A comprehensive agreement on the social pact has not been reached. It is a pity. However, there will come a time when circumstances will force such an agreement to take place.

It could have been reached now, when the country's economic situation can still be managed. Why agreement was not reached is a story that only those closely involved in the negotiations could ever tell; and they will not (at least not the full story).

However, it needs to be stated that this is the second time within the space of 10 weeks that we were very close to reaching an agreement but did not. Obviously, it was against someone's interest that agreement on the social pact be reached and there were some who did not want to take the risk of reaching an agreement.

The time for negotiations is now over. The economy cannot wait any longer for decisions to be taken. In fact the Prime Minister was correct when he stated at last Saturday's press conference that this is now a closed chapter.

Mind you, the next chapter will still be entitled The Social Pact but the scenario will be different. The players may be different, the issues being discussed might be different; we could have a few work stoppages (strikes, in everyday language) in the meantime but there will still have to be a social pact.

This is the VAT story all over again. We had a national strike; we had a change of government largely due to the promise that VAT would be removed; we had cash registers being flung about as some hoped that they would be done away with; some had dreams of no more VAT receipts. It soon became evident that, irrespective of what you call it, VAT receipts would always have remained; cash registers would always have remained; and a tax related to consumption would always be there (what you call it was not important).

Today VAT is an integral part of our economy just like it is in all modern economies. It required an element of risk taking to introduce it and the willingness to take the risk was there.

The same can be said about membership of the European Union. We had strong opposition to the idea for the last 25 years. EU membership had its costs and benefits and the future is known to no one. So, in effect, there was an element of risk in the decision. It was a step that, sooner or later, had to be taken and the Maltese were willing to take that risk as they sought to take a decision that gave priority to the common good rather than individual self-interest. I am convinced that same thing will happen with the social pact.

There were two statements that struck me positively when the news broke out that trade unions could no longer present a common front to the government and the employers with regard to the proposals put forward by the government to reach agreement on the social pact. The secretary general of the Confederation of Malta Trade Unions was reported to have stated that "in the country's current circumstances and in the light of what may happen if there is no social pact, the CMTU will communicate to the government that it is ready to accept its risks, even though there will be burdens for workers, employers and government".

On his part the secretary general of the Union Haddiema Maghqudin was reported to have stated that "the best solution in defending the interests of the workers and their families is reaching an agreement".

It clearly showed that they were aware of the short-term sacrifice that the measures of the social pact would bring about but they were equally aware of the long-term benefits and long-term commitments that such an agreement would have. It would have set a pattern for the future. It would have meant that, in future, economic policy is no longer the exclusive prerogative of the government but of all the social partners.

Likewise, employers would have been accepting the principle that certain decisions that previously used to pertain just to them have now got to be negotiated through a framework of social dialogue.

It is a risk worth taking. However, given the current situation where not all social partners are in agreement with the measures of the social pact, the government, the employers and those trade unions that were willing to accept these measures are called on to take another risk. I believe that these measures should be still be implemented, even if unfortunately the General Workers' Union and other unions are in disagreement. After all, these measures are not an imposition but the result of lengthy negotiations and analysis. With time the concept shall be accepted just as VAT and EU membership were accepted.

After all, we are not talking of just public holidays (which is what seemed to bother a couple of trade unions the most) but we are speaking of a commitment by employers to invest in the training of employees (does not the common good require a trade off between a couple of public holidays a year and investment in training to help ensure long-term employability?) and a commitment by the government not to increase income tax and VAT.

There were also other measures, which in the long run would have helped to safeguard the competitiveness of firms operating in Malta.

I strongly believe that the economy requires such a line of action not so much to present a challenge to those that opposed these measures; but to set the example for the future. It is a risk worth taking. It is a risk which brave people do take.