Our politicians, both in the EU and the US in the last 30 years, when the technological revolution and the globalisation trend in manufacturing took off in a big way, should have seen the risks of a perfect storm brewing and should have used their powers in applying the rule of law and the principles that we all share in taking care that the generated wealth and the owners of that wealth paid their share through taxes. They did not do so.

This was to be the great advantage of scale and globalisation that the EU and the US stood for and that most countries around the world signed up to.

Profits from the sale of mined minerals in the third world were also amassed during this time; oil products brought great wealth to the Middle East and to parts of Africa and Latin America. Also another great and good result of globalisation. During the last two centuries these raw materials had been mined and stolen from these countries by the then colonial powers. So it would only be right that, now, these profits would be earned by their rightful owners.

However, the fault line then, as now, was that the wealth in the developing countries was spirited away by ruthless dictators or by the companies and individuals in these countries through legal but unethical advice from the consultants and bankers and the collusion of many tax havens that sprouted around the world including in some US states and European countries and money ended up hidden or legally stored tax free.

These countries even worked actively against the fight against tax evasion that the global community led by the EU slowly but surely began to propose. Stalemate or active collusion by politicians allowed the discontent among the displaced and unemployed to grow and for the rise in the last 20 years of neo-fascist leaders and parties in most EU states and in the US leading to the election result this year in the US and the immediate return to isolationism.

If we now add one other factor to the mix, namely that of migration of masses of other people from Africa, Asia and Middle East to our shores and across the globe, we see another reason for the distrust in the EU and the fear among people that also fan the growth of xenophobic and fascist politicians.

Had the first factor, the proper collection and distribution of tax revenues from the wealth creation of the post-war period been dealt with by US presidents and European politicians, whether nationally or through the EU institutions, we would have been able to deal with the mass of migrants.

In fact, had our countries been in the mood that prevailed in the 1960s and 1970s, the post-war boom, when everyone worked and labour moved from Italy, Portugal, Spain and Greece to France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden and  integrated into society and helped fuel the economic miracle of those times, then migration was not a problem, it was the solution.

We [the EU] have not provided a common vision similar to those provided by the founding fathers in the 1950s or of Jacques Delors in the 1990s

The same happened in the 1980s and 1990s when technology and globalisation produced cheaper goods, a growing number of consumers, more exports and imports, and labour movements were accepted. Had the politicians ensured better controls about labour rules, environmental and safety standards, fair competition, and the fight against bribery and corruption, then the migration movement would have been seen as a benefit and not as a burden.

In fact, because of the ageing population and the extreme low birth rates of Europe it is estimated that, in order to manage our services, our manufacturing and our defence and healthcare in 2050, the EU needs around 40 million new citizens in the coming 10 years. I repeat Europe needs 40 million new citizens.

Our social system that provides free healthcare, education, old age support, unemployment benefits and pensions depends upon the extra 40 million citizens working and paying social service contribution and income tax to make the system we know, the system we like, the system we could not survive without, to exist.

Such a system that our forefathers fought for, took to the streets, were shot at in the early years of the 20th century and to which we have all got used to, is in grave danger of collapsing. If that happens, we all go back to dog eats dog and something we, in Europe, our glorious post-war generation of peace lovers cannot even start to imagine.

What we have seen in Aleppo on TV, what our grandparents lived through in Manchester, Valletta, Dresden, Warsaw or Athens will risk coming back.

No. I say never again!

But for how long can our region survive under these internal and external pressures? Can our politicians turn the tide or is all lost?

I think there is still lots of life in the project and with courageous and forward-looking politicians with a new vision or with the same vision of the founding fathers but with courage to apply the rules, we can succeed.

Where are these politicians and why has the EU not managed to tackle these problems?

In my opinion, the time to return to the steady path of success is exactly now and the cause of my hope is called Brexit and Donald Trump.

Why Brexit?

Brexit, in combination with the recent moves by the US to withdraw from multilateral trade agreements are two events that provide impetus for the remaining members of the EU to renew their efforts to strengthen further the integration of the willing Member States into a tighter and deeper union in order to have a stronger voice to influence the rules of free trade, to fight tax evasion and to bring the wealth of the EU into fairer distribution to bring back hope and trust to its citizens.

The UK has been, with a few other smaller Member States, the principal blocker of all moves towards integration. In fact, the UK joined in 1973, very unwillingly, the EEC at the time. A project from which there was no withdrawal method, in which there was a clear indication in the treaties of the obligation and intention towards further integration and ultimately union among members. It joined a club which was and had been its main competitor in ideas for the minds and hearts of Europeans.

It all started after the war when the founding fathers in the former losers of that war decided and launched the common market. Its objective was to gain scale, reconstruct and modernise basic industries like coal and steel, to contain Germany with a set of common rules and a joint purpose and to improve the lot of all citizens with four fundamental principles, the rule of law and of competition.

In its own way the UK was more interested in looser links with other countries but also aiming towards free trade and more scale and for this reason it set up EFTA with other like-minded countries mainly Scandinavian, Switzerland and Austria.

Both blocks grew in competition with the EU growing from the initial six in 1957 to nine members in 1973 with Ireland, Denmark and the UK who left EFTA to join the EU. We all remember the three vetoes by General de Gaulle, who feared that the EEC’s objectives were not the same as those of the UK.

The EEC continued to grow with enlargement from the south, first Greece and then Portugal and Spain. From 12 it became 15 when Sweden, Finland and Austria joined.

More and more clamoured to join (except for Norway, Iceland and Switzerland) until, after the fall of the Berlin wall and the liberation in the east, the former Communist satellites, now newly freed, joined with Malta and Cyprus in 2004. With Rumania and Bulgaria and finally Croatia bringing the number to 28.

The UK and other EFTA countries like Denmark and Sweden all have had reservations and all feared integration. They have thereafter, ever since they joined, withheld from joining either Schengen or the euro or one or the other.

They have blocked or delayed many concepts that would bring more union among members and more transfers of sovereignty on issues like taxation, working conditions and foreign policy.

In fact, the desire to go forward by some core members of the EU and the desire to move back towards free trade area based on cooperation between sovereign States led by the UK and others has been the tension that is pulling the EU apart.

Who is right? What is best for Europe and its citizens? No one really knows but no one can belong to both camps. One must choose either one camp or the other.

For many of the reasons given before, I belong firmly and convincingly in the camp of further integration and further transfer of sovereignty, but within an EU where weaker regions or regions for whom distance, size or other factors, like weather or over- or under- population lead to permanent disability to compete, should be allowed flexibility in order to bring about a level starting set of blocks. It would be like running a 100-metre dash with the large and centrally located countries starting off with a 10-metre advantage.

In order to manage our services, our manufacturing and our defence and healthcare in 2050, the EU needs around 40 million new citizens in the coming 10 years

Such a fairer EU would then be able to set common rules, to rein in the worst forms of tax evasion that have been causing the unrest among many citizens, which could lead to a complete breakup of the structure that has served us so well until now.

The UK deciding by a referendum to leave is a very sad but also a very happy event for the remaining 27 countries. Sad because, had the UK shared the policies of the club it joined in 1973, had it shared the view that together this market of 500 million with €15 trillion GDP would influence the world much more than if each of us were to go it alone, the EU would have been much more successful.

Had all Member States, including the UK, joined Schengen, the euro, the European patent, the OECD reduction of the tax evasion programme, the Council of Europe’s conventions on human rights and fair provision of services, the EU would be far better placed to eliminate neo-fascist movements such as that of Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the AFD in Germany and others.

But as has been the case for over 40 years since 1973, sailing with an anchor putting on the brakes the size of the UK has not been easy.

So now, therefore, it is a happy event to see the UK leave. In spite of the uncertainty and problems relating to the divorce that will take some time, there is hope that some or all of the remaining 27 see the chance for Europe to surge ahead, take the leading place in world politics, trade and philosophy to take us out of the risk of falling down that precipice towards which our train seems to be rapidly driving.

The EU could replace the US in trading agreements in Asia, Mercosur and Africa.

Trump is our next lucky event. That the citizens in the US chose to solve the problems caused by globalisation, similar problems facing Europe today, by going the isolationist and bullying tactic way forward, and by having a one-man show that is causing many countries to back away, it is now time for Europe’s soft power to be put forward as the only workable alternative.

We have spent the last 25 years trying to reach a trade agreement between the EU and the US, called by different names, the last being TTIP. This was meant to build a transatlantic single market with the country with which Europe shares so many principles of democracy, rule of law, equality and standards.

We failed to do so when the US was led by friendly presidents who believed in free trade and globalisation. Now that we have an antagonistic President who berates the EU, eggs on other countries to follow the example of the UK and to break away, it is time to stop trying to create this trade agreement and to put that thought aside until a change takes place in the US. Recent events seem to indicate that such a change can come about sooner than one can imagine.

Thomas Jefferesen once said: “On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock.” Europe should stand on its principles.

We can sense a need to unify the EU around our great ideas and principles. Our four freedoms, our joint currency, our openness towards controlled and working immigration and integration. Now it’s EU time. It is a very difficult task for many reasons. We left it too late to react to the unethical behaviour of multinationals. We have allowed the doubting Member States too many exceptions from the four freedoms and the integrating projects.

We have not provided a common vision similar to those provided by the founding fathers in the 1950s or of Jacques Delors in the 1990s.

We have held on to austerity and to strict rules of budgetary discipline far too strictly and for far too long, punishing countries and their working classes and pensioners while being too soft and too forgiving on banks that caused the recent crisis, on tax evasion that has caused the loss of revenues and trust in our governments and the loss of strong common foreign and trade policies.

We are able to correct all of these and if not all present Member States wish to proceed together along these lines, then,  in my opinion, it would be better if 25, 22, 19 or whatever number go forward and the others can take a break and try to catch up or rejoin later.

As a convinced European, I contend that it is only when the EU succeeds and when our principles are upheld, that each Member State will succeed. No one of us can go it alone.

John Vassallo is a former Ambassador of Malta to the EU, president of the Malta Business Bureau, former EU Affairs Director and VP with GE and Microsoft and chairman of AMCHAM EU, and today serves as a strategic adviser to the Microsoft Corporation.