The agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom and the behavior of the countries of the East, threatening the integrity of the European

The agreement reached between the United Kingdom and the European Union, which, however, may be canceled by the outcome of the referendum shows that Brussels is increasingly moving away from the founding principles of the union and opens the door to other possible decisions that will decide the end of the European dream. Having succumbed to London, just to the belief that without the United Kingdom, Europe would become weaker is an obvious tactical error, which has regardless of the outcome of the referendum, has created a precedent that could be exploited by other Eurosceptic countries. The line not to be crossed had to remain data does not create an uneven playing field between states, but on the contrary, it is preferred, according to criteria that are not politicians seemed, but dictated by financial interests, derogate from the membership rules at 'union, to allow Cameron to propose to the British people an agreement, which has already raised many contrary opinions. So in any case it will end, the European government has demonstrated its obvious weakness, decisive factor that prevented to oppose the blackmail of London and which will be further aggravated if the UK were to voters in an official manner choose the exit from the union . After all this weakness, which now seems pathological, is the one that prevents the central institutions of the union of not knowing manage migration flows and, especially, the conflicting positions between the various member states. There is, in fact, a logical connection, a clear link between the concessions made, perhaps unsuccessfully, to the United Kingdom and the condescension with which you treat the states of eastern Europe, more and more distant from European ideals, less and less liberal and less and less capable of securing rights. The cases of Poland and Hungary, who refuse the collaboration, on the refugee problem, in a manner so blatant, and are governed by the executive which press freedoms in their countries without any sanction from Brussels, are a clear symptom of an inadequate European structures, both at the level of legislation, both at the executive level. This results in a consequent disaffection idea of ​​United States of Europe, which was already widely perceived because of the provisions severely penalized Brussels, for ordinary citizens in the field of economy. What has been lacking is the natural political development of a purely economic union, too based on the budgets and not on the spread of wealth and therefore unable to take root in the constituency. The European management has been insufficient both on problems of many, both for political issues concerning relations with the member states. A strong institution in its organization and able to enforce the principles on which it was founded, had dealt with a country like the UK, although a founding member, who has never built and has only had advantages at the expense of others countries; as well as it would not allow the authoritarian turn that resulted in Warsaw and Budapest and would know immediately intervene with appropriate sanctions also including the possibility of expulsion for countries that did not have to conform to the principles that their own representatives have subscribed. On the contrary has provided important financial support precisely those countries that now refuse the help, which should be automatic, to those nations who take charge, for example, the waves of migration. The fundamental mistake was to not invest more in a political work of integration between the staffs, who did towed even those most reluctant. In this scenario there is a great responsibility in Berlin, which he reasoned always conditioned by economic values, both for the budget constraints, both for pushing the admission of Eastern European countries, identified as the work of hand tank, and as markets to colonize; certainly the power of Germany there was a balance exerted by France and Italy, partly due to the inability of their leaders, partly due to economic reasons, that in fact, it bent intentions to German wishes. But the loss of power at the overall level of Brussels harms a Germany, which used the European institutions and the weakness of the other states, to carry out its development plan, and now with the possible loss of leadership, at least weakened with evidence , the risk of having to review their strategies. The central problem, however, is the very future of a Europe that is unable to reconcile conflicting demands and pressures that go in the direction of integration opposite: if this is the ultimate purpose of the European process must rethink the way for membership and make the case for case if the state already attached is identified in the basics, otherwise it is necessary to predict an output; must, that is, to be called everything into question with a substantial re-start from the beginning, more selective, and that consequently should result in a inclusiveness convinced, without obstacles that may affect the path towards a fully federal evolution of the institution, where every member has equal obligations and equal rights and are no exceptions or special cases.