The answer to that question depends on who you ask. If you ask it to the electorate the answer is a more and more resounding 'yes, now, please'. If you ask it t

The answer to that question depends on who you ask. If you ask it to the electorate the answer is a more and more resounding 'yes, now, please'. If you ask it to the majority of politicians the answer ranges from "we can not, we're bound by international treaties" to "you're a racist/fascist/*-phobe for asking such questions'. There are a few politicians who have made it their motto to outdo each-other in calling for more stringent border policies and those politicians get a lot of votes but they mostly end up being sidelined through what is euphemistically dubbed a 'cordon sanitaire'. If one of them ends up having some power eventually the result is nearly always the same: they do no do what they have been promising all those years, pointing left and right for their reasons for not fulfilling their promises. In theory the political systems we have here in western Europe which are based around forming coalition governments should allow for reaching compromises between the 'open borders' factions and the opposing 'our nation comes first' factions. In reality things often don't work that way due to the practice of shunning those parties which claim to want to act on the calls for more stringent migration policies, labelling them 'far-right/racist/xenophobic' and turning them into pariahs. The proponents of this practice do not seem to realise all they achieve is more polarisation and further radicalisation on all sides of the spectrum and that a single large event could end up giving power to one of those radicalised factions whether that be in their envisioned 'nazi takeover' style or along the lines of the premise of Houellebecq's 'Soumission' which foresees islamic law being implemented in France. A more likely outcome is for more countries to drop out of the EU to create local blocks like the Visegrad countries and the Nordic countries.