Within the next month or so the government is due to take a decision the importance of which puts all other government decisions in the shade.

Although Malta committed itself to join the euro when it joined the EU, it is the government which decides the date of entry.

Deciding on the timing, and also on the modality of joining, is a highly complex decision which will have enormous impacts on the country and its people, not just in the coming years but for a generation or so.

On the one hand it is a decision which will produce such great repercussions that no government should dare take it on its own, but we saw recently what happened when the slightest reference was made to a possible adjustment of the parity of the lira.

For all the government’s stonewalling and denial, though very understandable for a variety of reasons, all weighty, even that may not be what the government itself would like to do in its heart of hearts. Considering all the complex issues, the government would really like to announce an adjustment at midnight while a full-blown storm was going on and hope nobody would notice. That, of course, is just impossible: just think what the unions would do!

Just this issue on its own shows the sheer complexity of the issue. For the reasons indicated above, the government is right in not opening the issue to a full discussion in the country because of the possible repercussions there may be, as well as the innumerable ways in which the issue can be twisted by the players in the field. Opening up the discussion would also mean its possible politicisation, like everything that takes place in this country, and subjecting such a hugely important issue to the currents of political parties.

But that still leaves the government holding a very explosive package, and taking a decision that is way beyond the responsibility of a one-term government. Is there no way, absolutely no way, in which the government and the Opposition can come together in a cooperative and bipartisan manner on such an issue where partisanship would be downright foolish and blind crazy?

They also have the means to go beyond the general and into the specifics, the advanced and highly intricate issues which must be tackled by experts, certainly not by the general public. It is also in the Opposition’s interest to be thus consulted for if it is the next government in power, it can easily be faced with the repercussions of this momentous and historic decision, good or bad. Equally, it is definitely not in the government’s interest to take the decision on its own because it is the country as a whole which will be affected by the good and bad consequences of the decision. This decision goes well beyond its term and will exert effects over the coming years.

Malta is so small that it will not affect the EU and euroland, whether it joins the euro at the first opportunity or later on. But Malta is so small that it would be affected far more than a big country if there is turbulence in the ERM band or in euroland itself before it joins the euro. It is true that some new EU member States, mostly small nations, have already joined ERM but even these member States are so small that they will not affect the EU either way. It is only when the big countries, such as Poland, Hungary and the like, join the ERM that things have to be absolutely right and tight. As some experts have said, it is in Malta’s interest to be in and out of ERM as quickly as possible.

One issue reportedly exercising many minds in the Cabinet regards the timing of the euro, its likely impact on inflation and the possible consequences of a surge in inflation right before the next election. It is right to be worried about such an issue, as it has been the experience of practically every country which shifted to the euro that most sectors in those countries took advantage of the euro to hike prices unnecessarily, thus contributing to the scepticism and the negative perception the euro, for all its benefits, has in most countries. And also why the euro has still not been introduced in places like Britain.

But the euro issue is not just at entry point; it will continue to affect us as a nation for years and generations to come.

Let us however bring the issue down to its basics: the creation of the euro was a very important step to create a single marketplace in Europe (or at least in the EU). Having the same currency should have enabled any European to shop in any country and to compare prices just as if he was in New York and wanted to compare prices with Denver. Doing away with the national currencies, which is what the euro did after all, has also done away doing with wasteful and tedious currency exchange procedures and costs. Even if joining the euro were to be optional, it would still be to our advantage to join it.

More, since its rigid structure sets such high standards in the member States’ fiscal situations (even though some, ‘the usual culprits’, still complain the structure is too tight), it is definitely to our advantage to be governed by such strict rules. When all is said and done, it is again to our advantage to correct the imbalances in our fiscal deficit and the government debt which have placed us at the bottom of the EU heap, even considering the States still awaiting accession.

The repeated encouragement from EU bodies that we are on the right track is very welcome, as also the realisation that although the path is not easy nor without thorns, it is the only path to take. The issue facing the government, if one can summarise it so, is whether to accelerate the rate of economic restructuring so as to make it to the euro as soon as possible (which has its own benefits) or if the current restructuring will require delaying the euro by some years while we continue to restructure. Much as many would like to defer, the real concern should be that when we postpone anything it just never gets done, especially on the eve of elections. That means we lose some two or three years when nothing much is done and then have to scale the heights in the last years under pressure from the other member States. The climb then may be too steep, just too steep. Delaying the painful medicine could mean additional pain and harsher measures.

Which is why the discussion must be broadened and involve society as a whole, rather than just the government.