For Maltese voters, there’s something puzzling about the Prime Minister’s description of the just concluded agreement, between the EU and Turkey, about the migrants flooding into Europe via Turkey through Greece.

Some background - in terms of migrants, the main elements of the deal are three. First, from April, any immigrant arriving irregularly in Greece from Turkey must apply for asylum. The application will be processed (together with any appeal) in less than a week. Anyone who doesn’t apply, or whose application is turned down after appeal, will be returned to Turkey. Second, for every migrant returned to Turkey, the EU will take a Syrian refugee already in Turkey. Third, however, the number that the EU will take is capped at 72,000.

The deal of course includes sweeteners for Turkey: money (€3 billion, with the possibility of another €3 billion), the easing of visa rules for Turks visiting Europe, and a speeding up of discussions onEU membership.

Joseph Muscat has rightly described it as a bad deal for Turkey, as had this column when a similar deal (without the expedited processing of asylum applications) was announced in December. The legal concessions Turkey is making are unpopular and the European money, for the 2.7 million Syrian refugees it is hosting, is paltry. The 72,000 capped figure the EU is ready to take directly from Turkey amounts to 0.026 per cent of the total in Turkey.

It’s such a bad deal that it’s doubtful if it’s sustainable. It’s a patchwork stratagem, which itself is likely to incentivise migrants to approach Europe via North Africa. However, given the current disaster, Muscat’s description of the deal as ‘better than nothing’, as long as there is a legal framework, is a legitimate judgement call.

So what’s puzzling in what Muscat has said? He has described the deal as effectively a pushback initiative. He said it resembled Malta’s pushback policy “which had caused widespread scorn from the European Commission”.

Two things are puzzling here. First, Muscat is describing what he had tried in July 2013 as a ‘pushback policy’. Yet, at the time, after his attempt to fly a group of irregular immigrants back to Libya was thwarted by a dire warning from the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights, Muscat’s line was that he hadn’t really meant it. It had all just been a negotiating ploy to get Europe’s attention – not a pushback, he told the press, but Malta putting its foot down to show Europe it was no pushover.

Now, it seems it was a pushback policy after all. So, was it or wasn’t it? We all have our suspicions. But we should hear from Muscat himself which version was right. Both cannot be true.

The second part of the puzzle is that he should think that what Europe is attempting now is, in fact, basically what he tried. It’s not. There are good reasons to be concerned about this policy. But Europe has pulled out the legal stops to make sure it’s not a pushback, effectively or otherwise.

Muscat himself had declared that the people selected were strong and young. Apart from being illegal, that criterion is chilling

There have been many concerns about legality but even one of the policy’s concerned critics, the UNHCR, accepts that the deal does not breach international law. (The full elements of the deal might not have been hammered out when Muscat expressed doubts on the legality.)

The crucial legal difference between the EU-Turkey deal and what Malta had attempted three years ago is this. A pushback is simply rejecting irregular immigrants without considering their case on an individual basis. They’re sent back irrespective of whether they have any rights to asylum as granted by international law. That’s why a pushback is illegal: it tramples over fundamental human rights.

In July 2013, Malta had selected a group of migrants to send back. But the selection was not based on human rights. It was based on biology. Muscat himself had declared that the people selected were strong and young. Apart from being illegal, that criterion is chilling. You have to wonder what Angela Merkel made of being told that Europe’s current policy resembled Malta’s in 2013.

In addition, the migrants were going to be sent back to Libya. A country without an effective state, and without law and order, could hardly be considered safe.

In contrast with all that, the deal that Europe has just struck would permit any irregular immigrant arriving in Greece to apply for asylum protection and have each individual case decided on its merits. They are returned to Turkey only if they don’t qualify.

So why is the deal being criticised by rights groups? Because it is too fast, too mean and too short-sighted.

Too fast: less than a working week to process applications and appeals sounds like the traditional administrative safeguards may be ignored along the way.

Too mean: at 72,000 refugees, the European quota is being capped at a microscopic fraction of the total in Turkey. According to some groups, the number should be at least 110,000. Others do not consider Turkey as a safe country, given its increasingly authoritarian government.

Too short-sighted: millions of refugees stranded on the EU’s borders are not going to address Europe’s security problems in the medium term. The problems might even grow if the refugee camps provide a breeding ground for terrorist recruitment (which has happened before).

Europe is trying to address the challenges posed by expedited processing. Human and financial resources are being given to aid Greece, which is also saying it will take as long as necessary to set up the infrastructure needed.

The only possible answer to the accusation of short-sightedness is a permanent sustainable solution to the Syrian crisis, which will enable the refugees in Turkey to return to their country. Whether Europe does have the unity, will and political influence to expedite a settlement in Syria is, however, doubtful.

What of the accusation that Europe is turning its back on humane values given the small numbers it is hosting? It’s impossible to refute this. But the politicians can only do what is possible given their electorates.

In Germany, Merkel has tried to give leadership and found herself isolated – in her party, her country and in Europe. France is paralysed at the thought that taking more refugees could see a far-right politician elected president in a year’s time.

The politicians are trapped in the confines of the politics of fear and the calculations of the marketplace. Transcending those confines depends on prioritising the sacred dignity of broken men and women – with action, not talk.

Not too long ago, Pope Francis gave instructions that every European parish had to host a refugee family. He understands that the Christianisation of Europe either means that or it means nothing. But whatever happened to those instructions? Have they been implemented in Malta?

Quite frankly, these are questions of greater import than whether Joseph Muscat has once more lost track of his own fictions. If even the parishes can’t be bothered by what Pope Francis has to say, it’s a scoop about his real legacy, and a bigger statement about what the parishes really believe.