Euro introduction, set out as a prestigious challenge/gamble, was the wrong way for the Gonzi Administration to implement Malta's obligation to join the euro zone. The advantages of this move have been sufficiently heralded by the government and pro-government sources. Fudged though they have been, at least two disadvantages that we will face because of the method adopted can be set in terms of these questions: Does the exchange rate at which the conversion lira/euro applies fit Malta's existing competitive stance? Can the rate of economic growth being experienced by Malta be sustained and increased within the euro system to drive up living standards closer to the EU average?

There is a third important consideration to keep under review - the inflationary impact. But, to be fair, that would have been the case independently of whether euro introduction had followed from a plan or whether it had followed, as has been the case, from the acceptance of a prestigious gamble. How this factor will be managed under the present Administration only time will tell. Under a new Labour government we will vigorously insist that current price freezes stay in place for a further few short months, till an effective and fair consumer protection system is in place.

Meanwhile, as of now, the lira/euro rate has been irrevocably established. Too late in the day, it transpired that even within pro-government circles there was no consensus that it had been set at the correct level. Former Finance Minister John Dalli, who now doubles as the Prime Minister's financial and economic adviser, publicly opined that, at the rate set, the lira was being overvalued. By the time of this writing he had not retracted this assessment. He hardly needed to.

It has emerged that the Central Bank of Malta's analysis too showed that since 2002, compared to the euro, the real effective exchange rate of the lira went well over what it should have been. More tellingly, IMF staffers had upped the ante on CBM estimates... It remains quite a mystery as to why the decision was nevertheless taken to tag onto the euro at the chosen rate. Reportedly, the European Commission went as far as to pressurise the IMF heavily to force them to shut their "mouth" and not publish the lira/euro estimates they had derived from data.

The danger now is that unless concrete steps are taken to further improve competitiveness, economic growth will not ride as high as is necessary and desirable. Which brings us to the question as to whether we are already riding forward on a growth path that is sustainable and sufficiently robust. The answer is not really. We have been trailing the growth rates of other countries which joined the EU at the same time we did. We cannot afford to continue doing so. Trailing some more on them would further depress our competitiveness and living standards relative to theirs. Yet, the policy levers with which growth could be heightened over the short to medium term are now very limited in scope because, naturally, we have to adopt the full discipline of the eurozone financial system. In this connection, the conversion rate as set and the real economic growth experienced will have an interactive impact on future developments.

Worryingly, the "overvalued" lira rate had not, up to the end of last year, helped as much as it "should have" in containing inflation rates for sectors that are most important in families' lifestyles, such as food, medicines and clothing. Instead, we actually experienced higher price rises in those sectors than the rest of the eurozone.

Labour all along said that it would have been best to join the eurozone when the real economic rate was sustainably running within the band of 4 - 6 per cent growth annually. This is what we should still seek to achieve as quickly as possible. Yet, the matter should not be targeted as another prestigious "gamble" or "challenge", call it what you will. It should be looked upon as something to be planned for, within the constraints and policy guidelines that must be followed by members of the eurozone. A plan mobilising all effective and willing resources can and should be assembled on an integrated basis to promote higher levels of private investment, to enhance the scope of public investment and make it more efficient and to stimulate exports of goods and services and local consumption.

The way forward is to look at those areas where Malta and Gozo have assets (some of them unrivalled) which are underutilised, badly utilised or not utilised at all and that, by better management, could be activated to generate new opportunities. Thus, we cannot afford any longer to allow our tourist facilities to be badly deployed or run in ways that, besides creating environmental damage, remain zero to sub-optimal in scope. Among other measures, regional development plans - such as the one drafted by Labour for the Grand Harbour zone - could serve as effective tools to reverse this picture. Nor can we afford to remain complacent in the face of the ongoing waste, corruption and bad management of our public funds, which, in the end, translate into lower competitiveness for all; these tendencies have got to be reversed.

Such approaches would keep us well within eurozone management rules but need a planned framework if they are to succeed. They are part and parcel of the change that this country needs and will get following the coming election. The target to make the euro a real success in Malta will not be met by setting up the game for another prestigious gamble but through a serious and structured plan, known to all, that will be driven by a wide coalition of the able and the willing, among whom the government would be a leading player, yet not the only one.