If people have a penchant for celebrating their 50th birthday as well as their 50 years of marriage, there is surely no harm in the European Union celebrating its 50 years of existence. But beyond the declaration of values and principles that emerged from the Berlin declaration of last weekend, I think the time is also opportune for a balanced assessment of the successes and failures of the EU’s 50-year trip down the road of history.

Now that we are full members of the union and the process is irreversible as far as the three political forces on the island are concerned, we are duty-bound more than ever to examine what works and what doesn’t in the present-day union.

Over the years I was neither a Europhile nor a Eurosceptic, but more of a Eurorealist than anything else. But I always tracked the developments within the union because irrespective of whether I considered full membership opportune for Malta in 2004, history was made on that date, the majority so decided, and the MLP was committed a priori to respect the verdict of the electorate.

I recently recalled that the very first seminar I ever attended abroad was on the so-called European Common Market in a small campus outside Brussels where I had been sent by the Labour League of Youth to represent it on the basis of an article on Europe that I had written in a now defunct English daily. It was there that I established my first international contacts, meeting people like Claudio Martelli and others who were still militants in their respective parties’ youth movements. To recall that that goes back to 1973 can explain the graying hair that friends of mine and yours truly tend to grow and sport nowadays.

In spite of Europe’s successes it remains a union permanently at the crossroads. A pro-European last week spoke of the contrast between the EU’s past achievements and today’s inertia as something quite striking indeed.

What we have to ensure as full members of the union is that we cannot reply or surrender to the nostalgia of the times of the union’s forefathers without confronting today’s challenges and tomorrow’s threats and opportunities.

Beyond the values, principles and ideals I personally believe that Europe needs a new sense of vision. Call it a long-term vision if you like.

One cannot expect politicians to offer such a much-needed vision if they decide to continue relying on yesterday’s times.

Rather than merely looking back, we need to make recourse to modern, fresh and outward-looking thinking.

The Lisbon Agenda is telling proof that national leaders should give up their grand ambitions and grandiose rhetoric that cannot be sustained in practice and instead go for achievable goals.

The Centre for European Form which is a critical but pro-EU think tank recently remarked that regarding Europe’s dream to mould a knowledge-based economy – which I personally support strongly – the national governments’ failure to meet their targets may have discredited the agenda itself and reinforced European citizens’ scepticism about the EU’s ability to deliver: calling it “a devastating double-blow”.

What we have to realise is that apart from being Europe’s failure this is our failure too, because ultimately, the Lisbon Agenda’s implementation depends mainly on the member states – Malta included.

The best definition of the EU that I have come across is that it is a permanent “work in progress”. And that is how it should be, with every government and nation, big or small, giving its input into helping it shape its future.

You may ask: where does the 2057 of the title come into all this?

I was recently intrigued by a transatlantic poll conducted by the International Herald Tribune and the French television station France 24 on how people envisage the Europe of the next half a century. In 2057.

Some of the main conclusions are worth pondering upon:

• It will be a larger place with its borders stretched eastwards to encompass Turkey and probably Russia.

• The euro is here to stay and will remain the standard currency for Europe.

• Fewer than a third of all respondents polled believe that relations between the USA and Europe are likely to be better than they are today.

• Few if any respondents thought that the EU would shrink by 2057.

• While most countries surveyed ranked wind and solar power as the most likely primary source of energy in 2057, nuclear energy outperformed the rest as far as the British were concerned.

• The majority of Europeans do not see the EU evolving into a federal system led by a single president, like the United States.

• The most positive view of life emerged in Italy and Spain, where in line with their cheerful Mediterranean image, they had a brighter vision of the future than their neighbours to the north.

• The majority felt that the quality of life of their country would improve.

• Worryingly, on the question of war and peace, majorities in all countries said that they expected a new war to break out on European soil by 2057.

• Regarding religion, Christianity is viewed by all respondents as likely to remain dominant in Europe. But Islam came second in Germany, Britain and most strongly France.

• Respondents also overwhelmingly agreed that English would be the language most widely spoken in Europe 50 years from now.

When I spoke earlier on about the failure to meet the Lisbon Agenda’s targets I did not in any way intend to downplay its importance. On the contrary I feel that if all national governments in the EU agree – as I believe that they do – on the need to turn the EU into a competitive knowledge-based economy apart from agreeing that to boost innovation they need to spend more on research and higher education, they must also focus more on competition, flexible labour laws and efficient financial markets without sacrificing or tearing apart their social safety net.

There are some who argue – quite convincingly – that the rejection of the EU Constitutional treaty had nothing to do with a thumbs-down for added powers to Brussels but that it was more of a litmus test that enabled them to hold the union responsible for member states’ failure to deliver growth and jobs.

It does not make sense to celebrate frivolously a birthday party of someone or something that many people tend to dislike and mistrust as much as others love and cherish it.

One area that needs to be addressed is that of the new forms of poverty that are obviously feeding popular resistance to change in many countries.

As members of the European Union, we need to learn from each other and spread best practice.

On the other hand, we must realise that it is not that easy to transpose economic reforms from one member state to the other.

One has to constantly keep in mind the differing economic, political and institutional factors that vary from country to country.

Those who resort to hype to exalt the European Union are doing it a big disservice. As history has showed year after year, the EU will continue to have winners and losers.

Finally, Europe also needs political leadership particularly at a time when there are growing pockets of people who might think that their situation and that of their children is getting worse and that political action has become inefficient.

As for the EU’s procedures, these must change because they cannot remain slow, inflexible and cumbersome.

On the international level, one sincerely hopes that Europe will succeed in not only promoting security but also good governance and prosperity in many unstable regions.

On this basis, Europe could go back to the nostalgic days of the past when it offered hope and optimism. Obviously on a new wavelength – in tune with the challenges and realities of globalisation.

email: [email protected]