Political tensions between the European states for the agreement with Turkey

The agreement, not yet ratified by Turkey on migration management, raises many questions of legitimacy and opportunities from various states of the European Union. Beyond the moral and humanitarian considerations, one of the subjects that arouse a lot of concern is the cost - benefits that could flow from the agreement with Ankara. In fact it is known that the turkish objective is the liberalization of movement in the European Union, as a first step, and then get to re-open and successful conclusion of the accession process in Brussels. European states are aware of the lack of requirements of Turkey to enter Europe, but are also fought on how to solve the problem of migration, which have not been able to foresee; This alternation of feelings, however, not shared by all, is creating additional fractures within the European Union and, beyond possible compromises, indicates that the low point of relations between states has not yet been reached. Then there is the paradox of power to be sanctioned by the United Nations, since the content of the agreement to mass expulsions of refugees, which would be sent back on turkish territory, appears illegal. If the EU were to run into this breach it would undermine the very reasons for its existence, certainly not only be justified by a monetary agreement, only capable of creating unreasonable budgetary constraints. However, even in the face of these objections, the attitude of the Eastern countries and Austria continues to be fully closed to a redistribution of refugees that Europe could save the poor figure he is doing to the world. On the other hand the opening of the circulation in the Schengen area also to the Turks worried the same states of Eastern Europe, which are seen struggling to have urged a resolution of which had presumably considered all the effects and contraindications . In addition, after the threat to suspend glia economic union Jutes to the Eastern countries, it added the possibility of making a partial closure of the Schengen area, to be applied to countries that do not want to accept refugees. This solution eventually would separate the states that have a sincere commitment to the community principles, compared to those who joined for pure convenience. Like the ability to stop the funds, even to stop the free movement sparked strong protests from the countries of eastern Europe and Austria, demonstrating how their attitude is the result of pure hypocrisy. Their intention is to leave to other states the burden of relief and acceptance of refugees, perhaps encouraging the creation of alternative routes that eliminate their territories from the routes of migration, while maintaining the benefits of membership in Brussels. This is yet another proof of the need for re-founding the Union on terms stricter and more binding obligations which can only match the current advantages, too broad, without any apparent reason. The current scenario should also impose a serious reflection on the desirability of having such close relations with illiberal states as well as the present-day Turkey, whose problem is not only the most serious yet, the treatment reserved for the press resulting in the denial of civil rights, but also the approach adopted against the Islamic state, characterized by strong ambiguity. But the problem remains the handling of refugees, which is likely to increase if not form the conditions for these biblical migrations. Requires major investment to give a dignified welcome, but controlled, to refugees fleeing wars and this liquidity can be reversed by the contributions allocated to the states opposed to the reception, but, of equal step, we need a strong and authoritative diplomatic presence in the places of war, able to stop conflicts and, consequently migration, war events that have caused.