A cursory look at the English papers over the last weekend would have really made interesting reading for us Maltese. It was not that there was anything about Malta - in fact the news that Zimbabwe had left the Commonwealth made the headlines but there was no mention of the fact that the next heads of government meeting will be held in Malta.

There was also a great deal of talk (or should I say written words) about the proposed EU constitution and the opposition that is being made by Poland and Spain to the document, but next to nothing about Malta in this context.

Admittedly, it is only the bad news that makes the headlines and in these two cases we are spared from being part of the problem. On the other hand, several newspapers gave a great deal of coverage to the long-awaited pre-budget speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, to the UK parliament. Mr Brown was expected to be upbeat about the performance of the economy, especially since many had doubted the projections made a year ago about growth in the UK gross domestic product. The result for this year should be very close to the target he had set.

He was, however, being slated about overshooting his expenditure targets and therefore increasing the borrowing requirement from an estimated 13 billion sterling for the fiscal year 2003-2004 to what independent economists now say could be 37 billion - an overshoot of nearly 300 per cent.

It all sounds very familiar, doesn't it? We could take it further. The UK fiscal deficit per capita is around 60 per cent more than that of Malta. However, because their gross domestic product per capita is greater than ours by much more than that, all commentators agree that the fiscal deficit is a sustainable one.

In fact, the UK claims that its national debt is the lowest among the G7 countries (that is the most economically developed countries in the world) and that the budget deficit is the lowest from among these same countries apart from Canada. Obviously revenues from North Sea oil and having got rid of unprofitable state-controlled enterprises like shipyards, have helped to achieve this sustainability.

Another issue that has also helped to achieve this sustainability is the decision taken by successive UK governments that the "traditional labour approach" could no longer be applied to certain social issues.

So, today, the discussion in the UK is no longer about how much money university students should get in grants (in Malta we call them maintenance grants or stipends), but whether universities should charge what are being called top-up fees - a policy favoured by the UK prime minister Tony Blair. This principle, that certain public services cannot continue to be made available for free unless for the really needy, has long been accepted in the UK, while we still need to start addressing it in Malta.

There is another principle that in the UK has long been accepted - that over an economic cycle, the government's running costs, such as salaries, must be met from taxation so that the government is only borrowing to invest. It may be difficult to assess whether this principle is being applied in Malta as what is included under capital expenditure may be regarded as running costs in the UK and vice-versa.

However, the reference to running costs may seem to imply that in the UK, ordinary revenue which includes all forms of taxation, must cover recurrent expenditure. We seem to be much more stringent than this when discussing our own fiscal deficit.

The point I am trying to make is not that the UK seems to have economic problems that are more severe than ours. I do not think a meaningful comparison can be made because our economies are so different. The services sector in the UK is far more advanced than ours; revenues from North Sea oil play a significant part in the UK economy; the UK gross domestic product per capita is significantly greater than that of Malta, even though some wages for comparable jobs are very similar to ours (which must mean something).

However, the nature of economic debate that takes place is different to ours, and it is this that to me is important. I am not making a value judgment about the appropriateness or otherwise of certain decisions/proposals that have been made (ex: closing down of loss-making state-controlled enterprises or top-up university fees). It is just that there seems to be that attitude that everything can be questioned in an objective manner and somehow a decision, that by and large is acceptable to the electorate, is taken. A successive government does very little to put the clock back.

This system has somehow helped to achieve a balance - that may not be a perfect one and that may not even be applicable to any other economy - which economic commentators seem to think that it is working. The troubles of others and the way they have dealt with them could teach us a lesson or two. A non-sober attitude and subjective assessments help very little to address the economic challenges that we must face.