> Europe is not the largest economey in the World at all, indeed how do you define rich when you look at debt you will see many EU countries actualy have the la

> Europe is not the largest economey in the World at all, indeed how do you define rich when you look at debt you will see many EU countries actualy have the largest debt inthe World, that is not rich! I did not say rich, I said large. It is, objectively, the largest, measured by GDP. Of course you can look at many measures, feel free to suggest your own, but currently economists tend to look at GDP and on that basis the EU is the world's largest economy period. > Real issue is how the World handles asylum as the current system was designed for small volumes of people, groups, individuals and not as we have seen, whole countries. Sort of. The laws and treaties were actually shaped for large volumes of people, in times much worse than today. For example I mentioned the first world war, where 1 million Belgians fled north to a country of 6 million. That was just one of the many refugee groups during that time, but even this small example completely dwarfs the 2-3 million refugees that currently 'flood' into the EU which has a size of 500 million people and is orders of magnitude richer than the Netherlands was during WW1. And it's not like we've not seen this happen before in more recent times. Take the Yugoslav wars, 4 million people were displaced, many of them coming to EU countries in the way Syrians do, today. So of course, our system does not consistently have free capacity for millions of new people, e.g. in terms of housing... that makes no economic sense. But our countries do have the resources to create such capacity and take these people in, as do our countries have the obligation to on the basis of treaties which indeed were formed not for small volumes or during easy times, but for large volumes on the basis of experiences in times much worse than today. > You could euqaly ask why many Middle Eastern countries who have far less debt and far more wealth seem to not wish any refugees of the same religion into there country and yet they are happy to spend it on luxury items. Yes, you could. And the answer is, they're shitty countries with shitty leaders. Nobody defends them. But I don't live there, I don't vote there, I have no influence there. I live in Europe and I have a small vote, a small voice, and little influence and that's why I talk about what we're doing. One way or another this issue must be addressed, let's not be kids and yell 'but they're doing nothing, either'. That's inhumane. Imagine a child is drowning in a pool and there's 10 people who can save him, some of whom are not clothed like you are and won't get their clothes wet, some of them who are better swimmers, some of them who were already in the pool having fun anyway... But they don't save the kid. Do you stand there and yell at them to do something? Or do you save the kid and get angry at them? > Equaly the whole aslyum system needs a overhall I think everyone agrees with you. There's nobody from any political perspective who thinks things are going well right now. > Indeed the UK has and does take refugee's, not those who break into Europe who happily paid criminals but those at refugee camps, those unable or unwilling to pay people smugglers to make such journeys, those disabled who are unable to travel of there own accord. Don't talk to me about the UK, they're almost as bad as those middle eastern countries you refer to. Which excludes by the way, say Jordan, which has 600 thousand, not Turkey which has 2-3 million, not Lebanon which has 1 million, on a population of 4.5 million! Don't ignore them. But the UK is almost as bad as e.g. Saudi Arabia (one of the wests' favourite partners in the middle east, don't know why). The UK granted 13 thousand people asylum in 2015, that's offensive and morally wrong. Also don't talk to me about illegal this and criminal that. When you know a tsunami is about to hit your city and you need to get away, do you steal a car and drive out the city or sit there and die? Of course you take the car, and it'd be illegal, and nobody with a brain should give a shit. But pundits use that to dehumanise refugees and act like they're criminal and exploitative, when in reality they're fleeing for their lives and need help, often taking huge risks with their own lives to get to safety. And guess why this crime is needed? Because countries are not taking their responsibility, countries like the UK which take in 13 thousand people, that sort of behaviour calls for breaking the law. If millions are fleeing and one of the top 20 most powerful countries in the world takes in a tiny fraction of a percent of them legally, that's when people resort to crime to get to safety. > Equally also worth remembering that by absorbing these people en-mass then erosion of culture and loss of that will happen, on many levels and that is a loss. I don't feel threatened by 3 million human beings joining a diverse union of 500 million people. What kind of 'en masse' are you talking about? Of course there are risks, there will be issues, there is friction, OF COURSE. And my question is, SO WHAT? Do we leave these millions to rot? The answer is no. Further, if we do not let them in, they'll still come, but now we don't know who or where they are, and then you have problems with a group of people who can't work, can't get education, can't get decent housing.