Some years ago, I had written a letter to the Times of Malta entitled ‘Combining efforts on illegal immigration’. The context was the then large flow of irregular immigrants that were heading to Malta from Libya.

I had suggested two main initiatives to deal with the problem.

First proposal was to tackle the question directly with the Libyan authorities given that the country was the main source of our problems. I admitted that this was difficult to achieve despite the fact that at the time Libya had a stable government (notwithstanding its dictatorial nature).

Secondly, I suggested that the Maltese government should seek the support of Europe in the hope (proved vain) that the spirit of solidarity and subsidiarity between member states would prevail.

We were still green in the affairs of Europe at the time. According to this principle of subsidiarity, the EU may act where action of individual countries is insufficient “...and can therefore by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved collectively by the Community”.

I will not go into the details of the ensuing developments – Frontex, revolution in Libya, Nato involvement in Libya, the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, chaos in Libya, Mare Nostrum, operation Triton, the huge rise in irregular migration originating from Libya and also the tragedy and scandal of deaths in the Mediterranean.

Europe is deeply divided on the issue of irregular immigration. Governments of whatever shade are scared of their electorate and would prefer to bypass the problem rather than tackle the situation frontally as they are obliged to do as a compassionate Community, especially on moral grounds.

The rise of the extreme right parties has made the problem even worse and brought about great political instability in the traditional governing parties. German Chancellor Merkel with her great experience has stated that she never experienced a more difficult and emotional debate in the Council meetings than the last one on immigration and this when the Greek bailout question was reaching its highest point of controversy with the future of the euro (and possibly Europe itself) in the balance.

The opponents of an agreed collective plan in Europe on migration state they do not want a programme that would act as a “taxi service” for refugees. In short, they do not want to devise a system that would be an added attraction for the millions of destitute people under threat of survival in Africa and the Middle East.

Europe risks becoming irrelevant in the face of one of its greatest challenges in recent years

Refugees from hot-spots in the East (Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, etc.) are flooding into the EU periphery countries in the east to gain a foothold in Europe from where they can go and settle in the countries of their choice.

The same situation exists in the Mediterranean with large numbers of migrants using unsafe seacraft to cross from North Africa to the shores of southern European countries (Italy being the main target). In this case the already grim state of affairs is compounded by the large rise in the number of deaths at sea.

Data issued by the International Organisation for Migration (IMO) shows that, last year, the number of deaths in the Mediterranean (put at about 3,000 plus) far outstripped the total number of deaths of irregular migrants around the world, namely, Sahara, Caribbean, Southeast Asia, East Africa, Horn of Africa, US/Mexico border, Bay of Bengal.

This is damning information which should shame Europe. Countries like the UK and France who formerly shrugged the problem as a non-issue as far as they were concerned have now vociferously called for combined EU action to tackle the problem following the migrant crisis at the Seaport Terminal at Calais.

In the meantime, politicians from both countries increase the rhetoric by dehumanising the refugees (David Cameron described them as “swarms”) and by calling for increased patrols, erecting further fences and taking other security measures. Instead, they should be working towards a humane and dignified solution.

I will be the first to admit that there are no quick and easy solutions. Indeed the situation is extremely complex and tends to get more complicated with the passage of time as the instability in the source countries of refugees tends to increase and spread to neighbouring countries.

First and foremost, there has to be a mandatory quota-based programme applicable throughout the EU without opt-outs.

A fair formula built on the size, population and GDP of the receiving country could be worked out. Otherwise, a voluntary resettlement programme, as has already been proposed at EU Council meetings, will not work.

Also, the smugglers who are the root of most of the problems linked to the tragedies at sea and elsewhere should be the primary target of EU policy.

This is testing time for Europe about an unprecedented human tragedy of world-wide dimensions.

Will Europe rise to the occastion or will it remain an ineffective talking shop?

The Schuman Declaration of 1950 calls on Europeans to build the new Europe on concrete achievements based on de facto solidarity. This is, in fact, the key – solidarity in action; otherwise, Europe risks becoming irrelevant in the face of one of its greatest challenges in recent years.