For the last 20 years, the EU went astray or was led off the beaten track by the cherry-pickers. The invention of the subsidiarity concept was probably the worst event in the history of the EU. Not enough subsidiarity for the little Englanders led them to vote for Brexit and gave rise to copycat parties in France, the Netherlands and other countries. Too much subsidiarity is leading the inner core members to want to change the EU structures. This conflict could lead to the end of the EU or to a new beginning.

I am optimistic and see a fresh wind blowing. There is hope.

For those who have tried long-distance running, the second wind, if and when it arrives, is most welcome. Marathon runners pull themselves over the second part of the race because of it. This is now what the European Union is experiencing. As it reaches the first 60 years of its existence with a celebration in Rome yesterday, the 27 Member States, who will begin their negotiations with the UK over the conditions for Brexit, will also meet next month to formulate the way forward for the next 60 years, bolstered by that famous second wind.

In the second part of my essay on Europe, published last month, I spoke of the need for the remaining members to pull their act together and, if not all members feel the same way about the future, or if some of them are having second thoughts about the project, then I promoted the concept of a smaller number surging ahead to create the political, social, military and economic Union.

In the first days of March this year we saw the beginnings of a very serious discussion about the future shape of Europe.

The European Commission President presented a White Paper outlining five different scenarios but without selecting any particular one, leaving the choice to the European Council and European Parliament to debate and choose.

I will not go over the five alternatives since anyone interested in the subject has seen these on TV and in the press.

In fact, I suggest to any reader who is looking to find a blueprint from which to select advantages for himself or herself or for his or her country in the new structure, to stop reading now. I write from a European perch. For me the driving logic for any structure is based upon a European vision. If the EU fails we all fail. If the EU succeeds we all succeed.

Any person, company, region or country that chooses to form part of the European project should do so to promote the success of the Union first, and only then, should they seek local or personal gains. The cherry-picking season is over and there will be a choice of in or out. One cannot be a club member and not abide by all of the rules. See what happened to the UK. They voted for Brexit and will soon vote for the break-up of the UK too.

Unfortunately many countries joined the Union solely for national or personal interests and hence the sorry state we find the Union in today. Far too many of the members have placed the success of Europe second to their own country or region.

The future will not allow this approach and that is why I argued in my last essay that fewer joining a tighter Union is far better than many forming a looser Union.

From the latest diplomatic developments one can sense the intensive lobbying that is going on between countries. Groups are forming for a tighter smaller Union on the one hand, or for a larger looser Union on the other hand. Fringe countries even argue for just a common market and no Union.

The main lines are being drawn between the three larger founder members France, Germany, Italy and the large country that joined a bit later, Spain, who, meeting recently in Versailles, have clearly indicated their choice. They demand a two tier or two-speed Europe.

I am optimistic [about the EU’s future] and see a fresh wind blowing. There is hope

This will allow a group of countries which are better prepared politically, economically and financially to move forward with much deeper integration and harmonisation of laws, processes, armies, fiscal policies and currency allowing any other country willing to do so to join them. Joining this august and solid mass of countries with 280 million citizens and most of the EU economic clout will put an end to pretending to be European while practising the games of avoiding the rules or seeking exceptions to the rules.

In fact, in a clever, preventive but unfortunately, fruitless stratagem, the four Visigrad countries of Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia, who make up the next larger unit of countries which joined in 2004, met a few days before the founder members to issue a statement in favour of a Europe that gives back more powers to national governments and for a Europe which consists of a single market with the four freedoms and with distribution of aid from the richer members to the poorer.

Distribution of wealth from the richer to the poorer members will always remain a basic pillar of the EU but reverting powers to national governments has been a disaster and will not form part of the inner core that wishes to move forward.

The Visigrad four are a large and important group with a population of over 100 million together but with still quite weak economies. In fact, I think that the Visigrad four will not hold together for much longer. Their fear of foreigners and the anti-immigration stance adopted by Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are probably the only glue that binds them led by leaders like Viktor Orban.

Poland, on the other hand, is a country with a very pan-European history and with a size that would give it greater influence within the inner core side by side with Germany, France Italy and Spain. I see that temptation among its intelligentsia taking over the present nationalistic approach advocated by the present government. Were Poland to break away from its central European neighbours and seek a place in the sun, then the inner core choice will be irreversible. I can see diplomatic missions coming and going to Warsaw in the next few weeks.

The third set of countries that will also play an important role in the next few weeks are the Scandinavians and Baltics. Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the three Baltic States have to make some pretty fundamental choices now. They have managed to avoid making these choices when they joined the EU and were given certain exceptions. The euro is the principle issue for Denmark and Sweden. Will the social, environmental and competition policies of the faster moving inner core be attractive enough to overcome the nationalist principles that have kept the Swedes and Danes from dropping their monetary policy independence? They would be in favour of fiscal discipline and a much tighter and stronger voice in the world on social, environmental and trade issues, since their economies are built upon these principles and their populations accept discipline.

They wish to impose that discipline on what they consider the unruly and unfaithful southern and eastern members and are unhappy with the lack of solidarity from the east and south of the EU. Immigration and integration of foreign labour is another area where they see lack of solidarity. The Baltics will probably join the inner core even if it means sacrifices for them. Their fear of isolation and their Russian neighbour breathing down their necks will push them to the centre.

All in all, in my judgement, I see these six countries joining the four large ones but they may be granted some more time to join the euro in exchange for their allegiance to a deeper Europe

Of course, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg, all founder members, will join the inner core now that the Netherlands has overcome the threat from the fascist right. Luxembourg would have to adopt a common fiscal policy to come in line.

Portugal, Ireland and Austria will also wish to join. Some may have to change their taxation systems to such an extent that they may just opt to remain only in the present arrangement and will try to put brakes on the others. Austria may have to change its immigration policy and its ultra-right party presents risks as does its, and Ireland’s, neutrality in the future defence structure. They may have allies from Malta and Cyprus on the taxation and neutrality fronts but these five countries are too small to stop the inner core from moving ahead.

So, at my count, and with the reservations mentioned above, I think that the Versailles proposal will curry favour with five large countries, six Scandinavian/Baltic countries and three smaller founder members which makes 14. Add Ireland, Portugal and Austria and we reach 17.

Who is left?

The three Visigrad countries, Greece, Cyprus and Malta, Slovenia and Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania.

The three Visigrads are out. Cyprus and Malta will probably opt out to protect their unique economic models as the inner core will not allow them in unless they stop cherry picking, selling EU passports and acting as tax avoidance channels.

Greece is out until it can solve its economic woes. It will be a loss because of its strategic and historic value. Tant pis!

Then there is Croatia, Slovenia on the one hand and Bulgaria, and Romania, on the other. Croatia and Slovenia have a good chance of being invited into the inner core and may just accept with the sacrifices it may entail for their growing economies.

We have realised that the call for no Europe is really a call coming from our competitors the US, Russia and the UK with the aim of destroying the European project

Bulgaria and Romania are too backward economically and will need to wait and modernise and repair their judicial system and eliminate corruption before becoming ready for a further step.

This would bring the inner core to 19.

The outer core would consist of eight countries some with the euro which would constitute a specific problem that will have to be dealt with.

Together these 27 will constitute the Single Market and will have the right to join the inner core by adopting all the new common rules and harmonised laws that the inner core of 19 would have enacted for themselves in the meantime. The Single Market will also have the participation of the EEA countries like Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and possibly the UK after the end of Brexit talks. What would happen to Scotland after independence and to Northern Ireland after secession from the UK and reunification with the Republic of Ireland remain to be seen. The former will have to apply to join the EU and the latter may do like Eastern Germany did, automatically join the EU through reunification.

For these second outer ring of countries there is the obligation to fund and finance the Single Market, to apply the programmes of movement of people, of research and innovation, to abide by the rules of competition, the supremacy of the Court of Justice on these issues and to follow whatever new regulation on provision of services and taxation, product safety, environment standards and labour standards of both the Single Market group of 27 and the inner core of 19 if they wish to trade with, export to or buy from.

The only workable alternatives of the five presented by Jean-Claude Juncker last week are the two dealt with above. Either continuing as we are with more powers returned to the Member States or a two-speed Europe without any return of powers to Member States but with greater transfers of sovereignty.

But there is a sixth alternative that nobody speaks of but that may just be being hatched in the corridors of the founder Member State think tanks and backrooms. This would be the creation of a parallel New European Union by the 19 willing members for the 19 members alone. This would mean disbanding the old EU of 27 altogether. There are two ways in which this can be done.

In the first scenario by signing a new set of ‘New EU’ treaties by the 19 while leaving the existing structures untouched but simply boycotting all meetings of the existing EU so that no quorum would exist and it would just stop functioning.

The second would be for the 19 to invoke Article 50 together and desert the present EU, stranding the eight outer ring countries, while starting a new one for those who wish to join without any exceptions or cherry-picking.

Of course, none of these extreme solutions will see the light of day because they are too unorthodox for our current mediocre and standard politicians. Any such bold new start by disbanding the existing Single Market and EU structures, would have the great benefit of making it clear to those who join and to the rest of Europe and the world that we believe in real transfer of sovereignty, in common rules applied and obeyed by all, in solidarity amongst members.

Solidarity in the redistribution of funds to the poorer regions to bring them up to 75 per cent of the EU average GDP and solidarity in applying the laws without causing detriment to the other members. In this latter field, the obligation would be to accept the sharing of refugees and to avoid the destruction of the taxable base of Member States by helping businesses to avoid tax altogether or to collect only a ridiculous amount by creating tax residences for businesses in countries other than in the country where they generate their revenues.

A new EU or a deeply integrated inner core will ensure that all these pillars of solidarity will be applied.

Countries that only want to receive funds but not to share relocation of refugees or to allow themselves to serve as an escape route for taxable income should not be allowed into the inner core or into the new EU.

However, the doors should remain open to all those not ready today, or who do not fulfill the conditions of the inner core to reapply to join later whenever they are prepared to fulfill all obligations.

Whether the scenario I describe will come about in the next months remains to be seen and it is a very exciting and frightening time.

Were Angela Merkel, François Hollande, Mariano Rajoy and Paolo Gentiloni to manage to persuade enough of the others to make up the 19 countries, as I predict, then our children will have the pleasure and excitement that we enjoyed from 1957 until the 1990s when the system worked and before it started to tremble with internal pressures to push the clock back to nationalism.

The first and most destructive invention was the concept of subsidiarity. The concept that destroyed all forms of forward movement at a time when forward movement was really what was needed. The second was the nationalistic movement across the world, here the call was not for less Europe but really the call was for no Europe.

Luckily we have now realised that the call for no Europe is really a call coming from our competitors the US, Russia and the UK with the aim of destroying the European project.

That objective has now been exposed for what it is by the forces that believe in economic blocs and multilateralism and globalisation. Donald Trump’s election, the Brexit referendum and Russian interference in Ukraine and in cyberspace is the clarion call which was answered in Versailles recently and in the Netherlands’ election.

What will happen to our Malta? Big choices lie ahead. Are we in or out? Do we want to be an integral part of the EU or Switzerland of the Mediterranean? History repeats itself and as Yoggi Berra would say: “Its déjà vu all over again”. This will be the subject of my next essay.

John Vassallo is a former ambassador of Malta to the EU, a former president of the Malta Business Bureau, a former EU affairs director and vice-president with GE and Microsoft and a former chairman of AMCHAM EU. He is currently a strategic adviser to the Microsoft Corporation and a council member of Europa Nostra.