'How' and 'when', not 'yes' or 'no'

The debate on the introduction of the euro neither has anything to do with being in favour or against European Union membership nor has it got to do with being in favour or against the introduction of the European single currency. Both issues are now water under the bridge.

Even though recent opinion polls suggest that many are disappointed with the results obtained after two years of EU membership, the political and historical fact is that Maltese and Gozitans have opted for this membership. This entails, by default, the adoption of the euro, for which there was no opt-out for new entrants - a possibility which the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark still have, at least on paper.

Thus, the debate is not on whether we say "yes" or "no" to the euro. Instead it revolves around the "how" and "when" this significant transition takes place.

Labour has been critical about the way in which the transition is being handled since the Cabinet - single-handedly and without consultation - fixed a timetable and a rate of conversion. Alfred Sant, Charles Mangion and I have always been clear in questioning the rationale of the government's plan rather than the concept of the single currency.

The government side was silent about this for almost a year since we made our first statements. They remained silent until they decided to launch yet another onslaught against the Labour leader. They are trying to interpret Dr Sant's statements in a way reminiscent of the hardly-fought EU debate. The Pietà spin doctors know it is only by presenting once again the image of Labour as the "anti-everything-that-comes-from-the-EU" party that they can swing the moderate vote. Campaigning for votes is one thing. The outright misrepresentation of facts is another. It is dishonest!

Labour's position is crystal-clear. Malta will adopt the euro and we acknowledge this as a state of fact. Nevertheless, for the country to best benefit from this conversion, this must take place when our economy is best positioned to absorb the inevitable impacts of change. Undoubtedly, this cannot be done when our economy has just been experiencing negative or zero growth. Our economy would be much better geared to effect the change when we have a significant and stable growth rate.

Furthermore, the changeover has had a negative effect on inflation in many member states and thus caution must be fully exercised in order not to repeat the same mistakes that are acknowledged by the authorities of these member states themselves.

The Nationalist Party is trying to label Labour as anti-European for adopting such a pragmatic, no-nonsense approach. The irony is that if the Prime Minister uses the same yardstick when discussing the issue in the European Council and Ecofin, he would discover that two Europhiles he really likes rubbing shoulders and being pictured with would classify as "anti-Europeans" for his party. These two gentlemen are Tony Blair and Gordon Brown! They have adopted basically the same stand on euro adoption for the past eight years.

Over and above all this there is the over-zealousness of political parties to shoot down any statement by the leader of their counterparts. In this case, the PN launched a carpet bombing attack of Dr Sant's questioning of the introduction of dual pricing six months before a final decision on the adoption date and rate are taken, and his analysis that such a decision would lead to an increase in prices since retailers would have to adjust for exchange rate fluctuations.

"Anti-European" screamed the brigade of the usual suspects.

A couple of days later, the Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise and the Chamber of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises - GRTU expressed the same concern. Are these forefront members of the 2003 pro-membership campaign to be branded as "anti-European" too?!

One might agree or disagree with arguments on when it is best for an economy to adopt the euro and how to do it. But, out of respect for our citizens, let us do so in a decent manner.

Such an important transition that will have significant economic, monetary and social implications must be discussed in a serene environment. The long-term well-being of our country is at stake.

For a start, let us depart from a positive point of view: we all agree that this change must happen.

Now let us get together to see how best it can be done.

Mr Muscat is a Labour member of the European Parliament and sits on the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee.

www.josephmuscat.com