Last week's speech by the Governor of the Central Bank of Malta at the annual dinner of the Institute of Financial Services caused quite an uproar, to the extent that the Opposition party proclaimed that through this speech he had disqualified himself from serving under a new Labour government.

The point that Mr Michael Bonello may not be willing to serve under a Labour government seems to be immaterial (in any case, I have no idea of what he wishes to do), while the fact that the Governor of the Central Bank of Malta has every right to express an opinion seems to have escaped some people.

In fact, I am fully aware that this week's contribution may well end up being the cause of my own disqualification (unless I have been disqualified already!).

I believe that the Governor's speech and the reaction to it raise two issues that should be considered. One is the actual content of the speech and the other is the issue of the disqualification.

Let us get the second one out of the way. Appointments like the one of Mr Bonello are based on two fundamental aspects - competence and trust. No one has doubted the competence of Mr Bonello and on this basis there should be no grounds for disqualification.

No one has doubted the integrity of Mr Bonello or that he does deserve the trust of the Maltese people, and therefore even here there are no grounds for disqualification.

However, appointees like these (and here I include appointees chosen to head public organisations, be they institutions like the Central Bank, or public limited companies) must also enjoy the trust of the government that has appointed them.

In fact, I believe that the right approach is not that a government should not appoint someone who is not in agreement with its policies, but that no one should accept an appointment from a government that implements policies different to one's own beliefs.

Appointees chosen to head public organisations, while expected to fulfil their responsibilities in a competent manner and with integrity, are free to express their opinion, even if this may not be to the liking of all. One need only remember the disgust expressed by the Opposition party at the government's reaction to an interview given by the Ombudsman. Surely the proverbial sauce for the goose and the gander must be the same.

However, the more interesting bit about the Central Bank's Governor's speech was the content of the speech itself. In summary the Governor stated that the changes that our economy has had to undergo in anticipation of membership of the European Union and the changes that it still has to undergo are necessary for our development and would still have to be implemented, irrespective of EU membership.

He also stated that EU membership would guarantee access not just to the enlarged EU market but also to the market of several other countries with whom the EU has concluded bilateral trade agreements.

On the other hand, the option of a trade agreement with the EU, in whatever guise it is concluded, would still place on us the burdens that member states would have to bear, like bringing our national legislation in line with that of the EU present and future, but would exclude us from any decision-making process.

One point that is really worth noting is that members of the European Economic Area have had to contribute financially to the EU's regional policy, in order to gain free access to the EU market.

If we were to choose the option of non-membership, we would therefore still have to go through the economic restructuring that our country urgently requires and we would still have to take on board extensive parts of the acquis communautaire, while reaping none of the benefits that membership would give us.

This point was also clearly made when the EU Commissioner for enlargement, Mr Guenther Verheugen, was in Malta last month. He stated that if Malta were to choose to stay out of the EU and seek to have a free trade agreement that would guarantee it access to the EU market, it would still have to abide by the competition rules (and therefore rules of state aid) that apply in the EU.

This is why it needs to be stated in no uncertain terms that the status quo in terms of relations with the EU is just no option. Today these relations are based on an Association Agreement concluded by the then Nationalist administration in 1970. This agreement has been extended several times but can no longer be extended.

The only two scenarios that we are presented with are either membership or some sort of yet undefined arrangement that would give us access to the EU market while allowing us to choose our own pace of change and to have national legislation that would suit our peculiar needs.

The point is that we no longer have the luxury of choosing our own pace of change as otherwise we would run the risk of being left behind by an international economy that thrives on competition. Moreover, irrespective of our peculiarity, given our reliance on foreign investment and foreign markets, we need to align our laws with those of our major trading partners, namely the EU.

The option of non-membership is not a hypothetical one and therefore requires to be made concrete by those who propose it. For this reason, comparing the two options and how each could impact on our economy is relevant to the country's present economy agenda.

We cannot disqualify people from addressing this issue or else we might as well all shut up.