Monday, 9 June 2003

Joining the Euro - and Others

Maltastar

 
Joining the Euro

In other candidate countries the debate on joining the Euro has already started. The main point of debate is not whether but when. The general opinion is that whereas the final destination of joining the monetary union is not in doubt, candidate countries should be cautious from accelerating their entry before their economic development converges better with that of existing euro countries. This cautiousness is also encouraged by the EU Commission itself.

The arguments made in favour of this cautiousness are basically two. As the economy of candidate members receive an efficiency boost through the influx of foreign direct investment, unless this improvement gets reflected in a flexible exchange rate versus their major trading partners it will be reflected through different inflation levels. Secondly the candidate countries are ill-equipped to take on the obligations of the Stability Pact of the monetary union. Their public sector still needs to make substantial infrastructure investment to bring out the country’s economic potential. So the prospect of neutral budget within the foreseeable future is unrealistic and would be a constraint on their economic development.

In
Malta we have yet to witness any influx of foreign investment, something other countries have already experienced in the application stage. The prospects for such influx remain unclear. We need to hear the economic arguments of what benefits we will see through fast track entry into the Euro. Would it be the needed discipline to enforce the restructuring that we have long been avoiding in order to meet the rigid criteria for entry or would it lock us into a rigid exchange mechanism which will just add pain to the discipline of re-structuring unless we can really attract new foreign direct investment? These are the questions that need to start being debated.

Unfair Expectations

The point is sometimes made by pro-Labour writers, both from the grassroots through letters of opinion to the editor as well from high raking administration officials within the MLP, that contributors like me should direct their writings to other matters going on in society, in particular to the failure of government to expose the true facts before the elections, rather than to any self-criticism regarding Labour’s performance at last elections.

These are unfair expectations. Certainly I have no intention of letting government off my criticism or to avoid commenting on other aspect of Maltese life. However, it is only fair and reasonable that whoever loves the Labour Party in a selfless manner as I do, having always given and contributed but never taken or expected to take, use our talents to question what the vast majority of labourites whom we meet in the street question us.

In doing so we would be laying the foundations for future successes. If we pretend that nothing has happened and that we need not analyse and question what went wrong and should keep trying to discredit the government until we finally get the majority behind us, than we may have to wait an overly long time until our political adversaries mess up things to a degree that Labour gets elected by default.

This would be a pitiful strategy. We must aim to get elected on our own merits not by default of others. So we need to analyse and question. It is our duty. We owe it to the grassroots who were always ready with their hard-earned money to sustain the party whenever called upon to do so.

So somebody must explain to these grassroots why we have now accepted the people’s will about the EU but were not willing to do so before we had to go through a damascene conversion by spending another five years in opposition extending the PN’s almost uninterrupted tenure in government to 21 years.

Somebody must explain how a strategy, to merge the EU issue with the general election domestic issues, was chosen, when it was clear that the party’s interest (that of executing our policies through government) clearly demanded that these issues be separated as much as possible.

If anybody is uncomfortable with giving such answers they should at least not complain that such questions are made. Otherwise selfless activists like Gigi Gauci whose funeral was held on Monday morning, will continue to be deprived of their great ambition to see Labour in Government before they pass away.


 
Portfolio Performance

Strategy 1 No Risk Lm1000.571
Strategy 2 Medium Risk 990.030 (after Lm40 charges)
Strategy 3 High Risk Lm 980.00 (after Lm20 charges)
Strategy 4 High Risk For Curr. 1006.04 (after Lm40charges)

All quotes are net of withholding tax on profit or interest where applicable, and use latest available price quotes and rates on Saturday.

Strategies 2 and 4 gain from the strength of the equity prices last week. The greatest gain was made by Strategy 4 which is all equity based with a great bias versus technology and biotech shares.

Strategy 3 remained static as Maltacom shares stayed firm at 90c0. Strategy 1 accumulated interest at 3.5%.

No changes were made to the portfolio.
 

No comments:

Post a Comment