Some two weeks ago, Malta accepted to allow the Lifeline to enter the Maltese harbour after a huge tussle among EU states as to who would take in the 230 migrants on board.

Two weeks later, only a handful of migrants, 52, have been taken off Malta to their new destination, France. A second batch of some 15 were yesterday sent to Luxembourg.

In other words, Malta is still hosting some 160 migrants from the Lifeline.

We said at that time, we would see more ships carrying migrants escaping from Libya. We did.

On Saturday, a double-decker fishing boat sailed out of Zuara with 450 migrants aboard. Once again, there were fiery declarations by Italy’s deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini who ordered all Italy ports closed and who declared the migrants were Malta’s responsibility.

Once again there were the discussions and denials from Malta. At the end, Italian prime minister Conte phoned Maltese premier Joseph Muscat and appealed for solidarity.

As we report in this issue, Dr Muscat interpreted this as meaning Italy accepted that the migrants were not Malta’s responsibility. Then, in a goodwill gesture, Dr Muscat accepted to take in some 50 of these migrants – Italy and Malta were to share one-fourth of the migrants.

As we report elsewhere, when Conte wrote to the other EU premiers, he was told off in no uncertain terms by Czech prime minister Andrej Babis who told Conte this model of sharing migrants is ‘the road to hell’.

At the time of writing, there is no indication when the rest of the 160 migrants from Lifeline would go to their respective destinations. Nor is it clear which countries are agreeing to take in the three-quarters of the fishing boat migrants.

In his radio interview yesterday, Prime Minister Muscat defended his decision as having been taken in the national interest. He also said he took the decision on his own responsibility as a prime minister. He added that if Malta refuses to offer solidarity, it will not be able to ask for solidarity should the need come up.

We ask however if the following considerations passed through his mind before he made his decision.

Did he insist that Malta was in the right and was not infringing international rules as Conte’s deputy had been saying?

Did he point out the wide divergence between the numbers of migrants in Malta and the numbers in Italy?

Did he point out that migrants from Italy have been moving en masse to Malta and did he ask to send them back?

Did he point out the difference between the landmass of Italy and of the other countries and that of Malta?

Did he ask for an apology from Salvini for all his incendiary speeches? Or at least for an assurance that relations between the two neighbouring countries will continue to be as excellent as they have always been?

The prime minister must then think very seriously about what constitutes the Maltese national interest and ask himself what will be the situation if the present influx of migrants continues.

We focus on the boat people but there are many more migrants coming in by plane and with the flimsiest of reasons. There are many more whose permits, such as they were, have expired and who should have left the country. There are many whose criminal behavior should have led the courts to order their deportation from Malta.

Instead of all this, the prime minister once again regaled us with a show of weakness cloaked as reasonableness and solidarity. The Maltese public will not take this and the prime minister is seriously undermining his credibility. Worse, he is imperiling the national security.