Voices have been raised in Europe to declare: We have developed here a range of measures to protect all citizens so they can exercise their right as human beings to live the good life. That was well done. Laws are being increasingly put into force that ensure nobody suffers from some form of discrimination. Everybody should have access to the proper opportunities by which to acquire the skills and abilities that sustain the good life.

The same voices then continue in this way: However, we have allowed the emphasis to tilt excessively towards rights. For these should be linked to the duties of citzens towards the community in which they live and to the duties towards other citizens.  That commitment is being ignored. Rights and duties should kept in permanent association with each other.

However in replying to this argument, other voices assert it is untrue that the rights promoted by Europeans are being really implemented to the extent assumed. One needs only consider how social inequalities have persisted and indeed increased, to understand this.

The debate on the issue is very important. It has begun to emerge in Malta as well. It is a debate that should be followed attentively.

***

ENERGY SUBSIDIES

The Malta government insists that subsidies on energy should continue to apply for all in order to achieve social justice while safeguarding economic competitivity. It contends correctly that the resources are available to finance this initiative.

Its critics on this topic claim that subsidies should be targeted only towards those who need them to maintain their quality of life. From an economic perspective, Maltese production is getting too used to running operations that ride on subsidies. In social terms, funds are being spent for the benefit of people who are already doing very well, when they could be spent instead on social support programmes or on investment. Among those who argue on these lines there are experts from the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission, plus various Maltese economists.

With time, their criticism is becoming more valid.

***

FRANCE

Those who appreciate the civilisation, lifestyle and culture of the French nation cannot but deplore the present state of its governance. While the budget deficit continues to widen, the political gridlock has come to resemble those of the worst moments of the Fourth Republic. How did matters get to be so bad?

It is to be expected that politicians of all factions will be blamed for what is going on. They should have acted in time to stop the rot from spreading. Which is easy to say, but it is less easy to specify how this should have been done.

For it could be that French society has evolved in such a way that the present impasse would have happened anyway, independently of who were/are the political actors involved. Except perhaps for President Macron himself. Right from the start, he understood the unease of the French people, what had given rise to it and why. He made people believe he knew how to lead them towards a more modern future, but his vision remained that of a banker.