It has been 15 years now – actually 16 – since that day in Athens when Malta signed the EU Accession Treaty. For days, the jibe had been who would be signing in Malta’s name in Athens or whether Malta would turn up at all.

The election to confirm the referendum result had confirmed the Nationalists. On the plane landing in Athens a non-journalist accompanying the media team informed us of the composition of the new Cabinet.

That same non-journalist (in the sense that he did not work like we did and do) made us stand up in the news centre as Eddie Fenech Adami and Joe Borg signed the thick book. We felt a little bit silly and the other journalists looked at us as if we had come from Mars. None of the journalists who had come for the summit indulged in similar gestures.

A year later, under a different Prime Minister, the ceremony marking Malta’s accession caused all sorts of controversies. Invitation to the Upper Barrakka was extended to everyone except to the journalists who had covered the referendum campaign and much else and it was only by gate-crashing the entrance that one could finally see the pageant as midnight approached.

Looking back, after 15 years, one remembers the huge wave of optimism that surged that night as Super One TV laid on a tired musical programme for the few party diehards that did not go to Floriana.

There have been some programmes this week to celebrate the 15 years of Malta in the EU. Some of those who vociferously opposed Malta’s membership, first of all Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, have been the ones who have gained most from membership. Those who worked so hard to see that day have now been swept away and are hardly heard of today.

The discussions and debates on Malta’s 15 years in the EU have been mostly off-point, focusing mainly on who got us into the EU. The criteria mostly mentioned are, once again, the criteria that were most mentioned in the referendum campaign to induce people to vote ‘Yes’: mainly the money factor, the funds that would come our way as a result of accession.

Yes, the funds did come. University students should build write a thesis on how much we got, how much we paid, etc. I would guess the final figure was not the astronomical sum mentioned by the pro-EU side but then not as meagre as the anti-EU side expected.

The next question to be examined should be to what use did we put those funds? Again, this could be the subject of another thesis. I believe that we as a country used those funds on roads, especially the system of roads in the north of the country, roads many of us do not use on a daily basis or use them only when going to Gozo.

The rest of the country – especially the South – was left to its own devices and squalor until it had to be the Labour administration to tackle the Addolorata node as it is doing today.

That is not the only issue one must raise after 15 years. Today, we find ourselves  regretting that funds were not spent on different programmes such as accelerated learning programmes for young and old, whereas we still have one of the highest proportion of early school-leavers and low attainment by most of the rest.

Our manufacturing sector could perhaps have done with more help to upgrade and restructure, though even then the country is replete with factories that are unused or in need of repair.

In prioritising spending on the roads and thus continuing to subsidise contractors, successive governments hogged the much-vaunted EU funds according to their own systems of preference rather than see what the country really, but really, needed.

It was held in those days that one of the claims that EU membership would bring would be to enable Malta’s GDP to grow and the Maltese population to improve its standard of living. There has indeed been an improvement, but there is a normal regular improvement anyway, and the subsequent accession of countries such as Bulgaria and Romania, among the poorest countries in Europe, have made Malta’s GDP level shine by contrast. It is this factor, more than our growth, that is leading Malta to change from a net receiver position to that of a net contributor. If we joined for money, we might as well leave, because we will not get such funds anymore.

And there are areas in which Malta has not moved forward at all and even areas where we have regressed. The female participation in the workforce has indeed increased but, overall, female participation is still at a negative level.

On the other hand, our students have obtained the right to study anywhere and many have benefited from this. In point of fact, however, many go to Britain to further their studies: we now have to see what will happen with Brexit.

On the contributory side, we cannot say that Malta has made any signal contribution to the EU, although its first Presidency was an orderly progression (with a hasty election in the middle) but some MEPs from both sides have come up with legislative initiatives that have been approved and welcomed.

Malta has, unfortunately, also contributed to some negative stories. I happened to be in Brussels when John Dalli was forced out and was witness, the previous afternoon, to Dalli as Commissioner walking in very late and Barroso’s eyes digging into his back.

The Dalli case was one of the worst cases in Malta’s membership during these 15 years. Nearer to us were the Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri cases and the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia which brought to Malta no less a person than the President of the European Parliament.

Today, after 15 years of membership, there are none who would not want to be in the EU. Many of the reasons adduced for membership have become irrelevant. Malta has contributed with some corruption cases to the negative side of the EU and maybe not contributed enough to the positive side. May the MEPs we will choose in a few weeks’ time, and the decisions of the Maltese governments in the years to come, contribute to the EU’s future.

[email protected]