Well you would be right if it was actually a 55/45 split. Maybe you should read the article.
Or you could have just read the last line in the OP:
... Overall, across all 10 of the European countries an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed
It was 55/20.
No, the split is 55/45. You are breaking the group who is not in agreement with you into two separate categories, making a big deal out of the 25% that neither agree or disagree, and thereby marginalizing them as the excluded middle. It's a statistical fallacy, because by definition, that 25% do not agree with you, while the other 20% outright oppose you. The fact that some of them may not disagree is functionally irrelevant, because none of them agree with you.
I realize you didn't fuck with the statistics to create this fallacy. You just fell prey to it.
As other objectors have pointed out, it's comforting to be in the majority, but it has no bearing on the accuracy of the conclusion. So even if the poll puts you in a group with a 10% lead (or a 25% lead if you prefer), it doesn't make your position more moral or even more accurate.
Having said this, I still give weight to your position. Europeans may have a better grip on the Islamic threat, because they have seen more of its effects during the most recent onslaught. Or they may be reacting out of exaggerated fear. I am sympathetic, however. Some countries in Europe have been enjoying the freedom and advantages of a secular society much more than the US for many years. Now they are in jeopardy of moving closer to the US or even ending up with less secularism than we have.
This saddens me. I don't think loss of freedom is good for any society, and any religion which harbors large numbers of fanatics, is going to impact it's environment negatively IMO.