Joseph Muscat’s rawness as a leader got him into the current mess and he has painted himself into a corner. Refuting it or not, he botched it. First, he got all Bolshie and made an announcement that his government was initiating a pushback policy, which demonstrated his lack of experience in crisis management.

Then he insults our intelligence by stating that the torrent of racist comments are due to ‘concern’. “This concern should not be mistaken for racism,” he said at a joint press conference with EU Council president Herman Van Rompuy.

A seasoned politician with a finger on the national pulse would have recognised the danger the pushback statement would unleash, namely the barrage of racial hatred and the fuel it would give to the Opposition and its lackeys.

“The majority of Maltese people are concerned about this issue. I am concerned. The Maltese are not a racist people,” he said. You could have fooled me. Anyway, if it is just concern and not racism, why has he issued a statement saying that a planned demonstration expressing “support for the government and against illegal immigration”, should not take place? “This protest has neither my support, nor my government’s.” he said.

Adding, “The government and the parliamentary group are united, because our position is to consider all options.” Shame that all options were not considered before the flood gates were opened.” He could have avoided “Après moi, le déluge”.

He did not condone “such language being used by a tiny minority”, he was reported as saying (whatever such language was. I presume a reporter had quoted some heavy racist comments). Well, from where I am standing it is a lot more than a ‘tiny minority’. “First he ignites a big bonfire and when it takes off he wants to put it out immediately,” posted David Farrugia on Facebook.

As for the EU, in my April 2011 column entitled “Solidarity or every EU member for itself?”, I wrote that passing the buck on the humanitarian tragedy of mass migration had to stop. And it is not just those blaming each other but also those who are refusing to be part of the solution.

Is not solidarity meant to be one of the Union’s pillars? So far EU solidarity seems to only be activated on fiscal issues, but when it comes to humanitarian issues all we get is rhetoric.

Even then (two years ago) I commented, that many were expressing the view that because the tragedies hit the headlines it shows that we care, which of course if one reads the accompanying comments demonstrates no such thing.

There were no comments about the people ferrying migrants in overcrowded, ramshackle boats, while exploiting them financially. How many boat owners and crew has Frontex apprehended? How come these people seem to slip through the net and are still operating?

We have had the problem of people fleeing, to what they hoped would be survival at least and perhaps a better life, brought home to us since before we joined the EU.

I remember getting a non-committal response from Günter Verheugen, the European Commissioner for Enlargement, just before we joined, when I asked him what help we could expect on that specific issue from member states once we were full members.

Quite a few years later in 2007, the European Commission had recognised the “special difficulty” of a crowded island just 200 kilometres from Libya. If we had a special difficulty then what should our position be seen as now.

Although we were told then that Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström “was considering” making a formal proposal to member states to activate the emergency solidarity mechanism, she later was once again arguing that “the numbers are not yet huge” to merit the activation of the temporary protection directive.

Since this was six years ago, I don’t know whether we have now reached the ‘huge’ numbers to activate an emergency solidarity mechanism. European Council President Herman Van Rompuy told a special sitting of the House of Representatives, on Thursday, that he knew “the situation was far from easy for Malta and I would like to assure you that your concerns are being heard”. Yes, well, it’s about time we moved on from the rhetoric. We know you can hear us, but what next?

Malta, he said, had stood by the other members of the eurozone in their problems because the members of the eurozone had joint responsibility and close economies... completing the Banking Union remained a priority to make the economies more resilient to support growth.

There you go, things have not changed, fiscal solidarity is very tangible, but when it comes to humanitarian issues, he quoted the Pope and opted for sentiment, “...vehicles of hope had become vehicles of death”. Yes, but this has been happening for years.

So, I repeat, we have had the problem of people fleeing, to what they hoped would be survival at least and perhaps a better life, brought home to us for long enough. How many boat owners and crew has Frontex apprehended? How come these people seem to slip through the net and are still operating?

 “There is a need for more surveillance and we have to address the root of migration”, said Van Rompuy on Thursday. No really. Fancy that. Is the EU going to stop the member states that supply arms to the countries in conflict? Besides, countries that have not supplied arms have still cosied up with authoritarian regimes for other commercial reasons and most of us have all ignored the human rights abuses and plight of the exploited – out of sight out of mind. Then they arrive on our shores and we all wake up.

So what is being proposed? The EU was continuing to support Malta financially and was also engaged in structural and operational efforts including a common asylum system, a border system and a new regulation on the surveillance of sea borders, said Van Rompuy, adding it was necessary to ensure that these translated into tangible support. The latter, i.e. “tangible support” is exactly what Malta would like to see.

[email protected]