As a storm, it was quite tremendous although I'm not sure that it was greater than some others of its predecessors over the years. Still, one factor made it stand out from the many others that came before it. Despite all the destruction it left in its wake, the "human" losses were minimal to non-existent. Nobody died, few were injured - while the damage was great but could have been much greater.

That it was limited resulted from the prior steps taken to prepare effective measures and contain the ravages caused by the storm. The measures were widespread and covered different levels of the country's management, from central to local, from commercial to voluntary in the private sector. Communications about what needed to be done or not done, were also effective.

When matters have been well executed, it makes sense to recognize this. The government should be congratulated for how it led the national effort. It now would do well to follow up by analysing how the precautionary exercise was carried out at all levels, so that the lessons regarding what was done well and what could have been done better serve to improve future action. Surely, this wasn't the last storm to hit the islands of Malta.

***

MERCOSCUR

As Europe struggles to secure a greater leverage over global decisions, it continues to demonstrate how it lacks the tools by which to assert its claims. Europe remains too dependent on others or it does not have the collective will to promote initiatives which give it influence over others. Its own institutions prevent it from moving forward.

The Mercoscur commercial agreement between the EU and leading Latin American countries was intended to strengthen political and economic ties between the two sides. Europeans were meant to obtain a better access to Latin American markets for their industries, and the Latin Americans better access to European markets for their farm produce.

The Europeans have hesitated for years over this project. With great difficulty they managed to get it approved by the EU's Council of Ministers. But then in the European Parliament an approach was adopted (by a few votes) that introduced a new obstacle: the European Court of Justice was asked to decide whether the Mercoscur agreement would be in line with European statutes. It is difficult to understand how this move can serve to enhance the international credibility of Europe in the current period of deep "diplomatic" turbulence.

***

WHERE HE HAS A POINT

I am certainly not an admirer of President Trump. Still this does not mean that one should discard outright all arguments Trump raises simply because they come from him. That is what is frequently done in Europe about claims made by the extreme right - which has not prevented that political movement from growing.

 In Trump's case for instance, three assertions cannot just be ignored, namely that:

--The US needed to run a better controlled immigration policy than has been the case in recent decades;

--US consumers needed to be protected from pharma prices that were being kept artificially high;

--US manufacturing should not be allowed to die a slow death.

Agreeing that these are valid aims does not necessarily imply agreement with how Trump is trying to implement them... if indeed he's doing that.