The European Commission does not intend to enter into a debate with the Labour Party about its 20-point plan on illegal immigration despite accusations that the EU was not doing enough to help Malta.
A Commission spokesman said the EU Executive was considering Labour's criticism and its plan as part "of an internal political agenda" and did not want to get involved the political fray.
The spokesman said the plan presented in Parliament by Labour leader Joseph Muscat consisted of proposals by a party in opposition and the Commission "will only comment if and when Muscat's plan will take the form of legislation falling under EU competence".
Informally, Labour's plan, which includes some controversial proposals, including establishing quotas of migrants Malta should accept and the use of Malta's veto in EU areas not directly related to illegal immigration to force the Union to change its rules - did not go down well with many EU officials and NGOs dealing directly with migration problems.
According to several officials, the proposals are "populist" and very difficult to implement concretely, especially from the point of view of the smallest EU member state with "very limited political clout".
Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the Migration Policy Institute, an independent think tank following migration issues, said Labour's proposals could not be taken seriously.
He acknowledged that such populist recommendations originated from the fact that the EU was not working hard enough in the immigration area.
"These are not really serious proposals. Yet, they are a clear example of the sheer exasperation of many with the gap between the EU's rhetoric and action on migration and related issues. A gap of persistent over-promising and under-performing," he said.
Even the EU office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is very sceptical of Labour's ideas although it tried to be diplomatic.
"Fixing a quota for the number of migrants a country wishes to receive does not solve any problems and is not the most appropriate answer to Malta's needs," Gilles Van Moortel, the UNHCR's regional external relations officer in Brussels, said when contacted.
"Migrants would still come, with or without a quota. What will you do when they arrive," he asked.
According to Mr Van Moortel intra-EU reallocation programmes were the real way forward and Malta should push for this with its EU partners. "This will definitely ease the burden on the island," he said.
Asked whether it was realistic for other EU countries to offer to take Malta's illegal migration problem on board he said that "it will definitely take time as this is a complex issue but, with Malta's pressure, the EU is moving into that direction".
Other migration lobby groups in the EU did not wish to comment directly when asked on Labour's proposals, preferring to steer clear of what they deemed as "partisan politics".
Amnesty International (AI) said it did not want to react to the use of political tactics in this debate as certain elements of the proposals seemed to suggest.
At the same time, the international human rights' defender said it supported measures to promote more solidarity between member states in the field of asylum, which should always ensure the full respect of the fundamental rights of asylum seekers.
According to Kris Pollet, an AI spokesman in Brussels, lack of solidarity by other EU member states could not be used to absolve countries of their obligations under international human rights and refugee laws.
Jean Pierre Gauci, representing the European Network Against Racism, said his organisation did not want to enter into the Maltese debate about how lobbying on a European level should be done to get what it wanted.
He said the organisation supported calls for the EU to adopt without delay a system of responsibility sharing, while revising the Dublin II rules.