I would have loved to write about the outcome of the referendum that took place in the United Kingdom yesterday and to comment about the future of the European Union in the light of the result. However, the editor requests that I send in my contribution a couple of days prior to publication, hence, I am still in the realm of hoping, possibly against all hope, that right reason has prevailed and that at the end of the day, the majority of voters in the UK came to the conclusion that leaving the EU would not be in their interest.

As Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg said recently, the alternative to membership, the Norwegian model of a looser relationship with the EU that is often referred to by the ‘Leave’ camp, would be difficult for Britain, “because then Brussels will decide without the Brits being able to participate in the decision-making”.

Whatever the outcome, I feel that as from today, it is vital that 28 or 27 (should the ‘Leave’ vote prevail) member states seriously engage on a process that breathes new life into the European project.

The success of a presidency is measured in terms of how successful it was in furthering the agenda of the entire Union rather than in securing its own national interests

I recently attended a conference on the Maltese presidency of the EU Council that will happen during the first six months of 2017. What I witnessed there is symptomatic of why people lose faith in the EU. It’s either the case of ‘blame all that goes wrong on Brussels and let national politicians take credit for all the successes’, which was not the case during the conference I attended, or of raising expectations too high only to result in further disenchantment when the goods are not delivered.

To give an example, a University student following a course in European studies asked how Malta would solve the problem of youth unemployment in the EU during its six-month term. Unfortunately, none of the members of the panel replied by bluntly telling the student that it would be extremely presumptuous to expect Malta to resolve a situation that ultimately depends on decisions taken by national authorities in each member state.

Another cause of frustration is the constant reference especially by politicians and by the media (not just in Malta) to an ‘EU presidency’. Again, this is an exaggerated inflation because member states do not preside over the Union but chair the council of the EU which is one of its three main institutions. The EU has no president. The constant tension between those wanting a community of sovereign states and those preferring a federal union of states has resulted in this sui generis institutional set up that ensures that various interests are balanced out.

Laws in the EU are decided upon, in most cases, by the European Parliament that is directly elected by the citizens of all 28 member states and by the council which is composed of ministers representing the governments of the member states.

There is then a Commission that was more or less conceived as an independent arbiter and seeks to promote the interests of the EU primarily through its quasi exclusive power to initiate legislation as well as through its role to ensure that the treaties and laws of the EU are implemented.

Each of these institutions has its own president or presidency. Following the Treaty of Lisbon that entered into force in 2009, even the meeting of EU heads of state or government, known as the European Council, has its own permanent president as does also the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs.

Hence, the role of a member state assuming the presidency of the council is that of chairing meetings at all levels, providing member states with the opportunity to shape EU legislation from expert to ministerial level.

When I hear the presidency being referred to as an ‘EU presidency’ I worry that yet again we are raising expectations too high and expecting that, for example, being in the driving seat, Malta will solve the problems the EU faces in dealing with irregular migrants.

The programme and priorities to be adopted by Malta for its presidency will not be a national programme but an EU programme. The country will need to act as an honest, neutral and credible broker to try to secure the widest convergence possible within the council as well as with the other institutions, parliament and the commission in particular, also working closely with the President of the European Council and the Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy who is also Vice-President of the Commission and chairs the Foreign Affairs Council.

It is obvious that each member state assuming the council presidency would want to leave its mark. However, the success of a presidency is measured in terms of how successful it was in furthering the agenda of the entire Union rather than in securing its own national interests.

A presidency may try to prioritise on a number of issues that it considers as vital to the Union as well as to its own particular circumstances. It is obvious, for example, that, Slovakia, for instance, the country that will take over the presidency on July 1, will place its primary emphasis on the development of the EU’s Eastern Partnership. This is a joint initiative involving the EU, its member states and six Eastern European countries namely, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. The geographical proximity of these countries with Slovakia is no coincidence and the country also shares a border with Ukraine.

Similarly, Malta is obviously also expected to give priority to its immediate neighbourhood, the Mediterranean which is referred to as the Union’s southern neighbourhood. Malta can also contribute in other sectors where it has been taking a leading role such as in the field of civil liberties as well as the maritime sector.

I fully subscribe to what Parliamentary Secretary Ian Borg said recently, that the presidency is an opportunity for Malta to seek to contribute to the EU rather than to see what it could gain. I would add to this that, by pushing forward the European agenda, Malta is actually securing its own interests because we too stand to benefit if and when the EU manages to move forward collectively on important issues such as security, migration, strengthening the Single Market, the Energy Union and climate change.

Undoubtedly, the outcome of yesterday’s referendum will also have its impact on Malta’s presidency. The UK is expected to take over the presidency from Malta on July 1, 2017. This has given rise to speculation that should the UK vote to leave, Malta’s presidency could be prolonged for a further six months.

I believe that this is highly remote since our presidency will be the last of the current trio presidency and on July 1, 2017, a new trio composed of the UK, Estonia and Bulgaria will take over. Therefore, should a decision be taken that the UK would not assume the presidency itself, there would probably be an ‘ad hoc’ solution taken by the European Council.

What is certain is that Malta will be presiding over the council (though not the European Council) when decisions would need to be taken either in terms of the ‘withdrawal negotiations’ or for the full implementation of the arrangements agreed to last February by the UK and the other 27 member states.

However, let’s keep everything in proportion particularly when communicating with the public. My fear is that much harm has been caused to the European project because many who should know better have not been honest. Though possibly acting in good faith, they have contributed towards the growing euro scepticism that risks placing all that has been achieved over the past 60 years in jeopardy.