Just because Europe and the Western world is used to borders not changing anymore in its own sphere since the end of WWII, it doesn’t mean that they can’t and the end of history has been reached.
Nation-building and -forming is still an ongoing, dynamic process. It can still undergo changes.
In the rest of the world it even does so.

Tja, Bonner Wasserwerk - Verzeihung, deutscher Bundestag und liebe Regierung -: Vor dem Karl-Marx-Kopf in Chemnitz und auf zahlreichen Plätzen Berlins und anderer Städte fällt euch jetzt euer in dieser Form geliebter deutscher Staat auf die Füße, den ihr über Jahrzehnte mitgestaltet und zu dem gemacht habt, was er ist.

So ist das, wenn man das Tafelsilber an private Unternehmen auslagert, Bildung, soziales Miteinander und Recht sich selbst überlässt, und die Regierenden irgendwann ein Haufen voller Hampelmänner und -frauen ist, die von nichts 'ne Ahnung haben und bloß noch ein Spielball ihrer zahlreichen Berater sind.

Am Ende streitet man sich um Fantasiegebilde, Unfähigkeit und das fehlende Eingeständnis, dass man weder die richtigen Antworten auf bestehende Probleme, noch irgendetwas unter Kontrolle hat...

Andererorts nennt man so etwas einen "failed state".

Kleiner Trost für euch: In anderen Ländern aus euren eigenen Reihen sieht es auch nicht viel besser aus.

Shall someone tell you what's the biggest sign of politics meeting its end of wisdom? Or being just controlled by various lobbies seeking power?
If they go on bringing suggestions for the solution of a problem upon the table that haven't made it to get turned into reality over the last 5 years.
Saying, there were reasons they were refused over and over again by certain groups even among politicians. And it continues to be so, if they still get turned down in the present day.
But that also reveals another thing: The non-existence of unity even among the lobbies seeking power through the politicians. Different groups fight for power and for getting their way to be the lead for all others.
If that didn't result in a certain direction being pursued persistently after such a great amount of time, then you can assume there is no such thing like a firm agreement between the differing parties how to act. Still the fight over the flag lasts... With outcome still relatively unknown too, whether good or bad for them and for all the people these groups administrate.

What would somebody say who died 10 years ago about the fuss that takes place today?
In politics as well as society as well as technology - how things in general developed during the last decade?
Would he think "the better that I have died, that's even worse than when I was still alive"?
Or would he say "I should have stayed, just to try to make a change in all these things"?
What about somebody who killed himself?
Would he be happy about his deed?
Would he scream in horror how the world has become, compared to 10 years ago?
What would his words be about Facebook, about streaming, about the current state the world is in - the economical crisis, the West's fight with Russia, the war in Syria, Libya, newly grown information sources that didn't exist back then?
Also, what would he say about culture, about current trends? About the rise of German Schlager, the dropping in the background of Hiphop, the rise of softened Electro House and the current remake mania in Hollywood?
What would he say if he heard that now it's a trend for the lost youth to travel to the Middle East and play "Call Of Duty" for real - voluntarily?

Sometimes it would be better if someone was alive again who didn't follow all these developments, just to give you a more distanced opinion, free from the political correctness of today, free from the frames and shapes which society and public likes to think in during current times.
Having been gone opens a door to potentially give you new ideas. Ideas you wouldn't have if you talked to somebody who's a child of his time and narrow-minded as the current episode is.
Too long ago may become a problem as the changes over 20 and 30 years or more are too huge for someone to comprehend in a small amount of time. There would be the danger of becoming overwhelmed by impressions.
Many things changed in a longer episode of time.

But even during the last 10 years, you have some things which totally took a major development, while you have others where you would say "business as usual". Nothing has changed.
The stupification of mankind hasn't stopped, quite the opposite, it has increased. Through the invention of smartphones and social media shifting from a text-based to a photo- and video-based issue. Bullying and mobbing hasn't vanished from the face of the earth, its results only have become quieter and no-one talks about it anymore loudly. Children themselves don't take a gun into their hands anymore nessecarily to make it known.
Adults don't have more time for their offspring, they even whip themselves some more and force themselves onto their place of work.
Poverty didn't disappear. And the rich have even grown richer than they used to be.
The only thing that maybe has become different, making an interesting change in the pack of cards, that keeping secrets has become more critical for the states. Not only is it more of an importance for them to survive than before, but also the means to do it need to scatter because it is more likely that somebody might get something out and show it to the public. Not all people entrusted with confidential information still agree on or are convinced of keeping their secrets anymore.
Also, there has grown an echo chamber which specialized in picking these things up and spread it as their own propaganda, just like you're used to it from the notorious usual suspects.
This changes the game of what to believe and what not to believe.

Someone who died earlier and was sick of this system might find its joy with the new circumstances...

The EU made a contract with Turkey about "returning" refugees from Greece and keeping future ones from their island. Well, not even beginning to talk about how much it disregards international conventions they hold up in high esteem if it suits them and that it qualifies for the term "human trafficking" - a look on the map should give you another error in this wannabe-"well thought out" plan.
They always told how much they don't want those people that come from the Balkans, but where are the Balkans? Are they East and South of Turkey? No, they aren't.
Who comes from the Balkans doesn't need to go via Turkey. He already is positioned far ahead on the route. And just returning them to their homey countries doesn't make them not reappear again, as practice shows. Who stops you in these states after what the NATO has left of Yugoslavia? It is rather likely you find help in this over there because of the powers the West liked to work together with in this conflict.
So, what use is it to lock out only those refugees which flee from the warzones you created, when just a big chunk of those who also want to come already sit far behind that border you're trying to close?
Much more, if you don't have the personnel and the time to get a hold of dispatching these?

Watch the world go down...
You won't know when the next revolution knocks on the door. You won't know when the next big change in the world is pending and stands on the brink of claiming what it wants.
You'll only notice when you're in the middle of it.

On the occasion of another climate summit: If you wanna do nature a real favor, mankind needs to stop living like a lord and draw on unlimited resources - and not just China, India and all those countries which now start to develop to the standard of the so-called "first world countries".
They also need to stop in the West to regard it as a self-evidence to use and throw away, to regard it as a justified measure to invent new things, cut out the old ones and produce the new ones like there is no end only because they can't reach new economic growth with producing the old equipment, and to produce worse things like energy saving lamps instead of regular bulbs made of glass, plate and tungsten only because some lobbyist with no specialized knowledge says they're environmentally more acceptable.
Above all, as radical and evil as it seems, mankind needs to put on serious thought to the fact that their wasteful lifestyle isn't able to be reached by all people in the world if the world contains more than 7 billion people. Either you can continue and have the least percentage of the human world have access to this standard of living, or you need to step down and live very basic from what the industrialized world currently calls its "normality", or there can only be at the most 2 billion people throughout the world which live like that so the resources they consume is enough for this mass taken from one planet. As it neither is healthy for the earth as well as for other planets to exploit their resources of metal ore, nor it is going to cause the world a lot of joy being contamined by radiation that exists throughout space.

The Schengen Agreement can also be temporarily suspended. There is no need or must for it to be active for all eternity. If the situation demands it...

It seems to appear that now is a time where all the sins of the Western world that they commited on the rest of the planet during the last 30 years (at least) come raining down on them.

Something that can also call "phony": German journalism talks like "those evil countries in Europe which erect fences and barbed wire to decrease the stream of refugees flooding their countries", but on the other hand the government that pays them and leaves them room to express the points of view, that doesn't forcefully switch to the test pattern whenever they raise their voice, it is there at the front giving aid and supporting those countries through the means of the EU to build measures to decimate the flow. They even send personnel or they send troops of Frontex which contains part of their personnel, and there is no caring about human rights or anything else that's not in the interest of their state.
What problem is there to honestly name this?
Or doesn't it suit the one who writes the agenda?