Originally posted by Nibedicus
48-52.That's actually not that big a gap. How different do you guys think it would have been if the EU decided to take a milder, more cautious approach to the refugee/migrant crisis? Which country/governement/politician/etc do you guys think is truly to blame for all this?
I remember reading in huffpost forum about a liberal being for some form of controlled (as opposed to the "take our country, it's yours" crowd) screening for the refugees to avoid letting non-refugee troublemakers in and he literally got crucified in huffpost. His point was that the EU was wasting a lot of political capital on a huge risk and that if they just take more cautious steps and at least show that they did what they could, then they would avoid giving up too much political goodwill in case something bad happens. Do you guys think recent events have proven his point?
Not a European and I only know what the news tells me, but I have found this topic interesting as of late.
I don't think it would be any different if the migrant crisis was dealt with differently because the issues have been going on for more than a decade with the EU. I don't think the migrant crisis hugely affected the results to be honest.
I wouldn't bother reading Huffington Post. It seems like a propaganda piece. And they seem to have really crap editors. If you look at the pages when Donald Trump got elected it looks like a child in clip art edited the webpage.
I don't think the UK should be taking in refugees anyway as it is. Our housing system is bad as it is. That doesn't mean they have to be left to be abandoned in the sea. More of the Gulf countries could take in more migrants. Look at Jordan, has taken a giant amount of migrants for it's size and look at how many the richer larger countries have taken in.
I never understand why Scandinavian and European countries get so much flack for not taking as many migrants in as we "should". It's not up to us. There own people should take them under their wing.