EU: for those who does not welcome the refugees, the penalty must be political as well as economic

The idea of ​​the European Commission to provide a fine quite substantial, there is talk of 250,000 Euros, borne by the European Union member states for every refugee who is denied the right to asylum, with a view to redistribution of migrants, is new legislation, which, finally, provides for a penalty for those who act outside the Community logic. Deciding to be a penalty for this case study this case, it means stand up for the public interest against the special and represents a quantum leap in the discussion of the refugee management. This is only a first step towards developing a more able to provide for more efficient management mechanism, however, the decision opens the way for a certain regulation of the phenomenon of migrant management. However, this decision, despite the positive political aspects, could hide the pitfalls from the practical point of view the execution of sanctions, through the collection of the amount due. In fact it can expect from the states that will be most affected by this measure a resistance to be subject to fines issued. Probably the states that will be most affected would be those of Central and Eastern Europe, those who have greater resistance to redistribution of refugees, remained in charge of the countries of the Mediterranean borders. If it is true that these rules provided they have not applied comprehensively countries, like those of the past Dublin agreement, this was due to the absence of a European Union aid, which has abandoned the arrival of refugees to countries management often independent of the phenomenon. Handle real emergencies has involved a considerable outlay and a substantial financial commitment in countries with economic conditions in a state of crisis and the easing of controls has been almost a natural consequence. This does not justify the absence of checks on migrants, but the attitude of rejection, often due to internal electoral logic, the eastern states has been, over the serious moral fact, a cause of political tension for the European Union as a whole. Now it is legitimate to expect of counter moves that tend to nullify the decision of Brussels. For this reason it would be better to operate the source of funding and not with subsequent sanctions. The hypothesis of the cut of that contribution in those countries that were opposed to the redistribution of refugees, moreover, had already been made, but it had fallen without substantial accessions. Now, with this decision, it should be, however, shown in the center of the discussion, as a withholding of economic aid would be an easier method of collection and also a more relevant political sanction: in fact, the value of a fine for an argument generally it appears significantly lower than a curtailment of a financing of a Community quota for breaking a founding principle, that of solidarity, the European Union. The value of the principle of solidarity, which is not only the general towards other human beings, but that particular and more relevant politically, solidarity between member states, needs to be better recognized for taking a legal relevance of main importance for regulating relations between the member nations in Brussels. Until now it has allowed the European Union membership was still permitted on too many special cases, which constituted differences and disparities can generate tensions between states and consequent internal stresses, which determined precarious political balance inside the 'Union. These situations must be increasingly circumscribed to make prevail a sort of common law, at least on major issues that concern the structures themselves supranational organization. Humanitarian Emergencies certainly fall in those aspects that need to be regulated in a uniform manner throughout the Union, with appropriate aid to countries that are on the borders and that are located immediately to manage migratory phenomena and the subsequent division of the people in the other states. If it does not it is correct to sanction those states that do not conform to these general requirements, but not only with economic sanctions, but especially with agriculture policies such allegations to hit their ability to maneuver within the Union. Precisely for this reason the decrease, until the interruption of the total EU funding, would constitute the most appropriate measure to give due importance to the violation of the norm of solidarity between states, as a main prerequisite to justify the presence within the European Union .