The shock “Leave” vote is still sinking in and being digested, not only in the UK but also around the world. The dramatic irony, from a simple analysis of the result, is that the older generation in the UK thought about themselves and not about their children or the younger generation. This is in deep contrast to what Malta experienced in our “join or not join the EU referendum”. We all thought of the future of our children and how important it was to indeed join the EU, for their sake.

The British young voted overwhelmingly to remain in while the older generation, unfortunately still living in the past and thinking the UK is still the great Britannia ruling the waves, opted to go back to their past, which they will soon find out does not exist anymore.

The British Empire is no longer there. Sovereignty is not the same as it was in the past. Today its means getting your way because you have the money. Money talks, money decides and money rules.

Greece lost its sovereignty when it virtually declared itself bankrupt. People quickly forget that Britain once nearly lost its sovereignty in the 1970s, ironically not to Europe, but to the IMF when it had to go on a three-day week working basis and then had to borrow some $4 billion and succumb to the heavy demands of the IMF to reduce public expenditure.

Now with the UK out, each country’s contribution to support the EU will definitely increase

This Brexit vote cannot be changed, albeit, it seems to have been won on lies and admitted deceit. The result will have a devastating impact not only on the UK itself, but also on its trading partners and allies, and it could also include a break-up of the UK, with Scotland and Northern Ireland seeking independence or to remain in the EU. Spain has already made a step forward to jointly govern Gibraltar.

What are we therefore to learn from such a calamity? Firstly, the days of “great statesmen” are over. Today’s modern politicians seem to care more about themselves and in fact put their own personal careers first before their countries’. There should be checks and balances in order not to allow politicians to play with a country’s future just to save their own skin.

Apart from the lessons in local politics, I believe we must ask what was the real reason why the majority of the British voted to leave.

The EU is to carry quite a lot of responsibility. It hardly communicates to anyone the good it does. We have no idea what massive improvements have been made in other countries with EU funds, and only know about our own country.

Here in Malta we can easily see what has been done, but ask the average UK resident what has been done in his country and he shrugs his shoulders. Let us not forget that Wales was one on the major recipients of EU funds in the past decade, and yet they voted to leave, because they did not realise or were not told how much they benefitted from the EU.

All we hear from the EU is about new laws and regulations and new directives pouring out of Brussels every week. Allow me to ask therefore simple questions as to why should we have the Fifth Directive of this and the Fourth Directive of that in a span of a few years after the First Directive would have just been legislated?

Why do we have to have a new directive when one has only just been approved? Was the previous directive not sufficient or was it so badly drafted by those expensive tax-free bureaucrats in Brussels that once drafted they needed to justify another directive to keep themselves busy?

I am four square with the EU but I am also against paying money for inefficiencies and high cost of unnecessary government to justify high payrolls. Some examples of this are: commissioners of the EU are pensioned for life even if they served only one term, when employees the world over have to work over 20 years and pay contributions, to get a full pension?

Employees of the EU structures do not pay tax but are charged a ridiculous contribution to the EU of around three percent, while we, normal citizens, all pay taxes. Do we need to have European parliamentary sessions divided between Brussels and Strasbourg? Can someone quantify the exact cost of such a duplication?

What about the extra cost of travelling expenses for thousands of staff, between Brussels and Strasbourg, and everything else, while when Greece was going bankrupt, as was Ireland, Portugal and Spain, the EU dictated to these countries to go on austerity measures whilst the EU machinery continued to waste funds?

I thus urge Jean-Claude Juncker and the commissioners to reassess this situation, as I am sure other countries might be tempted to start looking at the UK model and may opt to leave as well. Their point would be that now with the UK out, each country’s contribution to support the EU will definitely increase and unless the EU takes a serious insider look to see how it is being managed, and to cut expenses, countries could start to re-think their position.

Commentators talk now about the UK adopting the Norway model or the Swiss model, without having the burden to pay for it all. They might however not be aware that these models demands full commitment to adopt all EU legislation.

Then the UK might just want to negotiate a good free trade agreement with lots of advantages, again without paying the price it was previously paying to be in the EU. If this were to happen, other countries might decide to follow suit.

How can this be stopped? I ask the Prime Minister to possibly redraft his agenda for Malta’s Presidency of the EU starting in just six months, to put the management of expenses in the EU and immigration the top items on the agenda.

One of the main arguments that the Leave campaign brought forward was indeed the amount of money that the UK had to pay each year to the EU. The UK chose to leave instead of staying inside to improve the EU. Well, we are inside and we want to remain inside and now with the presidency for six months (or possibly a year) we finally have a voice which others can listen to.

If our Prime Minister voices these concerns and puts the cost of the running of the EU on the agenda, I am sure he will get immediate support from many member countries who might feel the same way that there is too much of a gravy train in Brussels. I am sure he will get the support from most member states and become the champion of this cause, as after all, it hits every member state.

If Europe demands austerity measures from member states to keep within the Maastricht criteria, how about starting from the top to set an example? How about abolishing the tax-free status of all employees of the EU? How about a motion to reduce the EU expense budget by say 10 per cent per annum and devote the savings to projects in the EU to create jobs? These funds could also be spent on immigration.

We, members of the EU, as a result of the UK Brexit vote, need to urgently analyse who we are and what we are supposed to be.

The Prime Minister has a golden opportunity ahead of him to put Malta once again on the EU map and now for the right reason.

Francis Vassallo is a former governor of the Central Bank.