Come Sunday evening the Maltese electorate would find out who their five representatives in the European Parliament would be. Expect a few pops from champagne bottles on that evening, followed by a river of comments and a spate of post-mortems in the media of why the government party candidates together got that particular percentage and the same for the party in opposition. The Cabinet may or may not be reshuffled. Lessons to be learnt may be taken seriously or maybe even forgotten.

Not surprisingly, the day after, Malta would find itself in the same place it had left before the elections.

On the economic front the Maltese government would still be found waiting for the EU recommendations regarding the Excessive Deficit Procedure instituted against Malta. Not that is needs to guess what these recommendations will be. A public deficit can only be reduced in one or more of the following ways: increases in taxation, cutting of public expenditures, or increase in efficiency levels. In the latter case the level of services may be contained at the existing level but would require less financial commitment to sustain them. The EU is telling the government that both education and health fall in this particular bracket.

One would expect that a government which has been elected by a solemn promise to reduce the rates of taxation would be reluctant to be seen to increase them, no matter what the EU might recommend. Instead as we are finding out over the last year or so, government can still resort to a number of hidden taxes which can still be introduced. Foremost among them are the increase in tariffs, in all sorts or forms, whether these are public utility, energy, water and gas, and soon drainage services. Health related tariffs? Forget them for the near future. Although these are at present financed through taxation, which because it is distanced from the consumer can be seen as a subsidy. With the tariff increase and the subsidy gone, the consumer would be short-changed in that he/she would not be refunded the previous subsidy.

Could the government cut expenditure instead? It is definitely not for the fainthearted. Of course there could be expenditure freezes. With budgets frozen the problem of restructuring the system to become more efficient one, is delayed and translated instead into a "first come first served" or "while stocks last" systems. In a realistic world of common nepotism even this does not apply and instead it becomes "whom you know which matters".

So what is on the agenda? We will be seeing more disgruntled public officers, doctors, nurses, teachers all clamouring for a fair hearing regarding broken pay or working conditions promises. Lip-service will be paid to a much awaited stimulus package for the economy. No matter which sums are mentioned, significant or just a paltry, one should underline that the effectiveness of a stimulus package is measured by the percentage points the deficit is increased. If the deficit is to be reduced there is no stimulus. On the contrary there will be further contraction.

The Prime Minister is eagerly looking forward to see the back of the recession. We all do. But how realistic can we be to think we can come out stronger than other countries when during the interim we are fast raising the export prices of both our manufactured goods and tourism alike. How are we going to stem the increasing unemployment arising from lost competitiveness.

I believe that the day after should be devoted to a more sobering thought about the way we are conducting the affairs of our country. Scoring points before the elections is appealing to a decreasing portion of our population. People are sick and tired of the way we are handling serious issues. They want more meat. They want reasonable people who are able to connect with the people of all political hues. The Maltese are demanding greater respect to their intelligence by the political class. Let us hope we can deliver the day after.