Labour MP Alfred Sant said Malta had adopted the euro too early. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi had shown poor judgment when he promised that the euro would serve as an anchor of stability for Malta.

The opposition had advised against the adoption of the euro with undue haste. Malta should have considered its position as a member of the EU and prepared itself for the transition.

Speaking during the debate on the eurozone, Dr Sant said that the Maltese government had adopted a system of policy-taker, as it had to adhere to policies taken by the most influential countries in the EU: it was evident that Germany and France set the direction. Meanwhile, little was mentioned with regard to the Maltese interests.

The euro was in crisis during the last two years. While Greece was crushed with a mountain of debts, Spain, Italy and Belgium had also debts that could leave adverse effects.

The euro would be severely affected if a country was declared bankrupt and stability, savings and investments of millions of families and agencies would be threatened.

Malta should not agree on programmes that did not consider social matters, which would create more problems to Greece. Such programmes created more problems rather than solving them, he said. Conditions and regulations required austerity measures, privatisation, increase in taxes and a reduction in social benefits.

The eurozone problem was that there was a reduction in the economic acceleration. One should consider this situation in light of Malta’s national interests.

In 2007, IMF was to publish an analysis of Malta’s economic and financial position, which would have contradicted the agreement reached by the EU Commission and Malta before adopting the euro. This would have created problems both for the commission and for Malta. After several pressures, this report was drastically amended and was made more docile.

A German economist, who was definitely not a “Maltese idiot”, argued that Malta and Cyprus faced more problems than Italy. Meanwhile, the Freiburg Centre for European Policy had concluded that Malta, Cyprus and Greece faced the worst situation.

With the government failing to give accurate and full information on the guarantees that Malta was liable for, Dr Sant questioned what was Malta’s best national interest.

The fundamental problem on the administration of the euro was that the best tool to stabilise the currency was to control governmental expenses and hence governments were pressured to reduce social benefits and increase income through taxes.

This placed the burden on low-income and middle class families. Meanwhile, economies kept decreasing while governments kept earning less.

He questioned how Malta could defend the euro with its funds and whether it could do so at all costs. He also questioned whether the government introduced a limit.

There was a need of serious analysis and this could not be conducted by arguing that Malta was lucky to have the government of the day.

Those who understood Prof. Joe Falzon’s report realised that Malta was going backwards with regard to the main sectors in the economic administration.

With its arrogant and myopic attitudes, the Maltese government could bring the crisis to Malta.

Labour MP Charles Mangion also contributed to the debate.