Schengen, like many other European achievements, was a half measure. It has dismantled the borders between the nation-states and pulled down barriers to the free movement of persons, but has not created a common external border nor a common European border guard. In other words, it has pursued only a negative integration. A positive integration would require more than Frontex, the current border agency: more competences, staff and equipment and a joint intelligence service. But to focus on border controls, though necessary, is not sufficient. To believe that this is the only provision to address the refugee crisis would mean to give in to security obsessions and to the conception of Europe as a fortress, a vision that ignores the constraints of the globalization era.

On the other hand, it is true that the limits of the European structures and policies that regulate migration flows have encouraged those governments and political forces which think that the solution to the migration crisis lies in raising walls and barriers and returning to nationalism. The unending, and so far unresolved, quarrel about the allocation of 160,000 refugees – a trifling figure if we consider that Turkey gives hospitality to 3 million people – shows how far the fragmentation  of the EU has progressed.  Theoretically, the problem has a simple solution: entrust the European Commission with the task of establishing binding quotas on member states to admit migrants. But practically, national governments are not willing to accept limitations on their sovereignty. Moreover,  border controls have been temporarily reintroduced in Germany, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Hungary, Sweden, Slovenia, Malta, Belgium and France. This provision not only does not solve the migration crisis, but has an enormous cost. A research by the Bertelsmann Foundation asserts that a permanent return to border controls could cost $530 billion of GDP growth to the European economy over the next decade. That is equivalent to the restoration of customs duties. The estimated cost of one-hour stop of a truck for border control is 55 euros.

This  means that Schengen is moribund and the operation of dismantling the EU is underway.  Europe is sick. Its malady lies in its deep political divisions and the lack of solidarity. Pope Francis has described Europe as a grandmother “weary, aging, no longer fertile and vital” and added that “the great ideals that inspired Europe seem to have lost their appeal.”

If it is a dream to believe that migration flows can be stopped at national borders, it is necessary to try to address the problem at root, i.e. in the countries where migrants flee to. This is the main way to lighten the pressure of mass migration. The main flows originate from three failed states torn by civil war – Syria, Iraq and Libya –, which provide fertile ground for the penetration of ISIS. While from Syria and Iraq flow mostly refugees, from Libya flow economic migrants, who come from Sub-Saharan Africa.

The distinction between refugees and economic migrants is based on the Geneva Refugee Convention adopted in 1951. A refugee is a person who is fleeing from his country to save his life and preserve his freedom. Instead, an economic migrant is a person who decides to move in order to improve the future prospects for himself and his family. Whether migrants are fleeing hunger or war is morally irrelevant. For people whose life is at risk, there is no difference to die either way, from hunger or war. And yet, those who are classified in the first category are designated as economic migrants and therefore can be repelled.

While the EU has been unable to reach an agreement on migrants reception, it has understood that the real problem is to intervene in the countries of origin of migration flows. The agreement with Turkey, the country which gives hospitality to the largest number of refugees, is an attempt to address this problem. But now the agreement is in question. Erdogan declared that Turkey will not change its anti-terrorism law, a condition posed by the EU to allow visa-free travel of Turkish citizens. He has widely used that law to silence his critics. The latest example is the conviction to five years of two prominent Turkish journalists for revealing state secrets regarding alleged government arms smuggling to ISIS. The EU-Turkey agreement  has been severely criticized for granting Turkey the status of safe country for refugees, as there is evidence that police has repelled refugees coming from Syria and has killed some of them.

With the closure of the Balkan route, Syrian refugees are expected to reach Italy through the sea. But our future's greatest challenge lies in economic migrants coming from Africa, whose population is expected to double by 2050 and its median age is between ten and twenty years. These data tell us that the attraction force of Europe – a continent of aging people and affected by a declining birth rate – will be irresistible and that the migration flows are destined to last for decades. Between 1880 and 1950, 27 million migrants left Italy. The exodus began to reduce only with the industrialization  of the country. Africa is not substantially different and needs a similar solution, even though the development rates of some countries suggest that the process can evolve much more quickly.

Italy is in the forefront of migration flows from Africa. This is the reason why the government has proposed a “migration compact”, a sort of Marshall Plan for Africa, which was welcomed by the EU. Now the discussion is open on how to finance the investment plan.

The challenge Europe has to face is between the revival of the old demon of nationalism, which jeopardizes the EU's cohesion, and the return to solidarity, the only principle that can lead to unify foreign and security policy and to give the EU the role of global actor. David Cameron launched the alarm in a speech at the British Museum last 9 May in the framework of the celebration of Europe Day.  He stated that Brexit would accelerate the disintegration of the EU and increase the risk of war in Europe. “Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt?”, he said. It is since the end of WWII that we did not hear a head of government evoking the phantom of war in Europe. If the EU falls apart, that risk will become real.

The first goal the EU has to pursue is the establishment of peace in the Mediterranean and more specifically in Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Yemen and Libya. A strengthened EU will acquire the authority to summon a Conference on security and cooperation in the Mediterranean, able to stabilize the region, to rebuild the failed states and promote an investment plan for Africa and the Middle East.