The story of the ship refused by the Italian ports, beyond the certainly unfortunate situation, has had the merit of highlighting the hypocrisy of the individual states in the face of the migratory emergency and the political inadequacy of the European institutions. In fact it was enough that an Italian politician, minister for about ten days, would raise his voice to bring out all the contradictions about the European spirit, which until now have been carried forward in a false way. If on the human and moral side the ban on the Italian interior minister is deplorable, on the political side he has raised in a practical way the issue of the sharing of refugees and the problem of first assistance. Until now, and it is an officially recognized fact from Brussels, Italy, and Greece, have been left alone to face migratory emergencies simply because they are the southern borders of Europe, in particular Italy has lavish to face the greater influx of migrants because of the vicinity with the African coasts. The countries that have condemned the Italian state, France and Spain, have become protagonists in the past and Paris still today, of episodes of rejection far more serious, of serious behaviors of the respective police, who have operated violently and exceeding the limit of legality. Recall for Spain several episodes in Ceuta and Melilla, Spanish enclaves on African territory and the rejection of a refugee ship by the previous government. For France, the closure of the pass of Ventimiglia and the rejection of migrants who attempted the Alpine route in prohibitive weather conditions, can easily equate the politics of Paris with immigration to that of Austria and that of the countries of the Eastern bloc. Yet these behaviors, which created deaths and suffering, do not prevent the two countries from judging Italy, responsible for an act that is certainly not shared, but which did not produce victims. This hypocrisy, so manifest, denounces a poor or no reliability of France and Spain as interlocutors on the issue of the management of immigrants, and the Spanish gesture for now concerns only one ship and does not yet allow a positive judgment on the willingness to share the emergency with Italy. Even the attitude of Europe seemed fearsome and inappropriate, if we can positively greet the announced desire to revise the Treaty of Dublin and allocate a substantial sum for the management of migrants, we can not but think that this is due to initiative to block Italian ports. The previous Italian requests, beyond declarations that did not go beyond word solidarity, have always had limited practical effects. Unfortunately, the spontaneous thought that springs from it is that previous governments, which have always had an irreproachable attitude on these subjects, have erred in following the rules without ever opting for acts of force, even limited ones. No one comes out well from this situation, certainly not Italy forced to an action that was better never to see, France and Spain who turned out to be political dwarfs, trying to exploit a contingency on which they had no right to speak and finally Europe he denounced his structural limitations, accentuated by an embarrassing yielding due to an act, serious, but all in all limited. What authority can claim to have a supranational institution that changes its attitude to a decision that does not seem entirely legal? As for the attitude towards the eastern countries, Brussels shows to bow to those who raise their voices demonstrating to have a very poor political consistency. The advent of the Italian populist government is discovering a weakness of the European institutions, which even in a context of non-positive judgment, did not seem credible, a weakness that exposes the Union to the turmoil of a very difficult contingent world moment and expresses a once again, the need for a radical and effective reform of the European institutions, capable of governing internal and external emergencies.