Official denials often affirm something is going on, albeit often not precisely what journalists suspect. Perhaps this is the case this week in relation to speculation of changes in the European Union's Stability and Growth Pact.
This financial corset constrains budgetary deficits within three per cent of the gross domestic product of the 12 states in the euro and foresees balanced budgets by 2004. These targets are becoming more onerous as economic activity remains sluggish and unemployment comparatively high.
The denials were issued after the Italian, French, German, Portuguese and Austrian governments publicly raised questions about whether the rules are too strict, or even fundamentally inappropriate, when inflation and growth are low. Ireland too is facing budgetary problems, despite its higher growth and employment levels.
It is one thing to shift deadlines for the achievement of budgetary balances beyond 2004, but quite another to change the rules altogether, according to market commentators. They make the persuasive point that anything which upsets market expectations about the stability of the euro could be deeply damaging. So far the disquiet expressed has not done any such thing. That is helpful if it allows space for rational discussion about the shortcomings of the existing design. It was put in place to reassure German opinion that fundamental disciplines would be adhered to in monetary union. It put control of inflation at the very centre of policy.
This approach made good sense at the time. The budgetary disciplines imposed worked miracles in Italy, Ireland, Belgium and several other member-states as they prepared to join the euro. But there is room to doubt whether they are appropriate in the different circumstances of 2002. In an interview with this newspaper Mr Giorgio La Malfa, the Italian economist and chairman of its parliament's finance committee, put forward some convincing ideas about how policy might be developed.
It should take more account of broader objectives, including encouraging growth and employment in a cyclical downturn. There should be scope to exempt socially necessary infrastructural schemes from expenditure limits. And ministers responsible for economic policy should be able to set out a coherent framework for budgetary policy. These are sensible ideas, worth further discussion. The alternative, a loosening of policy, would be more damaging to the stability of the euro zone.