Within states, so classical political theory goes, governments have a quasi-monopoly on military power and are generally able to keep order.

Between states, however, no single country has a monopoly on power. States have their own armies and are sovereign, answerable to no one. The balance of power depends on military strength and shifting alliances – a cut-throat, clichéd world of ‘might is right’ and ‘survival of the fittest’.

You can think of states as living in one of those US prison yards you see on TV, with absent guards. It has never been entirely lawless – there is a code of sorts, painstakingly built and nurtured over the years by a few old-school prisoners. Even when it worked, the code was unevenly applied and often seemed to favour the strong. But it usually did the job – kept a lid on things and helped avoid the worst.

That code is the world order that emerged largely after World War II, pushed hard by the West but based, perhaps most importantly, on the need to prohibit use of force among states.

Did it always work? Hell no.

The last few decades have been marked by countless wars and conflicts and many states have acted in bad faith. Not least the greatest promoters of the rules-based order themselves – think of that dodgy Iraq dossier, or the US invasion of Panama, or the Iran-Contra scandal.

Yet, even as they bent, twisted or broke international law, states almost always declared their innocence of such breaches. They rarely called into question the legitimacy of the rules-based international order. On the contrary, their protestations that they were somehow acting in line with international law served to emphasise acceptance they were bound by it.

While the code usually held, that prison yard remained a rough place, and inmates had to look after themselves. The strong were fine; the weak, in many cases, could only lie low and hope for the best. Think of Malta, fearfully cosying up to Gaddafi before EU membership, or the countries of Central and South America trying to stay on the right side of the US.

But the small and medium-sized states of Europe tried another approach, one that, in a world historically dominated by empires and conquest, was truly revolutionary. They banded together, retaining their sovereignty, yet also pooling and amplifying it. A new ‘great’ power was created, not by negating the right of smaller nations to self-determination but as the highest expression of that right.

Did integration work for the EU? Did it really become a great power? In many ways yes, certainly economically, and in trade terms – because it really does act as one trade bloc, speaking with a single voice.

Politically – not so much. The fact that decisions in so many areas are still taken by unanimity means things can get very messy when the EU tries to speak with one voice. Even when it manages to do so, it does not possess any sort of armed forces that could project its power.

The EU gang of equals, then, didn’t always project strength in the prison yard – but their quick wits and a central stash of cigarettes meant they always managed to trade their way out of trouble.

So, what has changed? The strains on the rules-based world order have been showing for a while. Aggressive leaders like Putin, Xi and Erdoğan repeatedly tested the system almost to breaking point, but the centre held.

Few expected the US, arguably one of the most important architects of a rules-based international order, to bring a wrecking ball to it. Previous US presidents often acted in ways that breached that order, yet, they still paid at least lip service to its primacy while doing so.

Trump does not bother to pretend. He openly says the US will control Venezuela’s enormous oil reserves for years to come, having forcibly arrested its president. He insisted for months that he would seize territory from one of his own allies, by force if necessary. He repeatedly announces, suspends and re-introduces punitive tariffs on anyone he doesn’t fancy and gleefully kills people at sea without any sort of due process.

It is high time we ditch our neutrality- Patrick Tabone

The list goes on – and we haven’t even started here on the growing list of crimes that this convicted felon has committed or enabled back home.

The US has gone from being one of the main (albeit always flawed) champions of a rules-based international order to its final executioner. As Canada’s Mark Carney eloquently put it, the world is in the midst of a rupture.

The destruction of the ‘old world’ order does not instantly lead to a new one. Eventually, a new order will probably emerge – likely one based more directly on power than the old one. But, for now, there is only disorder, a landscape where the gloves are off and bullies are emboldened.

An enormous, aggressive new inmate rampaging around the yard means the old prison code, already weakened, is now in shreds. Other bullies, with their henchmen and hangers-on, roam with impunity, looking for any advantage. The EU gang knows their cigarette trading isn’t going to cut it anymore. They know they need to toughen up and gain some muscle. Maybe reach out to others in the yard for mutual support – that Canadian guy looks cool, maybe the BRICS posse…

And where is Malta in all this? After doing so much in the 1990s and noughties to level up, Malta managed to join the EU. That didn’t solve all

our problems, of course – on the contrary, we have many big new ones to contend with, not least our own lousy governance. But it did anchor us in a prosperous, forward-looking bloc and gave us – a country geared to provide services – access to the massive market that we need if we are to grow.

If you are, like Malta, the skinniest, smallest prisoner in the yard, you really must have your wits about you. The last thing you want to do is broadcast your isolation to the world. In the old days, a declaration of neutrality might possibly have raised the cost of bullying you for a potential aggressor. Today, it just signals to the bullies that no one is likely to ride to your rescue. Our neutrality is a dangerous anachronism, and it is high time we ditch it.

For the EU too, it is time to grow up. All those endless discussions and failures to agree have become too costly. In a rough world, integration was the EU’s best response. In today’s much rougher one, that integration needs to be strengthened.

Unanimity is a luxury the EU can no longer afford – a way must be found for the willing and able to go further and faster. And, to be taken seriously, the EU needs its own military force to progressively take on the burden of its own defence from NATO and the US.

It is easy to sneer at the EU and its all too frequent inability to speak with a single, coherent voice. Watching it try to appease Trump, over Gaza, for example, has sometimes been painful. But, in a world that has become more dangerous and unpredictable, the EU often sounds like the adult in the room.

In a bleak and threatening world, we need to stand ever closer with our EU partners and do everything we can to get past our divisions.

Patrick Tabone is an International Relation Expert who was part of Malta’s Core Negotiating Group during the EU Accession process.