Failure to reform the Dublin Treaty is a bad sign for Europe

The definition of a flexible compulsory solidarity mechanism is the bureaucratic definition of the set of proposals that should reform, but not supersede, the Dublin regulation; in fact, Germany and the Nordic countries, which were the most popular destinations for migrants, were added to the opposition to the unfair treaty made by Vienna and the countries of the Visegrad pact. If it is true that migratory pressure has created internal problems of a political nature in these countries, which governments prefer to govern in the easiest way, i.e. by seeking internal rules within the Union for distribution, it is equally true that the coastal countries most subject to arrivals, Italy and Greece above all, but also Spain, remain responsible for the migrants who land on their shores, leaving the question of a national nature and not yet completely supranational, that is, the responsibility of Brussels. Regardless of the fact that the approval of the new regulation must be approved by the member weights, we are faced with yet another improvised solution in the face of a problem that still cannot be curbed, for which solutions that go beyond European borders are needed, but which management is needed such that it must be able to guarantee reception without giving the sovereign and anti-European political forces the opportunity to have an excuse for their existence. The new mechanism provides that the countries of the Union can choose to provide aid to another state in difficulty with migratory flows with relocation or repatriation, according to quotas calculated through data on gross domestic product and number of the population; however, this redistribution could be little more than on a voluntary basis, in fact the possibility of the refusal of redistribution would be contemplated, offset by the obligation to manage the repatriation of migrants. Although Brussels presents the plan as a fair compromise between the countries that physically welcome migrants and the nations that reject them, the mechanism still appears too biased in favor of the latter, especially since it does not provide for effective sanctions, other than that of the obligation to welcome migrants who have not been able to get expatriate. The absence of tougher sanctioning rules, such as the cutting of European contributions, leaves the Union at the mercy of countries that have obviously not implemented the founding ideals of Europe and that use the Union only as an ATM, without obligation. The feeling is that the permanence of these states is functional to German economic interests, thanks, first of all to the low cost of labor, it would be necessary, instead, to question the real general convenience of these states within a Union of which they not only refuse obligations, but often enact laws contrary to European law. If we want to look at the positive aspects, which are few, we can record a timid progress on the search for a common policy on migratory flows, but which, on the aspect of the reform of the Dublin Treaty, leaves everything unchanged. The problem is also moral, and it is an aspect from which Brussels cannot continue to escape, limiting itself to colorless and pragmatic communications on solidarity with migrants. The cases of the concentration camps in Libya or the situation of the camps in Greece cannot be tolerated by those who set themselves up as examples of civilization. Italy and Greece have their faults, but they had to find questionable solutions because they did not have European help, however, these solutions were also beneficial for Brussels. The common attitude is marked by hypocrisy, which conditions political action in an attempt to bring together countries with too many conflicting interests and visions. If the economic aspect is still predominant, the political one can no longer be postponed: Brussels must be able to take a step towards that unity of purpose, which can ensure the future of the Union. Timid attitudes such as the current one on migrants and, above all, on the sanctioning mechanisms of those who refuse the sharing of burdens, indicate an approach that is too unconvinced which only serves those who want to take advantage of the opportunity to maintain a weak Union from a political point of view and, therefore, it will not be able to find that role necessary to balance the US and China. What is claimed is a short-term vision that also harms countries that do not understand that only an equitable sharing of all the burdens, of which the problem of migrants is only the most evident, can also guarantee the sharing of benefits, especially financial ones. . In the end, this is the crucial point that will determine European existence as an overall vision: those who do not understand it are better off getting out of it, as did Great Britain.