Two weeks after Dr Falzon's public outburst in Rabat, the dust seems to be settling, but the storm has distorted the image of Labour's leadership, bringing back memories of former deputy leader George Abela's resignation in 1998, one of the sorest points in Labour's recent history.
During a party event with the party leader sitting beside him, Dr Falzon reacted to a press report saying he had asked the police to investigate anonymous e-mails he had received from Labour supporters and even directed his criticism at the party, claiming that he could become "the next George Abela".
In a statement issued around a week later, he played down the incident, calling it a spur of the moment incident. However, coming just as the government starts to offload a series of more popular measures - such as the recently announced "energy benefit" exempting 30,000 households from the surcharge on utility bills, or the Xaghra l-Hamra national park - Dr Falzon's outburst cannot but be bad news for Labour.
Mr Micallef is, however, not particularly concerned.
Taking comfort in Dr Falzon's reconciliatory statement, he believes the case is closed: "... surely I have nothing more to say on the matter," he says in reply to the very first question on the issue.
But how can a rift within Labour's leadership not worry him, especially after it came out in the open? The "real rifts", he retorts, shifting the focus onto his adversaries, lie within the Nationalist Party.
"The rift between John Dalli and Lawrence Gonzi, for instance, which runs across the board and is spilling onto the government's board... Josie Muscat and Frank Portelli, these are rifts within the Nationalist Party. Frank Portelli, who was praised last year by the Prime Minister, is now saying there is corruption at Mater Dei Hospital. It's useless for him to say now he was not referring to the government, the allegations he made run across the board."
Certainly there may be problems in the PN camp but how can Labour flog the PN for its spat with Mr Dalli and then look at its situation and say it is not a problem?
"What problem," Mr Micallef asks. "It was the PN that spinned Michael Falzon's story."
In that speech, Dr Falzon spoke of being framed for the "snake" debacle, which is the term party leader Alfred Sant was reported to have used in reference to the Labour mole who had leaked damaging stories to the Nationalist media back in November. On this point, however, Mr Micallef is particularly adamant: "I can deny in the most categorical way that Dr Sant ever used that word, and while I deny it, I challenge you or anyone else to find where Alfred Sant had used the term snake even once in public - be it in a political activity, a meeting in a party club... I am being categorical, I assume responsibility, if you can prove to me that he used that word I'll resign. Can I be more categoric than that?"
Why was the incident not denied immediately then?
"Because I don't care about Nationalist spin," he insists.
"I may not be prepared to fall for the PN's agenda, which is to hide the big and real rifts that are undermining it at Cabinet level right down to board level, such as at PBS and elsewhere," he adds.
The election, he continues when pressed on the point, is his only concern. "I have one target, and that is to win the next election and we'll get there. That is my aim. There are different ways to achieve it but my sole aim, my sole target, is to win the next election and give this country a new beginning. I won't worry about things that may happen in the heat of the moment."
The election indeed is Labour's concern. This can be seen in the way its media is slowly going into election drive. But is he really convinced his party will win?
"The Labour Party has a good chance of winning the next general election on the basis of what the Maltese people are feeling, on the basis of the meetings we have with different sections of the population. This urge for change is felt and it's confirmed in terms of what the party has managed to achieve over the past years in terms of electoral support: the MEP elections, which took place shortly after the 2003 general election, and four local council elections."
But why is Labour's victory not a forgone conclusion, seeing that the PN has been in power for almost 18 years now?
"Let me speak for myself: Politics and life have taught me never to accept forgone conclusions. One week in politics is really a long time. For instance, Labour had been enjoying quite a level of electoral support before 2003 but then the people decided not to elect it on the basis of one issue - EU accession. We could have argued in the same way before 2003, that the election result was a foregone conclusion."
EU membership was indeed "the issue" in that election but now there is no single overarching factor, except offering a different type of administration. Could it be, instead, that Labour does not feel confident about its current platform? The party's position, in fact, has been mostly criticised for lacking a clear stand and trying to please everybody and hurt nobody, as seems to have been the case with its recent statement on hunting.
The party's reaction to the government's decision to stop this year's spring hunting 10 days before schedule came last Sunday by way of comments made by Dr Sant during a party activity. Criticising the move as a "U-turn", he said Labour would adhere to EU regulations while seeking to respect Maltese hunting traditions. The only problem seems to be that this is impossible.
"If there is someone who took the hunters and environmentalists for a ride," Mr Micallef argues, "it's the Nationalist Party and this is proven. Before 2003 we had made it clear that if Malta joins the EU, spring hunting will have to stop and so, probably, will trapping. The Nationalist Party had ridiculed us for it, saying it had obtained a derogation.
"Spring hunting guaranteed," he continues, reading from PN promotional material - which he had prepared purposely for the interview. "When there was the case with (European Commissioner) Stavros Dimas, we said clearly - I said it, Dr Sant said it, we all said it - that now that Malta is a member of the EU we have to adhere to the EU's rules when it comes to hunting and trapping.
"But in an agreement with the hunters in 1997, the MLP promised, and is repeating that promise now, to see what can be retained from that agreement in the eventuality of EU membership. That's all we're saying, that we will try.
"Now, with all due respect, what did Dr Sant say on Sunday? The police Administrative Law Enforcement unit and, by extension, the government, did not manage to maintain law and order and then had to stop hunting. This is what the leader meant when he said the government had performed a U-turn. The government has to decide whether it will allow or stop spring hunting... that's all he said."
And, what's going to happen now? Can the government issue a statement saying that spring hunting will be stopped permanently?"
The point being discussed during this interview, however, is not the government's U-turn, but whether Labour's pledge to look into its 1997 agreement is feasible.
"If you're serious you have to have a plan," Mr Micallef insists. "You cannot stop hunting until certain generations have passed away, because there are people who have raised families and seeded this passion for hunting and trapping and you cannot just tell them: Right, hunting is over, because then you'll have to deal with what has long been brewing.
"You cannot have a confrontation in this country. You cannot have this fight between hunters and trappers - who have a right to practise their hobby - and the majority of society, which is not as vociferous, but is against hunting and is pro-environment. Do we want a society that clashes in this way? That is why we need a plan, to address this issue instead of practising crisis management," Mr Micallef says.