either pay fines or “buy” the environmental vouchers earned by countries which have reached and exceeded their targets.

This is an old story.

I remember about how seven years ago, if not more, at meetings of the public accounts committee of the Malta Parliament, I insisted on our getting, as a committee, a full description of what progress had been achieved in approaching the European environmental goals we had already accepted at that stage. I enquired what the financial penalties would be if we continued to not satisfy the requirements set for us.

The then Nationalist government resisted doing so but they eventually agreed to request the Auditor General to evaluate the problem.

He presented a report and it must still be available soemewhere. His calculations were not so reassuring. Perhaps we have not done as badly as he, by way of prudence, forecasted. However, we are not too far off from certain calculations that he laid out then.

***

Ethics and politics

I participated in a seminar on ethics and politics – a subject that is always topical – organised by the Ideat Foundation at the Labour National Centre. I was pleased to find that those present were acutely interested in the subject. Although they had no illusions about how politics are carried out, they were still not ready to do away with fundamental principles for its sake.

For actually, as came up in discussion, the strongest challenges and difficulties in politics arise when one comes to implement what one has entered politics in order to implement: starting first of all, with the imperative that one must succeed. In case of failure, the whole effort is wasted: what one looked forward to carry out, will not happen.

And so, the temptation grows to compromise with one’s beliefs in order to be able to get things moving. This still with reference obviously, to a genuine political commitment, uncorrupted and not simply meant to satisfy one’s personal interests.  

***

Brexit: An agreement?

Critics in the UK who have come out strongly against the Brexit agreement as recently concluded, are spot on. The agreement provides the UK with no wriggle room: for a period that could lengthen, the country will carry the disadvantages of full EU membership without sharing in the benefits. More than that: it will have no say in decisions that will be taken.

The British side has paid a very stiff price for being internally divided about what were to be the ultimate aims of Brexit. 

For their part, the Europeans gave no inch: they stuck to their aim of not letting anybody share in the benefits of the single market they have successfully established, while avoiding to carry the responsibility that goes with them. They have succeeded in that aim – but I suspect they have not really evaluated in full the consequences of their strategy.

In no way did they desire to give encouragement to one state or another that would be tempted to exit the Union. Those who would in future wish to do so (should they ever emerge) will surely understand this. How will they go about achieving their aims?