Some immigration deal you landed us there, Joseph

Now that the dust has settled from Joseph Muscat's recent sabre-rattling on the immigration issue, we can take stock of how the prime minister has actually handled his first minor crisis.

My own view (worthless though it is) is that he behaved like precisely like a spoilt child in a playground: stamping his feet - and he even used that expression himself, evidently without understanding the implications - for not getting to play with all the toys he wanted; and worse still, making loud noises about all the terrible things that he will do if he doesn't get exactly what he wants, when he wants it. "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll use my veto on everything, etc."

But others reason differently: I have encountered arguments to the effect that Malta 'finally' has a prime minister who is not ready to take any stick from the EU; who puts his money where his mouth is, who defends the national interest, and all the usual jargon which sounds very impressive (but doesn't actually mean very much).

This sort of argument inevitably tails off into a finger-wagging exercise, along the lines of: "you just wait and see what magnificent deals our Joseph will get from the EU in all this in the end!"... coupled with the inevitable triumphant  reference to Hermann Von Rompuy's statement, while in Malta two weeks ago, that 'our voice is being heard' by the Commission. (Like, that really changes everything, doesn't it?)

OK, I have never met Rompuy myself - so I can't actually confirm rumours that he really is a 'Rompuy Scatoli' - but I assume English is not his first language. Perhaps someone should quietly take him aside and point out the difference between 'hearing' and 'listening' in this context.

As I write this blog I can 'hear' the sound of a power drill next door. It is difficult not to, considering that the entire building shakes with every pneumatic wheeze and groan to reach my ears. But I'm not 'listening' to it... and that, in a nutshell, is exactly how Europe has so far responded to Muscat's feet-stamping and tub-thumbing. Our voice was 'heard', no doubt about that. But... is Europe listening?

Is it, my ass. The echo of Muscat's latest foot-stamp had barely faded when another 106 immigrants were rescued and brought to Malta. And there is still nothing stopping another 106 arriving next week, and the week after, and the week after that.

So I hope you'll forgive me for being blunt, but... what, exactly, has Joseph Muscat achieved on the international stage through all his foot-stamping about immigration? I believe the Italian expression for the answer would be 'un bel cazz'; but I admit my Italian kind of sucks.

But the same does not apply to the equally important question of what Muscat's childish outburst has cost the country in terms of credibility. Those of you who studied economics may already be familiar with the formula, 'high cost, zero return' (or perhaps not - I actually just made it up myself). But you don't have to be an economist to understand that a deal which costs you dearly, without actually delivering anything in the way of profit, is not much of a deal at all. Actually what it means is that you've been shafted. (But that's OK folks, because the whole of Europe can 'hear' us scream as the shaft slowly penetrates our collective rear end. Aren't you relieved?)

Having said this, Muscat's abject failure to achieve any concrete objective for all his shouting is not the worst part of the 'deal'. The worst part is that the prime minister not only gambled our reputation away rather rashly... using people's lives as bargaining chips, much like the horrible countries of the world use 'human shields' as legitimate defence options... but he also committed the most remarkably naïve politically mistake imaginable under the circumstances.

He actually spelt out exactly what sort of deal he wants, in no uncertain terms. And oh look: it's a mandatory burden sharing agreement, of the kind that Europe has already repeatedly rejected for the past 10 years.

To be fair, he is being fully consistent here. He did, after all, mercilessly criticise former Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici for failing to reach the same sort of agreement back in 2011, when the immigration and asylum pact was being discussed.

Well, his own criticism must be returning to haunt him now... having likewise failed to achieve the same declared target himself.

But tired as the old expression is, it remains as apt as ever. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - and if Carm Mifsud Bonnici is to be labelled a failure for failing to secure an mandatory burden-sharing agreement, how much more of a failure shall we consider Joseph Muscat: who not only failed in exactly the same way... but did so after raising the stakes considerably, both himself and for the country?

But I know what you're thinking. Give the man some time, for heaven's sake. It's only been two weeks. OK, I take the criticism. So... how much time shall we give him? One year? Two years? Ten years? How long shall we wait for Muscat to announce that he has succeeded in acquiring a mandatory burden sharing agreement, of that kind that has eluded all former governments?

Reason I ask is because this is now the yardstick he has chosen for us to measure his own success. Joseph Muscat's immigration policy has now been tied inextricably to his success or otherwise in achieving this very specific goal. He made a stink about it; now, for the sake of his own political credibility he'd better bloody get it.

So off you go, Joseph. And don't even think about coming back without that mandatory burden sharing agreement in your pocket, otherwise I'll... I'll... I'll stamp my feet and yell a lot. So there!