This week's visit by the European Union Commissioner for Enlargement Guenther Verheugen, and more so his appearance in this evening's programme on PBS, Xarabank, helps to highlight once more the debate about Malta's prospective membership of the European Union.

Those who have had enough of this debate and those who do not seem terribly keen to get an informed debate about EU membership going would probably dismiss this visit and this television event as political propaganda.

That is worrying as there is no doubt that the EU debate needs to become more intense and deeper (this does not mean violent or irreverent towards those that hold a different opinion) to make sure we manage to bring out the real issues of EU membership and non-membership and to be able to distinguish fact from opinion, and to separate certainty from hypothetical situations.

We need to appreciate that the issue is not a decision between EU membership and staying as we are, but between EU membership and some form of agreement with the EU, which the MLP is describing as partnership. The current relationship that we have with the European Union has to be replaced by something else and, as such, the status quo is no option.

This argument is relevant to all areas, be it hunting, be it the environment, be it labour market laws, be it competition legislation, be it consumer protection, but most important of all the area of economic relations between Malta and the European Union.

If we just take the example of Norway, maybe the issue becomes clearer. Norway has always sought to have a very special relationship with the European Union.

Although in two referenda the people's decision was to stay out of the European Union, successive governments have always sought (and the Norwegians tended to favour such a policy) to strengthen their country's ties with the EU.

This has meant that Norway, quite willingly, sought to bring its legislation in line with that of the European Union and actively takes part in multi-country projects of the EU, such as the educational ones. What has tended to make the Norwegians shy away from EU membership has been its oil reserves in the North Sea.

But they have no qualms about free trade covering all goods and all other aspects that one may include in the area of economic relations.

The same would apply to Malta. However, we do not have the oil reserves like Norway does.

If we want a special relationship with the EU that is not EU membership, there would need to be an integration of regulations and practices with those applying within the EU. This is why the status quo is no option.

This aspect will become even more relevant as the EU swells from 15 countries to at least 24 (excluding Malta), with the prospect of other countries joining a number of years from now. Thus even postponing the decision to join while seeking to maintain the current relationship or exploring ways of creating a new relationship is really no viable or feasible option.

If we are to join the EU eventually why wait for another nine states to join, with them putting further demands on us when we come to re-negotiate.

And these nine states are direct competitors of ours in the areas of international trade, foreign direct investment and tourism, and so the EU will then be constrained (as is natural) to protect their interests against ours because we would not be members while they would be.

Therefore, to think that we can hold on to the situation as it is today is simply not correct. The two real options are either full membership of the European Union or a special relationship (which may be called a partnership or it may be called something else) with the long-term intent to stay out of the European Union.

The snag is that whereas we now know what EU membership would entail, in that we know what the regulations are and how they will be expected to apply (given some transitional arrangements that we have been successful to negotiate in our favour), we have no idea whatsoever of what the alternative special relationship with the European Union would entail.

This is where the need to separate certainty from hypothetical situations becomes crucial. If one cannot speak about the negative aspects of such an alternative special relationship, then neither can one speak of what the positive aspects may be.

This is what I believe should characterise the debate on EU membership in the coming weeks. We need to bring out clearly what the options that we have as a country really are. There will be a change in our relationship with the European Union, and so we must be certain of what the changes are to be because maintaining the status quo is simply no option.