Throughout the European Union government leaders and heads of states from both sides of the (central) divide are being chucked out of power. This is a testament to the utter failure that is austerity economics/austerity politics which seeks to appease the markets purely out of human misery. Pardon my French, but let's face it, you have to be absolutely fucking mad to expect people to give you gratitude for ending up jobless, hopeless and in complete disarray largely through no fault of their own. Why should people have to pay for the gross negligence of a select few?

This failure, which mainstream parties seem to be unable to appreciate, has given a great boost to extremist or fringe parties thus putting centrist parties at the cross-roads. With the exceptions of Portugal and Spain, which have both elected mainstream conservative parties respectively (and that after long-term centre-left or socialist governments), the political centre is paying the price of its obstinacy and blindness. Francois Hollande, who hails from the mainstream French Socialist Party, got elected on an anti-austerity/pro-growth ticket. Whether he would be constrained to drift towards what I call the "pure centre" during his tenure remains to be seen. But I see no reason why he should unless he also wants to get the boot after one serving one term. 

Recent elections also point towards a rejection of a Franco-German hegemony that has completely usurped the European Union.There is simply no "Union" if Member States are constrained to the diktats of France and Germany, regardless of how well-meaning their ultimate intentions may be. Europhiles and federalists alike should reject this powerblock hegemony, not embrace it - and one can only hope that Hollande remains true to his word; that is, by remaining steadfast in reshaping France's diplomatic relationship with Germany and thus its overall outlook on Europe. 

But it is not all rosy for those, like myself, who are anti-austerity and welcome le changement. The rise and rise of the fringe also translates, very evidently, to the ugly rise of fascism which can easily capitalise on hopelessness and fear. This is a big challenge for the common-sense politicians who must convincingly establish that they can offer ordinary people a hope that is greater than populist isolation, protectionism and xenophobia. 

The recent tidal shift in contemporary politics requires a new mindset. Until recently politicians seemed content to justify their actions because of global economic constraints. This is clearly no longer a legitimate excuse. Furthermore, reducing budget deficits by cutting spending is no longer the be all and end all. Keynesian economics, expansionary monetary policy and so on should no longer remain anathema.

At the end of the day people may be willing to let go of privileges and luxuries like travelling abroad, eating out and so on and so forth. But to go so far as to deny persons a basic yet decent and dignified standard of living is not only absolute madness but completely self-defeating. This right, in my opinion, is as fundamental as free speech, freedom of conscience and all the other basic rights and should be enshrined as such. It would surely be a good accompaniment to a constitutional provision which demands a balanced budget. 

Who knows if politicians will ever learn from this crisis? 

Nobody seems to know exactly what the new "fiscal compact" is comprised of and what form it is going to take. Any hope for formal treaty change comprising all 27 EU Member States died with Cameron's "no" so it is most likely that we are going to end up with an intergovernmental agreement amongst the 17 eurozone States and, possibly, other non-eurozone states that may want to join. The legality of this agreement, compact, or whatever it turns out to be, is shaky to say the least.

The idea, however, is to move towards fiscal union, meaning that national budgets and fiscal policies would become 'Europeanised'. This is an odious step for advocates of national sovereignty and a misguided triumph for European federalists. I say misguided because it is a breed of federalism born from intergovernmentalism which, in my opinion, is bound to fail in the long run. This is one of the most basic flaws that emerged from the Brussels Summit on December 8th. The second is that it hasn't done much, it seems, to calm the markets and the credit rating agencies. 

Thirdly, this compact is born from the premise that individual (mostly southern) European states are solely to blame for the crisis. Surely, Greece's fudging of numbers and projections contributed to the euro debt crisis but to say that this is solely Greece's fault (coupled with Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland - PIIGS) would also be misguided. It basically leaves out the banks and financial institutions (who also contributed to the crisis) which states like the United Kingdom and Malta shockingly want to protect in the "national interest". 

Fourthly, the idea that states can spend more than they earn and incur deep budget deficits has to end. To this end the compact places a cap on a budget deficit of 0.5% GDP and automatic consequences (penalties) for countries that exceed 3% GDP. Perhaps this would mean that a budget deficit below 0.5% GDP is fine whilst a budget deficit of between 0.5% and 3.0% incurs a warning or possible sanctions. Any budget deficit exceeding 3.0% of GDP would be automatically punished, presumably by the Commission. National budgets will no longer remain sovereign but would now be scrutinised by the Commission and the European Court of Justice. 

This notion of fiscal discipline and budget surplus sounds great on the face of it. However, I fear that deep down such policies would effectively kill off any hope for fair wealth distribution (social democracy) within Europe. By legitimising (constitutionally - as member states are bound to do) the economics of austerity, discipline and punishment, this compact will criminalise expansionary fiscal policy and Keynesian economics. Basically the only outcome is for member states to tax more, slash wages, privatise everything and spend less, thus dismantling the social welfare safety net and with it, any hope for a decent living for those who are not well-off. It is beyond me how certain politicians, who should know better, advocate the protection of major financial institutions over the social protection of ordinary working citizens by opposing measures such as taxes on financial transactions. Perhaps they endorse the concept of "trickle-down" economics even though it is proven to have failed? At least they should thoroughly explain their position and define, credibly and objectively, how a so-called Tobin tax would be detrimental to the economy.

The irony is that I endorse fiscal union and European oversight but not in the manner that is being proposed, largely because it is anti-democratic and completely removed from the general populace. If we are going to have fiscal union we should also demand more democratic institutions such as more powers for the European Parliament; an elected Commission and an elected EU Council President. I feel more and more dejected by Europe if it is going to be run by France, Germany, conservatives, eurosceptics, banks and unelected bureaucrats. The least Europe can do, to ensure its survival, is to give some measure of power to the people rather than simply deny and take away. 

I believe in the European dream. I believe that it is absolutely essential towards achieving peace, prosperity and cooperation in a continent once ravaged by war and bloodshed. And yes, I also believe that it is beneficial for states like Malta not merely from an economic perspective (the single market) but also because less national sovereignty is likely to translate into enhanced social, consumer, and environmental protection; better access to justice and enforcement of justice; less clientelism, cronyism, nepotism and other such 'isms' - and, above all, a sense of openness towards basic civil liberties and human rights that some forces in this country still want to brand taboo. I believe that a day might come when we shall vote for a local governor and a local legislature to enact local laws and regulations but that this would be merely ancillary to voting for a European president and parliament. I do not fear that day should it ever dawn upon us. Perhaps it shall never come to pass.

Yet, I am not comfortable in the manner we are approaching (at a snail's pace, admittedly) that day. Federalism should not be created inter-governmentally. It is a paradox which makes no sense whatsoever. Federalism should be, above all, democratic and supranational. If countries like the United Kingdom fear Europe than so be it. In fact, it is better for countries such as the UK, that revel in traditionalist-nationalistic pride to leave the Union once and for all. Good riddance I'd say. However, although France and Germany represent (historically, culturally and ideologically) the very heart of the Continent, there is no democracy in giving them carte-blanche to decide what's best for the rest. It simply does not work that way for it reinforces the so-called 'democratic deficit' that has plagued Europe since its conception. As things stand, the purely intergovernmental Franco-German compact, leading to a 'two-speed' Europe, is simply the lesser of two evils. 

I also have deep doubts about the workability of the new fiscal treaty that is being proposed. I agree that fiscal prudence and discipline should be key and especially endorse the notion that countries should not spend more than they have. The constitutionalisation of such measures can work and act as a good incentive for governments but only if it is couched in vague and flexible terms, to at least leave some room for manoeuvre in times of emergency. But I am not so sure whether the German concept of 'discipline' (which is extremely strict) can work everywhere. This would be a huge culture-shock to southern states like Malta where issues like public healthcare and stipends make or break governments. Surely, being restricted to a 0.5% deficit would translate to the erosion of social services, pensions, stipends and free healthcare. These would, at best, be replaced by a system of means-testing and, at worst, gradually abolished. Choosing Heavy-Fuel-Oil because it is cheaper would become the default rule of thumb thus casting aside any long-term scope for proper environmental protection. Basically, politicians would have to master the art of spending less and less in a country like Malta whose major source of income is tourism, financial services and betting. In a perfect world it could, perhaps, discourage flagrant spending in useless capital projects and dissuade the spend-spend-spend rush before general elections. But this is not a perfect world and not all economies are like Germany. It is also hypocritical that many in Europe ridicule, say, Republican presidential candidates for their economic follies (eg cutting spending in times of recession when governments should spend more to incentivise job-creation that lead to more overall wealth) but then pursue the same policy back home to rounds of applause. I believe that such measures would legitimise the austerity-culture that has taken root in Europe and which frankly did nothing to calm the markets and only to stoke the fury of ordinary workers.

Time will tell.        

I would have thought that the progressive alliance in the European Parliament would have at least made an effort to vote NO to Barroso instead of abstaining. So what if he was uncontested? A close yes-no margin would have sent the message that Barroso has won the battle but alerted him to change his ways of pleasing national governments first before working in the EU's greater supra-national interests. With a comfortable and absolute majority I very much doubt that this is going to happen. I reckon that once the [second] honeymoon is over and the light begins to glisten at the end of the [financial crises] tunnel it will be back to business as usual.


It is unfortunate that the European left finds itself in such a mess that it could not even push for a suitable alternative to head the European Commission. But one augurs that serious and constructive effort is made to take the left back to its winning ways. It is going to be a tough five years but with a little less moping and bickering and a little more of doing and working together positive results can certainly be achieved.