The end of Schengen... the end of the EU?

[ProfessorPreciseaBug]

If Germany is about to set up boarder controls between themselves and Austria, will it spell the begining of the end of the EU superstate?

It will certainly piss of a hell of a lot of Germans by making their drive to the skiiing in Austria a hell of a lot slower and irritating!

he's demanding more control at external borders, so putting the pressure on Greece, Hungary and so on

Which is pretty bloody rich from a German, whose Chancellor has done her utmost to make this migrant crisis what it is!

I hope so. The EU is a nice idea but its expanded too quickly.

reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Daily_Arrival_Greece_29012016.pdf

Arrivals in January 2015/1,694 people.
Arrivals in January 2016/55,924 people.

Schengen is fucked. Seriously.

Actually, Europe has a migrant crisis. It's a well known issue from several months ago.
Crisis that is fueled by the mass exodus from Syria.
Very little is done to support migrants who have to choose death, hunger or disease in Syria, disease or violence in refugee camps or the dangerous trip to Europe.
Very little is done by wider Europe to deal with the refugees arriving at Greece and Hungary.

Reinstating borders only means people get stuck in countries that can't support them.
The EU must (if they are not already) deploy measures akin to a natural disaster and work on checking and distributing people.

If any terrorist crosses a border they can still be lost within a single country and attack a major target within it. They could gather at Marseille for a Paris attack, or attack Brussels if they gather in Belgium. More internal borders won't make us much safer.

work on checking and distributing people

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. We do not owe anyone from outside Europe a new life here. If we allow people to enter Europe illegally and then reward them with a residency in an EU country we will never solve this problem.

We need to create safe zones in their countries, help to set up schools, hospitals and economic areas within those zones to provide jobs and livelihoods and provide what aid is needed in terms of food, medicine and shelter - but this is NOT just Europe's problem and its certainly not the UK's problem to fix.

The UN should step in to administer a safety/relief effort to which all the rich countries of the world should contribute. By keeping people in their home countries they will then be able to return to their native areas once the war is over and help to rebuild. Allowing the most able to leave just creates a brain drain down the line which further disables and destabilises the country and the wider region.

Only the most vulnerable should be brought to Europe and not on a 'whoever survives the sea crossing basis'. They should be selected and brought over, but only in exceptional cases. Anyone who comes here illegally should be returned.

For a lot of residents who are concerned about the overall immigration issiues, rather than this specific crisis, it's the failure to return those who have failed to meet the requirements for refugee/immigrant status.
The thousands of economic migrants who just 'disappear' into the gaps in the machine.
It harms everyone to have thousands of illegal workers in impoverished, near-slavery operations with no security or safety or basic human rights.

By keeping people in their home countries they will then be able to return to their native areas once the war is over and help to rebuild
Surely you understand this is not possible if the country is a war zone...

Only the most vulnerable should be brought to Europe and not on a 'whoever survives the sea crossing basis'.

I agree in part. But you can't bring only the vulnerable and separate families.
And the international community is not bothered about conditions in refugee camps until the refugees start crossing their borders because camps are overpopulated, disease ridden, and the host countries simply can't cope or offer jobs.
Nobody cares how Turkey or Jordan are coping until pressure is/was put on our own borders.

"I agree in part. But you can't bring only the vulnerable and separate families. "

I think she meant "Bring in families from Syria but not strapping young single men, and definitely not strapping young single men from Morocco and Tunisia." (I could be wrong, though).

I'm not suggesting separating families - quite the opposite. At the moment we have a 'survival of the fittest' policy going on. So the strapping young men are arriving in Europe on their own, while leaving the women/DC/elderly behind to fend for themselves. Those young men will be just what their country needs down the line when it comes to rebuilding and why on earth are we 'helping' the ones who need help hleast? Those who've got to Europe so far (the fittest and most able), have won the lottery! They've been promised a fast track to residency in W. Europe. IMO if we're going to help the most vulnerable then we're doing the exact opposite.

Surely you understand this is not possible if the country is a war zone...

It won't always be and in order to rebuild you need the most able to be part of that rebuilding process - not 2000 miles away making a new life for themselves in Gothenburg or Cologne.

At the moment we have a 'survival of the fittest' policy going on.

Yes, because most governments have simply left people in refugee camps in countries that no longer can cope with the sheer numbers arriving through their borders.

It has been the strapping young men (but not only, because families have also tried to cross, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story) that have pushed consciences by coming to Europe instead of staying back in the camps. Young men often sent ahead by their own families.

If we had been prepared to receive or support better conditions for those refugees from the start, we wouldn't have had such an "invasion" of Europe.

By keeping people in their home countries they will then be able to return to their native areas once the war is over and help to rebuild

This was your original sentence. In Syria people simply can't stay in their home country and then return to their native areas.

What do you consider home countries? Surely not Jordan, for a Syrian...

The Syrian war won't go on forever. Syria is wrecked, but it can be rebuilt and it will need its most able citizens to do so. And no, Jordan is NOT home for a Syrian

So, what are those people supposed to do while the war lasts?

You haven't answered my question. What do you consider home countries?

What do you suggest is actually done with the millions of Syrians fleeing the country?
Should they stay in?

Can you actually answer with practical suggestions?

I've answered all your questions already in my previous answers. You're being deliberately obtuse.

I'm certainly not the one being obtuse.

We need to create safe zones in their countries, help to set up schools, hospitals and economic areas within those zones to provide jobs and livelihoods and provide what aid is needed in terms of food, medicine and shelter

This was your suggestion.

The vast majority of refugees are from Syria (not a group of countries).
If you can explain how "we" are going to get in Syria (without permission from the Syrian government) and magically create those safe zones, economic areas and so on, please do so.
I'm sure the international community would like to know how.