Kev, thanks for the readings, I will add them to my homework.

On a serious note, same as Ambrose’s, Peter Boone’s and Simon Johnson’s article makes an interesting read. And they do mention the IMF!

They also mention von Hayek, who was one of the economists to inspire Margaret Thatcher’s monetarist policies. As a pro-conservative and a Thatcherite, may I remind you that Thatcher came to power just three years after Britain’s financial crises of 1976, when the Labour government had to resort to the help of the IMF.

Unlike what happened in the past decade, the Conservative government of the 80s and 90s allowed very high interest rates until they curbed inflation, and that government placed controls over public debt. Over the past decade, European and other governments (including the “no more boom to bust” UK Labour government) presided over high inflation (esp. in asset prices) without adequately raising interest rates.

Now, I spoke to people from other countries who ended on the doorstep of the IMF. They mentioned austere measures, and how the IMF practically takes over the government fiscal policy. Not very different from what the ECB may do now. But how else could the ECB (or IMF) control the recovery of the debt taken over? Is that not, to some extent, like a liquidator, or a bankruptcy court, taking over the control of bankrupt companies?

If I understand the ingredients of the solution proposed by Boone and Johnson, they propose the restructuring of the sovereign debt – which to me means writing it off (which is equal to sovereign bankruptcy).

If this happens, there will be a euro devaluation (the markets will take care of that), and a period of high interest rates (European credit risk would be high, and again, the markets will do that). With a weak Euro, we are likely to experience high inflation (expensive imports, such as oil), which in turn will fix the problem of high debt (to the borrowers of course): it reduces the value of the accumulated debt.

But high inflation and high interest rates often result in social unrest. And we get to a scenario not different from that prevailing in Europe before WWII.

It is in that scenario that one would hope there will be EU political leadership that will put the unity of Europe before country interests. But that remains to be seen, of course.

Forget Waco, Ciccio, it’s not for your type.

Here, read these two pieces, written by bad people and badder, unlike Ivan Camilleri, who is good:

The new feudal overlords of Europe will be the bankers of the ECB – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7753298/The-new-feudal-overlords-of-Europe-will-be-the-bankers-of-the-ECB.html

The heresy of the Greeks offers hope, by John Pilger – http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/05/greece-pilger-britain-imf

Kev, I believe that you have a tendency to take criticism a bit seriously, and I hope I am not falling in the same trap. Criticism, especially when it is packaged with some sarcasm, must be fought with the same tone. Something like British humour, especially since you read The Telegraph, which is conservative.

Reading through your comments, are you now suggesting that Ambrose is a “moron”?

As for your internet investigations, I suspect that you are having too much of that. It could be dangerous to your health, you know. A walk in the park and some fresh air would help. Is there any open space in Brussels?

I see you avoided any reference to “conspiracies” this time. Oh, no, but there you go again – the Waco incident. I see you not only crossed the pond, but also the Atlantic. No ash clouds today? What is the EU connection in that case? I admit, I did not watch your video links…

Now, I have compared the EU to heavens, and stated that I agree with Nick that Malta is very centralised. Does that give you the impression that I would cover up for those who suppress human freedoms? Be it the EU or anybody else. In my view, it is the principle that matters, not how many conspiracy videos one watches.

@ Joseph A Borg – What “Machiavellian arguments”? Is Evans-Pritchard scheming for The Prince?

@ Ciccio – No, I don’t “read the Telegraph”. Not as in ‘Karmnu reads It-Torca’ while ‘Nenu reads Il-Mument’. I read everything, for everyone is right and everyone is wrong. You learn something through everyone, even from the bleakest of morons.

‘My friends’ at the Guardian? What gave you the impression I share Joseph Muscat’s distinguished friends, Ciccio?

@ A. Charles, Joseph A Borg and ciccio1810 – The problem is you compartmentalise your politics into tiny red/blue boxes, according to country, such as:

Telegraph = Tories, ergo Eurosceptic = Karmenu, ergo bad.

Your perception of the EU is distorted, romantic and outdated. Your awareness of the mechanisms surrounding monetary and fiscal powers is neolithic. Your insight into the global power structure is both limited and naive.

You denounce all proof that your world-view is an illusion without ever investigating – you wouldn’t even know where to start because your internet reach covers the area of a matchbox in the Louvre.

My advice to you is: explore different pastures, invest some time into something that could give you deeper, wider insight.

Change gear from the usual – cross the pond for a preview of the EU – review the past – visit, for example, the Waco massacre of 1993. Find out what really happened, see how the feds lied through their teeth to cover up a deliberate act of tyranny; see how the media played along, demonising even the 17 children murdered by the federal wolves…

Then explore related videos and read sources. And when you discover that Waco is the order of the day, you’ll be on your way to more fantastic discoveries and the picture becomes clearer and clearer.

So here’s a four-hour investment into your world view:

1. Waco: Rules of Engagement (14 Parts) – watch it as a historical document – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6vrep7k9g

2. Wake Up America or Waco (11 Parts) – watch this anthropologically, keeping away from stereotyping – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHjwXx7mvXs

@OSaNfA:
For this once only: can’t blame Maltastar for copy-pasting Prof. Mallia’s statements. I doubt he understands them himself. Is he a technician, or a politician?

Common sense tells you that the party with the most seats seeks to form a government; however, that is not a dogmatic principle in any democracy. Parliaments do not recognise political parties as people vote for individuals to represent them. In a confrontational system like ours and the UK’s the Constitution allows for two group leaders- one to lead the majority of MPs’ support and the other will lead the rest.

In crude terms any elected member may pull himself out of their party gang and ask for support and the successful leader has to become the PM.

After the amendments of our STV (Single Transferable Vote) in 1987 our system became a hybrid and a confused one as although it started to recognise the party votes for fairer and practical reasons the amendment could still be rendered useless after the first sitting of the new assembly.

In our current situation if one MP from the government crosses over to the opposition side Dr. Gonzi would lose his mandate but he can’t call an election and would need to go to the President. The President would then summon Joseph Muscat and ask him whether he has enough support in the house to lead a government.

In the absence of that support the President will dissolve parliament and Dr. Gonzi and his supportive group will stay in office as a caretaker government until the principal electoral commissioner hands the election results to the president.

I stand up to be corrected on some minor details but generally speaking that’s how the system works here as well as in the UK.

Democracy is a farce. But can we better it?

“Information that is already centralised is more likely to be abused.”

It’s irrelevant whether data storage is centralised or distributed. What we are discussing here is control. Besides, super-fast federated database systems that centralise access to distributed data have been around for years.

Do you know where YouTube stores all its video data? No, you don’t. Yet its website centralises control of its entire library. Click on a link and, within seconds, you’ve got the video.

The data recorded by security cameras may be distributed across thousands of points in the UK. But control of the system is centralised.

Automatic numberplate recognition software has been used in the UK since 1997. It uses the same kind of technology as the software that comes with your off-the-shelf HP scanner. The movements of any car passing in front of one of thousands of ANPR cameras installed all over the UK are stored in a centrally controlled database for five years, cross-referenced with the identity of the car’s owner.

And now tell me that ID cards are a greater threat.

1) Thousands of people were disenfranchised from voting because not enough ballot papers were available at some polling stations.

2) Yet again, total disproportionate representation with LibDems getting 21% of the vote and 8% of the seats.

3) The LibDems were offered the choice of who to form a government with. This is the root of an unbalanced coalition in the UK. Elsewhere in Europe, it’s the party with the most seats which seeks to form a government. Therefore David Cameron should have been the one to be asked to try to form a government by: a) forming a minority government alone; b) forming a minority government with small party groups; c) forming a majority government with the LIbDems; d) forming a national government with Labour.

If all the above failed it would have been Gordon Brown’s turn to try to form a government, but certainly it never would have been
a party with a mere 50 odd seats out of 650 being given the official capacity of kingmaker.

This is democracy on its head.

No wonder Clegg feels he can call call the shots because he was “institutionalised” as kingmaker – and for good measure he did approach Labour to see if they can better the Conservative offer – what a farce of a democracy!

Alas, one cannot compare Malta and the United Kingdom as Clegg has done. Just look at the size of Malta.

I am quite sure that certain policies would have changed if we were the size of the United Kingdom and had its population and resources. Thinking of it, if Malta was that size and with all that goes with it, and since we are so full of it back here, we would have certainly invaded mainland Europe (all smiles).

One other thing, with what Clegg is insisting on, the man in the street would certainly pay dearly for total de-centralisation.