It would be fair to comment that the European Union has so far helped Malta in all the material assistance necessary that, unfortunately, has the net effect of keeping the problem of irregular immigration on Maltese territory. I am of course not suggesting that this is being done with design. But until the EU grasps the real problems facing receiving countries and addresses them through the formulation of a proper pan-European immigration policy that involves all member states, then the form of burden-sharing that Malta is receiving – through refugee funds – will still keep the problem where it arrives… in Malta.

Malta’s predicament is worse than in the case of other southern European countries, in that it is situated right at the extremity of the southern border. So, insofar as the phenomenon of irregular immigration persists and multiplies, Malta’s gravest fault, although Malta itself is not to blame, lies in the fact that it has physically developed at the wrong end of the European Union.

The Scandinavian countries, lying at the northern extremities of the EU, have their own problems of immigration but they are problems akin to those other softer forms of irregular immigration that Malta is not unfamiliar with already. I am referring to the legal migrants who enter the territory by means of a valid visa but overstay when their visa expires. Or that type of illegal immigration that involves human trafficking of persons on a milder scale (compared to the sudden mass displacements of peoples that we have grown familiar with in this part of the world). These other forms of irregular migration pose milder concerns which are manageable difficulties.

The weakness of immigration law in Europe is that it is devoid of geographic realism. In theory, its laws on asylum apply to all member states. But on the ground they are, in the main, being handled by a handful of southern European states on account of what is happening on the Libyan-Italian route and on the Moroccan-Spanish route.

Now, if all of a sudden the phenomenon eases in the Mediterranean but aggravates in some other area of the European Union, then again the receiving states in that part of the world would have to carry the burden of handling, on their own, asylum applications, managing detention, and providing health, housing and employment services in their own territory.

We would be hoping that next summer the phenomenon will manifest itself in some other part of Europe. That would definitely ease the burden for Malta because some other country or countries would be facing the music for a change. But is that fair? Inversely, would it be fair if next summer Malta will be inundated with new arrivals and we would have to make do with the same weak European law that has penalised us so much during the last few years?

Although EU laws and policies apply to all member states, they only come into force when the phenomenon happens and in that part of Europe where it happens. So much for the principle of solidarity that is a core value of European Union legislation.

Make no mistake. The fact that some of our European neighbours have taken some of our own refugees was an arrangement accepted on the basis of a voluntary bilateral understanding. The EU seems to be light years away from complementing its immigration and asylum laws with a compulsory mechanism of burden-sharing that would involve the physical transfer of refugees from receiving states and their distribution on the basis of equity among member states, taking into account the state of their economies, their geographical size, their population density and their occupational opportunities.

What concerns me is the fact that although there has been much rhetoric, particularly last year, about the need to do something, for instance, about the Dublin Convention, I do not know whether either the European Commission or any other body inside the EU has really got down to designing a concrete proposal in this direction – let alone implementing it.

To be fair, interim measures have been applied – like the joint maritime patrols intended to deter the flows of irregular migrants in the high seas. But I get the impression that these temporary measures only emphasise the resolve of the EU to postpone the idea of implementing a system of burden-sharing for as long as possible. The joint patrols cannot even really reach their objective as was proved by the experience at the Canary Islands. And without Libyan cooperation they are doomed to failure on this side of the Mediterranean.

I think that instead of taking joint patrols too seriously, the EU Commission could dedicate more of its time on persuading itself on the long-term utility of the introduction of a strong immigration and asylum policy based on the core values of equity and solidarity. There can be no better and more equitable solution than a comprehensive overhaul of the Dublin Convention that would distribute the burden of processing asylum applications among member states and relocate refugees on the continent.

I also find it hard to reconcile the fact that the European Union is baking and selling directives on minimum reception conditions and shorter detention periods like cheesecakes with the fact that it is moving in the direction of shared burdens at a turtle’s pace. Unless there is a universal system of burden-sharing, more reception-friendly directives will penalise receiving states as the number of new arrivals grows.

It is true that the European Union is a paradigm of fundamental human rights and freedoms and it is fitting that the length of our detention periods and the conditions at detention centres should reflect the spirit of the European Convention on Human Rights.

But, given the situation as it is, it would be wiser for the EU to ease its pace on issuing more reception- and detention-related directives until it comes out with a holistic immigration and asylum policy. It would be a huge mistake for it to continue weakening a receiving state’s power to retain detention before it finds a way how to equitably distribute burdens among member states.

The way forward is to strike a balance between coordinated and controlled immigration and the preservation of fundamental human rights.

Dr Gavin Gulia is the opposition’s main spokesman on Home Affairs