Dawning realisation

Less than 36 hours after the EU accession celebrations, and before the echoes of the festivities had died down, the Sunday papers reflected the concern, if not also the foreboding, of various Maltese commentators.

Writing in The Sunday Times (May 2) Lino Spiteri pointed out that "the strictures of EU membership will become apparent sooner than the benefits" and that the "euphoria of the April 2003 (general election) result was anyway not sustained in the following 12 months, to use a huge understatement".

With the first phase of membership, this euphoria will dissipate completely, he said, "for the reality remains that membership will not make flowers bloom out of season, suspend time and its ravages, or make manna drop from heaven; as before May Day, we shall have to strive to make Malta a centre that attracts export-oriented foreign direct investment and encourage Maltese entrepreneurs in the same direction".

Alfred Mifsud was even more blunt in The Malta Independent that same morning. He wrote: "Now that the lights are down and the festivities are over, the honeymoon period will only carry us till June 12 when the elections for the European parliament are due. Beyond that, there lie the threats and the opportunities which can make us or break us.

"Unfortunately, one has to be unrealistic to feel positive about the way we are positioning ourselves for the challenges ahead.

"We still seem to think that EU membership on its own will cure our ills and that we can expect an influx of foreign investment and new job opportunities purely because we will be perceived better by investors as an EU state. It just does not work that way."

Economist Karm Farrugia had this to write in Malta Today: "Our state of unpreparedness will inevitably translate into a few years of more pain than gain; in fact the former is a requisite for the latter - readjustment or restructuring, as often drummed into our ears.

"So sharply divided on the membership issue as we had been prior to the last general election, the transformation process has had to be much too slow, almost imperceptible..."

The underlying truth of these observations arises from the plight of the Maltese economy and the way it has been mismanaged.

In office since 1987 (save for a short 20 months), the government lived riotously beyond its means. Raising its tax intake and selling the family jewels were not enough to appease its appetite. It borrowed beyond belief to finance an endless string of deficits. The end result was rising unemployment, a dearth of investment, a shrinking economy and a mountain of debt.

This situation was not EU-induced. In fact, it amounted to divergence from EU criteria of governance.

The past cannot be undone. The damage has to be repaired and the repairs and their cost are a Maltese responsibility.

EU accession has no bearing on this issue. In its editorial comment, Malta Today pointed out last Sunday that this "will not correct the deficit, the need to collect more funds better known as taxes, the ability to spend them respectfully, or the institutional reforms necessary in the social and economic fields. There are still a plethora of concerns that do not fall under the direct influence of the EU and require good Maltese governance".

Nobody was listening when Labour Party spokesmen and media were imploring the Maltese electorate to read the writing on the wall.

Now that the hubris arising from EU accession is over, public realisation of the true nature of Malta's economic predicament is instantaneous.

It is one thing to identify the nature of Malta's economic malaise, however. It is another to implement, in concrete terms, the promise of a new way of doing politics, in a climate of consensus and in a spirit of inclusion.

This is, fundamentally, the divide between the major Maltese political parties at the present time.

The electorate is entitled to have its say on this issue - and the time for that is not far off.

Dr Vassallo is the opposition spokesman on health.