Two recent occurrences must have struck a sort of positive chord with most of us. There appears to be agreement between the government and the opposition on two issues connected with our EU membership. During the debate on the budget in Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition declared that his party was in favour of the adoption of the euro on January 1, 2008, which has long been the government's declared intention. Last week, during a public debate there appeared to be consensus again between the government and the opposition on the fact that projects started with the help of EU funds until the next general elections will be completed by whoever is in government after the elections.

Such agreement between the government and the opposition is indeed very salutary as it has taken off the partisan political agenda two issues that could have led to acrimonious debate, with very little benefit to the country. Some have expressed the opinion that, through its agreement on the adoption of the euro and the use of EU funds, the opposition has removed two issues on which they were evidently at a disadvantage in front of the electorate.

I have already expressed myself in favour of the adoption of the euro as our currency at the start of 2008. My contribution today is about the funds that the country is getting from the EU.

In his budget speech, the Prime Minister, as Minister of Finance, claimed that EU funds are expected to be a massive challenge for the government. Malta is expected to have much more EU funds than it has had to date - four times more per year according to the government.

According to the EU budget that was approved, Malta should be receiving an average of Lm50.4 million annually in Structural and Cohesion Funds alone. These are impressive figures and someone may wonder why the receipt of such funds is a massive challenge.

In effect, pumping Lm50 million annually into the economy, plus funds obtainable from the Rural and Agricultural Development Fund, the Fisheries Fund, the Fifth Financial Protocol with Italy, and a host of other EU funds, will always have a significant impact on economic growth. This amount represents close to three per cent of our gross national income - and all in foreign currency. We have a choice. We either use them intelligently such that we will reap the benefits in the long term, or we could use them in a manner that will bring benefits in the short term, but which will be short lived.

We only need to learn from the examples of countries which enjoyed significant cash injections from the EU in the form of structural funds. One positive example is Ireland. There are several reasons as to why the Irish economy boomed the way it did in the 1990s, and is still booming today, and Irish commentators themselves do not always agree on a comprehensive list of such reasons.

However, on one thing they do tend to agree - and that is the way the funds from the EU were spent. The Irish claim that they spent most of their funds not to prop up uneconomic activities, and hence create a feeling of artificial wealth, but to create new ones. They achieved this by channelling funds into education and training and to develop an infrastructure (such as roads and industrial premises) that supported the development of other productive activities.

In contrast, one can look at other countries which used funds to develop road networks that led to nowhere or to support activities that had become inefficient. In these latter cases there were benefits that were reaped but they were short term and short lived in nature. On the other hand, Ireland had to wait for a number of years till it could benefit fully from the economic advantages that it had gained, thanks to the intelligent application of EU funds.

In our case, the government's declared strategy for using EU funds intelligently is built on a number of aims. These include improving Malta's competitive advantage and the standard of living of the Maltese in general. The priority areas are education and training, employment, research and innovation, tourism, historical heritage, industry, transport, renewable energy and the environment. This is a very tall list indeed. However, the amount of funds available is such that does enable us to cover a number of areas.

I believe that this is an area where the more debate there is the better. Using these EU funds intelligently will be of benefit not just to us but also for our children and future generations. Thankfully, the issue is no longer an issue that is politically divisive. Hence the social partners have all the space they need to take an active part in such a debate because we need to make sure that we maximise the return on investment from EU funds.