It is difficult to criticise the 2020 budget that minister Scicluna launched last Monday. I cannot find one false note in it even if like most, I consider that an emphasis or two could have been placed differently.

But that’s life. Objectively speaking, one’s preferences in style or format can hardly be any better than the minister’s.

What above all, this budget got right was the balance it sought – between the need to keep within the parameters set by eurozone rules, and that of stoking economic growth; and between choices made in social policy, which even if one claims that they could have been set differently, were still greatly progressive.

It is a pity perhaps that this sense of balance does become clouded by the length of the budget speech. It’s too long. We need a reform in presentation so that it does not take more than half an hour.  

***

Goulard

As an MEP, Sylvie Goulard was top grade. I was one of those who disagreed with her approach, but could only agree that in the perspective of her pro-Europe federalism and in the professional and political skill by which she advanced her views, she stood out.

Indeed I assumed that her nomination to the von der Leyen European Commission would be trouble free. Apart from her being highly competent, there was also the fact that as an ex-MEP, she would benefit from good margins of indulgence shown by her ex-colleagues. So I thought. It was a total mistake.

Two main reasons account for why her nomination was rejected. First: when allegations surfaced about how as an MEP she had managed parliamentary funds, within a month she resigned as French defence minister. The allegations have still not been cleared; so how come she was now to become Commissioner?

The second reason is French President Macron, whom Goulard supported right from the start of his presidential bid. He has made many enemies, not all of whom come out in the open.

***

Life values

In the controversy between those who are anti-abortion and those who are pro, the two sides insist that they stand in defence of essential human rights. The former because they claim that their position safeguards human life in all circumstances and no matter what. The latter argue that they are putting at the forefront, the right of all women (indeed everybody) to decide what to “do” with their bodies.

Both pitches can be defended without reference to some religious directive, although many do not fail to cross-reference their beliefs when discussing the issue. In fact, both values are compatible with available religious perspectives, including historically the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

The values that are being referred to are not absolute. Take for instance the value of respect towards life, which many hold sacred. Yet you find some who while being against abortion, agree with capital punishment.

And among those who hold that women have the right to decide what to do with their bodies, you find people who are against euthanasia – the right to decide when to terminate one’s own life.