The passage by a clear majority of the resolution in the European Parliament urging the government to comply fully with EU law on spring hunting and trapping should already have been a clear eye-opener. Now, the European Commission has given the Maltese government one month in which to react to the charge that it is breaching the EU Birds Directive.
The government - at least publicly - continues to insist that it is in the right and it is the Commission that is wrong. So much so that it is willing to take the case to the European Court of Justice. So does the Commission.
An official delegation from the European Commission, due to hold talks in Malta at the end of the month, will, of course, come with the conviction that its arguments against spring hunting are watertight. The Commission officials will also be armed with the firm resolution passed by the European Parliament, the decision just made by the Commission and the knowledge that in the court of European public opinion the behaviour of irresponsible hunters and trappers - notwithstanding the trumpeting of new harsher penalties but, alas, weak enforcement - is unacceptable, as public opinion polls regularly show.
A resolution in the European Parliament, while carrying no binding obligations, does reflect the mood of public and political opinion in Europe - as The Times pointed out last summer when the resolution on illegal immigration was passed. The government, therefore, will meet EU officials with its moral standing on this issue, both here and across Europe, undermined.
What can it do?
The first issue it must address, frankly and honestly, is whether its arguments for a continuing derogation from the Birds Directive on spring hunting are well based. Weighing both sides of the argument, one comes away feeling there is a whiff of self-delusion about the government's interpretation of what was agreed in the run-up to the EU referendum five years ago. Given what the European Commission and Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas himself are saying, it is possible that, in its efforts to garner every possible vote in favour of accession in a critically-balanced election, the government, or its advisers/consultants, misinterpreted the "assurances" given at the time.
One would not like to think that somebody, somewhere, intentionally opted to use weasel wording on what was negotiated in order to be able to sell it to a sceptical hunting community. Alas, the European Commission's strong contention that there are no grounds for derogation on spring hunting and that Malta is in breach of European law does not rule out such a possibility, provided, that is, the Commission is correct in what it is saying.
The government needs to think carefully what it does next. It has already placed itself between a rock and a hard place. It is in the dock and should, therefore, move fast to extricate itself from this position, even because and notwithstanding the fact that a general election is round the corner.
The right course is to conform to the letter of EU legislation - allowing hunting to continue at specified times of the year within clearly prescribed limits - and to make it clear to the hunters that they will have to comply or face the full weight of the law. Alternatively, it should ask the European Court of Justice to rule on the matter, now.
The vast majority in this country will be fully behind the government in such action. A prudent opposition would be wise to adopt the same line, or face a backlash for its tactical opportunism.