It is bad enough that the European Union seems condemned to a new period of euro-sclerosis at a political and institutional level.

What is even worse is that it is Europe’s economy that stands to suffer, unless economic renewal really materialises, while it seems to have no answer as to how to meet the challenge of globalisation.

It is my firm belief that although Holland and France were pre-destined to vote “no” in their majority during the recent constitutional treaty referenda, voters’ mindsets were further conditioned by the worrying state of affairs of the German economy.

Over the years, Germany has always been perceived as the engine driver of the European economy. With the German economy in the doldrums, it stands to reason that many people are failing to see much light at the end of the tunnel.

This is bound to continue clouding our vision in the months to come.

It is useless going over again the myriad reasons why these two countries rejected the treaty.

But they do have one thing in common – the economic malaise as well as the unhealthy high rate of unemployment, which shows that the Lisbon strategy has failed most in the job creation sector.

Although German reunification might have made sense for Germany and Europe from a political perspective, the German coffers are still picking up the bills of this process, which took place some 15 years ago. No wonder that the German economy has gone through more than a whole decade of weak economic growth.

While the state of the economy in non eurozone member Britain was one of the pluses that accounted for Blair’s electoral success, economic considerations are likely to see a sea change of governments across Europe in the coming few years.

Among these I predict changes in France, Holland and Italy, as well as the anticipated change in the British premiership.

The Dutch must have felt the pinch considerably, because they were always considered to run a model economy based on high growth and low unemployment – which has definitely not been the case in recent months.

This malaise is likely to spread right across Europe, the eurozone in particular.

While the notion of an old and new Europe might have been considered as a mere tag by some, it seems to have evolved into a reality – at least on the economic front – even were one to forget purely political considerations.

I agree with correspondent Alfred Mifsud that the ECB has been too cautious and inflexible, by worrying too much about inflation and not enough about growth.

Where the situation becomes even more worrying is when one tries to think up remedies as to how Europe can face and address the globalisation issue.

Should it rentrench and become more protectionist or should it liberalise further? And if so, at what a pace, and what would be the right mix of these ingredients and policy lines?

What is for sure is that it needs to make its economy more flexible and that certain home-grown and Brussels-grown red tape and regulations should be kept to a bare minimum.

Although Europe makes much song and dance about IT, as The Times correspondent David Smith pointed out: “America’s productivity revival of the 1990s, built on information technology has passed Europe by…”

How can Europe compare with China, when not only are its markets being flooded by Chinese products but also when China’s economic growth rate is some six times higher than that of Europe.

I personally think that Europe not only needs to achieve and experience economic reform but it must first off all turn its back on the economic stagnation that has bogged down most of its efforts.

Robin Cook is a British politician whom I have always admired for the candid and frank way in which he articulates his arguments.

He recently made a strong case for the fact that the European public must be convinced that the EU is a safeguard against globalisation.

For me, this is far more important than indulging ourselves in the blood-letting exercises that the Campaign for National Indepen-dence would like to engage us in over Giscard d’Estaing’s 450-clause baby – the constitutional treaty!

It is not only the MLP that is arguing that we cannot waste more time discussing this legalistic exercise.

Cook describes the whole exercise as an extravagant diversion of energy, imagination and time that would have been far better put into addressing European economic issues closer to home.

He has had his fill of summit communiqués, and feels that now is the time for measures that will benefit the lives of the public to be implemented.

It is useless talking of the European dream and single markets unless we can translate them into increased trade, investment and jobs.

Cook’s main argument is that with Europe verging on imminent leadership changes in four of the major member states, it needs credible figures with a political future who can convince the public that the EU is a necessary, effective response to the pressures of a globalised economy.

Even if Europe’s economic growth rates begin to pick up, unless it finds itself an effective role in the global economy it will still have failed to achieve its targets and objectives.

Europe needs to shoulder greater not fewer responsibilities.

When such eminent pro-European political commentators as John Palmer dismiss the Commission as an institution that has lost its way and shows some symptoms of being close to an institutional nervous breakdown, one need not think too deeply to realise why Europe is presently not well geared to meet the globalisation challenge.

It is still too self-centred and inward-looking.

It can begin addressing such a dilemma by trying, in effective terms, to narrow the growing gulf between the public and EU institutions.

e-mail: [email protected]

Leo Brincat is the main opposition spokesman for Foreign Affairs and IT