The tragic sight of scores of bodies of immigrants laid out on the beaches of Lampedusa and Sicily has driven home vividly the horror and nature of global migration. Comfortable in our Maltese bubble, the Prime Minister's first thought on 3rd October was “to express solidarity with the victims and Italy” (whatever 'solidarity' may mean in such circumstances), but also to remark that “no EU country should be left alone to deal with illegal (sic) immigration”. The Pope, more aptly, said that “the word that comes to mind is disgraceful (vergogna)”. I forbear to comment on the crass and  unthinking comments of the Labour Party's Equal Opportunities officer.

In the kind of empty bureaucratic reaction to be expected from the unimpressive EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmstrom said that Europe had to step up its efforts to prevent these tragedies and show solidarity with migrants and with countries experiencing increasing migratory flows. She  went on to propose the initiation of a beefed up search and rescue force to operate throughout the Mediterranean from Spain to Cyprus.

In a more realistic comment, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, expressed dismay at “a rising global phenomenon of migrants and people fleeing conflict or persecution and perishing at sea”. In nine months this year, the UNHCR estimates that 30,100 irregular migrants arrived in Italy, mainly in Sicily and Lampedusa. The tragedy on 3rd October led to some 300 deaths by drowning. The death toll on Europe's doorstep is shocking and seemingly without end.

How should Europe deal with this phenomenon? Are tough border controls and push-back policies the answer, as Tony Abbot is advocating for Australia? Are migration flows an unstoppable world-wide phenomenon? And is the only practical answer for Malta that there should be a change in the EU's laws on asylum? Is the EU commissioner's proposal for a Mediterranean search and rescue force the answer, or is it simply dealing with the symptoms of the problem, not the cause?

Migration means different things to different parts of Europe. In Malta, it is clearly focused on the impact of black Africans on Maltese society, but elsewhere in Europe the problem embraces not only migrants from Africa and the Middle East, but also the subsequent arrival of their dependants and, increasingly in north European countries, the economic magnet effects of the current policy of giving EU citizens the right to migrate to any other European country.

Migration is an extremely complex humanitarian and political issue. The debate about it is characterised by very strongly held political positions based on weak evidential and analytical bases. The tendency for politicians to think with their guts, not with their heads, produces polarised ideological positions that are unhealthy and lead to poor policy development and stasis. In the final analysis politics trumps humanitarian considerations.

Typical of this mind-set has been the reaction to the Eritrean tragedy in Lampedusa. The EU Commission, scrabbling around to show both action and compassion, is calling for “a big Frontex operation …. from Cyprus to Spain, for a big save and rescue operation”.  Frontex, which depends for its ships, helicopters and other equipment on donations from member states, and welcomed as a possible solution to the problem when formed five years ago, is a busted flush. EU nations could not agree on which country would take responsibility for the migrants rescued at sea. The brutal fact is that nobody wants to sign up to a bottomless asylum commitment.

The crux of the issue, as the Prime Minister indicated, is that there should be a change to the EU's laws on asylum. Presumably, this is what our Minister for Home Affairs and National Security had in mind when he naively reported that “we were pleased to note that the Commission stated they would support the idea of a task force”. Of course it would. Yet another task force on irregular immigration is a European bureaucrat's dream – another way of kicking this insoluble issue into the long grass where it has lain on and off for the last ten years. 

Rather than merely calling for a task force, what the Maltese government should be doing is pulling out all the diplomatic stops to persuade other EU leaders to come up with practical solutions to the problem. This means inter alia making specific proposals for changes to the iniquitous Dublin II agreement, which unfairly penalises front-line countries like Malta.

But Malta's proposals, if they are to be persuasive, must also take account of the difficulties faced by other EU countries. The reason there has been a backlash against migration throughout the Union is that, rightly or wrongly, voters in virtually every country resent the presence of migrants both black and white, including east Europeans from newly acceding EU states. It would be sensible for Malta's proposals to include some form of quota system to be introduced for such countries. More radically, the time might also have come to consider proposing national ceilings on immigration based, Malta should argue, on some form of population/territorial size formula which would tie in with proposals for overdue changes to the Dublin Agreement.

The bottom line is that it is no good Malta whingeing on about the need for solidarity and burden-sharing unless it develops fully conceptualised policy proposals underpinned by two specific approaches. First, it must be prepared to share a fair part of the burden and be clear in its own mind what that burden will be and how it intends to tackle it. A White-Malta policy is not an option.

Secondly, it should develop and submit specific proposals of how to move the EU agenda forward on this seemingly intractable issue. This means, in the immediate term, a careful re-writing of key parts of the Dublin II agreement to propose a formula for some form of equitable and mandatory burden-sharing to remove the current obligation on the country of first arrival to be responsible in perpetuity for any asylum-seekers landing on its shores.

In parallel, it must be prepared to support radical changes to EU internal migration laws to allow countries to introduce controls and quotas. As a longer term investment in change, it must also continue to encourage greater EU involvement in helping the mainly black countries of origin with generous programmes of aid. The Prime Minister's wish for practical support to be given to Libya to secure its borders may be wishful thinking at this stage given the dire state of that country's internal security. 

The Prime Minister's task at the forthcoming EU Council meeting is threefold. First, he must persuade 27 other EU leaders of the need to develop a fair, simple, mandatory and workable relocation policy for asylum-seekers and a reassessment of internal European migration through the introduction of quotas and national ceilings on immigration. Secondly, he must re-awaken EU leaders' commitment to the need for Europe to turn its mind to the Mediterranean's migration problems. And thirdly, in parallel, together with like-minded nations such as Italy, France, Spain and Greece, he must persuade the EU to find practical and humane solutions to the sources of migration from Africa.