The European Union does not agree even on migrants

The question of the failure of the distribution of migrants is another failure for the European Union. To declare themselves disappointed with the outcome are the President Juncker and Commissioner immigration Avramopoulos; this has had a negative opinion on the conclusion of negotiations, especially with regard to the numbers agreed, but has reserved judgment to the fact that a positive result is still achieved. Precisely this attitude is a clear signal of an institution that no longer allows even low-level expectations, we are content with the fact of being able to find a meager agreement rather than nothing. Yet the initial target was not even too ambitious: to distribute 40,000 migrants on the territory of 28 countries, not much compared to the current situation of war and famine that touches the Near East and Africa. The agreement, however, was reached on the share of 32,000 migrants, with the proviso that a budget will be made within six months and the remaining 8,000 who have remained out of the negotiations will have to be placed by the end of the year. The problem of migrants mainly Greece and Italy, victims of the Dublin agreements for which an immigrant from outside the European Union must remain in the first European country where it comes from. This agreement was signed in times totally different than today and should be revised, adjusting to the needs of the tragic moment in history. Moreover, it is the majority of the migrants who do not want to stay in the countries of the Mediterranean, which are seen only as a starting point for your stay in the old continent. Essentially it is Italy, that Greece have become, in fact, real humanitarian corridors: the point of arrival from Africa or the Middle East to forget the tragedies, from which migrants flee; so their actual function is to provide often save from certain death, which sometimes fails, and an initial reception; after which the migrant wants to reach family members or acquaintances, who, in most cases live in northern Europe. Now, it is certainly true that you can not please the will of all migrants, but neither can we ignore the fact that some countries are obliged to accommodate people who do not like to stay out of that area. The question is not so obvious, because it offers a reverse perspective view of who does not want to welcome migrants who have not yet arrived in their territory. Basically they require countries of arrival reception and the migrants themselves being welcomed where they do not want. This aspect does not seem to have been adequately considered, even from a legal point of view and moral. It matters little that the cold calculation of Brussels bureaucrats talk about a figure of around 60,000 people who will be affected by new locations and destinations, leaving, as a way implied that the total count will affect several times even the same person, thereby distorting the actual amount the welcome Toale. In all this display of lack of solidarity they have issued behaviors Spain and Hungary, which were the highest expression of indifference Union. These two countries have criticized more than any other plan of redistribution of immigrants: Madrid came to the meeting without having communicated those migrants was prepared to accept, while Budapest has expressly stated that its contribution to the provisions of the Union would have been zero: that is, Hungary would not accept any migrant. Such treatment should be harshly punished, but not the wave of indignation of the moment, but with mechanisms already widely expected able to take the penalty immediately. But this connection can only be sustained by a strong political union whose members are only nations convinced of the European unification process and not with the sole aim of taking contributions that Brussels lavishes in too generous. But the situation is much broader attitude of Spain and Hungary: we are facing a monetary union only, which has set aside so that seems definitive, solidarity between states and therefore the people who compose it. After the conclusion of the Greek question, this immigration is yet another proof of a Europe that has completely moved away from his initial intentions, converted into a subservience to financial institutions, which created a large increase in social inequality and a sense widespread dissatisfaction among European citizens. The fundamental question is whether it still makes sense that a union has taken these features, bringing together peoples increasingly closer, more and more governed by executive slaves of one state and directives unnecessary for the general welfare? Obviously the answer is no; and that this will soon come out of the coming elections, the only feeling that remains common to unite Europe: its futility and its wreckage. To correct this, the time now in short supply, but are not seen reversals.