In a week’s time, Malta will be

celebrating, with bangs and all, the second anniversary of the country’s accession to the EU.

Of course, the air will ring with self-gratification by those who were in favour of joining, while those who were opposed will naturally keep their noses down and point out the defects all around.

People will try and analyse how many funds has Malta obtained from the EU, even though this is a notoriously difficult exercise and not all entries can be accessed in this short timeframe. Nevertheless, the idea behind such an exercise would be that Malta’s basic intention in joining was solely and exclusively to get EU funds.

Others will no doubt rejoice that those Maltese who can go abroad can now pass through the EU Nationals queue rather than the Non-EU queue. Or that cheese and wine from EU countries is now so much cheaper.

Others still will be focusing on compliance or lack of compliance with EU legislation and totting up the infringements and the coming charges that Malta must pay for non-compliance or for not keeping to its promised timeframes (even though in some specific cases it is now becoming clear it was daft to tie ourselves up to such timeframes).

Two years on, and it is still very much the same: the EU was and is seen as a shortcut to glory and to a higher standard of living by those who were in favour, while those who were, or are, against, sneer and point out the gap between aspiration and reality. The starting point, however, remains much the same: what can we get out of the EU with the minimum of effort and the maximum result?

At official levels, the effort so far has been mainly that of compliance, getting compliance right, avoiding complaints and fines, forcing down the massive shower of EU directives on to the Maltese legislators (who can barely cope with the pace) and on to the long-suffering Maltese public.

All this is based on the unchallenged axiom that it is only through obeying every last directive that Malta can hope to be accepted in Europe and to ensure its future prosperity.

Never, in these past two years, has there been any doubt expressed that perhaps it may well be in Malta’s national interests to challenge some EU directives or trends. Malta was signally the only country to vote blindly on the aborted EU Constitution, in that no debate was held and the vote, when it took place, was not even a vote but, in parliamentary parlance, was “passed on the nod”. And this took place when the electorates of France and the Netherlands had ensured that the so-called Constitution is kept away from the statute books for a generation at least.

Two years down the line, for all the celebrations, Malta and the Maltese have yet to understand they have joined the ongoing process of history that is called the European Union whose members join not to get anything for themselves but rather to contribute to European unity. Or at least that is what they should be doing.

So far, one cannot really really say that Malta has contributed anything to the EU (if not for some boatloads of illegal immigrants and a vision of a religious statue for the euro coins, or similar idiocies). Nor can one really really see what Malta can contribute – not just because of its smallness but more importantly because it itself is manifestly without any vision of where it is heading.

Two years after accession, this is the great pity; the bloc Malta joined to gain strength is itself exhibiting all the signs of weakness in a far more keenly competitive globalised world. President Chirac’s predictable surrender to the protesters, the new and weak Italian government and the still weak and divided German government mean that the countries who contribute over two-thirds of the eurozone GDP, the three most dominant countries of the union, (and also three of its founder members) are individually and collectively weak. Malta has joined – is now part of – a weakened economic bloc.

These three big countries can only change their situation by undertaking difficult and substantial reforms, some of which are common to all while others are more specific to each country. But the three countries, their leadership (even though changed) and their grassroots, have refused – are refusing – to consider anything but the blandest of reforms. Any reforms undertaken have been grossly inadequate and the policy-making elites are unwilling to propound reforms. France is, perhaps, the most signal of this refusal: its population seems to believe its prosperity can continue to grow while continuing to enjoy almost absolute job security.

This, then, is the bloc that Malta joined. Malta’s economic outlook, through the eurozone, is intrinsically joined to that of the bigger countries in the zone. If they do not grow, nor will Malta. They will inflict their problems on us while we have little chance of influencing them.

But, again, this is where Malta can still contribute, if only it knows where it is going, if only it understands the risks of allowing these big countries to lead us astray (as the consequences would be direr for us than for them), if only it succeeds in successfully reforming its own economic basics. Its seat at the tables of power would, then, come to mean something, whereas up to now it has been more a case of sitting and listening, and occasionally being at the receiving end.

The only way in which Malta can surely function within the EU is not through being at the receiving end but in anticipating the others and then being at the giving end. Only then, when we will have found our way and when we feel strong enough to stop others hurting themselves and us, should we celebrate EU

membership.