As we start what could be a defining year for the world, it's important to remember why, despite their many flaws, your vote can have an impact on the European institutions.
When somebody you disagree with ideologically is elected in a legitimate democratic process, in this case an American process, that is "perilous?"
"Elect anti-immigration nationalists and be prepared for more stories of men, women and children dying in the Mediterranean Sea," what utter nonsense. This insinuates it is the responsibility of EU tax-paying citizens to enable and accommodate people engaging in illegal immigration.
Regardless of political affiliation, it is time to realise that the surge of the European right over the last few years has been largely driven by the inability of current governments to address glaring policy problems such as unchecked migration, which has been shown in Sweden to have a positive correlation with increases in violent crime and stress on public infrastructure. Your stance here, that everybody who votes for parties adopting a more controlled platform for immigration (when the negative consequences are so obvious) are "nationalist," is incredibly misguided.
I expected more from someone who has decided to dedicate their career and free time to politics and current events, to not be so out of touch with reality.
Moving on to your remarks, I did not describe a Trump victory as 'perilous', merely that, from an EU perspective, a Trump victory would come with a number of potential issues such as reduced support to Ukraine, a potential trade war and a more insular America First approach. This is what I meant by 'perils'.
Secondly, to your point on migration. I would like to deal with this in a full article at some stage so hopefully you have subscribed. The EU's member states do have a right to protect asylum seekers and to avoid illegal migration, the EU should be providing more legal pathways.
Finally, 'a more controlled platform for immigration'. I agree that we need more dialogue and that an honest, open and informative discussion between citizens and governments across the EU should be happening, allowing citizens to express their views. Nonetheless, when you see the AFD discussing mass deportations or Vox submitting proposals to deny Muslim citizens Spanish citizenship, it's hard to disagree with the statement that some of these people are 'nationalists'
Two things:
When somebody you disagree with ideologically is elected in a legitimate democratic process, in this case an American process, that is "perilous?"
"Elect anti-immigration nationalists and be prepared for more stories of men, women and children dying in the Mediterranean Sea," what utter nonsense. This insinuates it is the responsibility of EU tax-paying citizens to enable and accommodate people engaging in illegal immigration.
Regardless of political affiliation, it is time to realise that the surge of the European right over the last few years has been largely driven by the inability of current governments to address glaring policy problems such as unchecked migration, which has been shown in Sweden to have a positive correlation with increases in violent crime and stress on public infrastructure. Your stance here, that everybody who votes for parties adopting a more controlled platform for immigration (when the negative consequences are so obvious) are "nationalist," is incredibly misguided.
I expected more from someone who has decided to dedicate their career and free time to politics and current events, to not be so out of touch with reality.
Hi Alex,
Many thanks for your engagement with the article.
Moving on to your remarks, I did not describe a Trump victory as 'perilous', merely that, from an EU perspective, a Trump victory would come with a number of potential issues such as reduced support to Ukraine, a potential trade war and a more insular America First approach. This is what I meant by 'perils'.
Secondly, to your point on migration. I would like to deal with this in a full article at some stage so hopefully you have subscribed. The EU's member states do have a right to protect asylum seekers and to avoid illegal migration, the EU should be providing more legal pathways.
To your point on Sweden, the Irish police force have found no link between asylum seekers and increased crime (https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2023/03/15/no-link-between-asylum-seekers-and-increased-crime-authorities-state/).
Finally, 'a more controlled platform for immigration'. I agree that we need more dialogue and that an honest, open and informative discussion between citizens and governments across the EU should be happening, allowing citizens to express their views. Nonetheless, when you see the AFD discussing mass deportations or Vox submitting proposals to deny Muslim citizens Spanish citizenship, it's hard to disagree with the statement that some of these people are 'nationalists'
Hope you continue reading!