Quote:
European Union ministers are to meet to try to resolve a dispute over how to relocate 120,000 asylum seekers who have recently arrived in Europe.
Some central European states have resisted calls for EU members to accept mandatory quotas.
Whatever is decided, the UN says the EU's plans will not be enough.
The migrants are part of 500,000 to have arrived by sea this year so far. Germany says it expects up to a million this year.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34321185
I don't normally look at the comments sections for articles but right now from what I've seen of the almost 900 comments on this one there's not much evidence of support for taking in more migrants. As the numbers grow so will the opposition and the anger.
---------- Post added at 13:46 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------
Here, courtesy of UKIP, is a Labour MP's view explaining that the UK should carry on taking in migrants until we reach our 'saturation point'.
Quote:
|
Maskell, who won the seat of York Central in 2015, was recorded addressing a rally saying that the UK should accept more refugees from Syria."20,000 is not enough, 30,000 is not enough. We will keep going until we hit our saturation point because what does it matter if we have to wait another week for a hospital visit?"
|
http://www.ukip.org/york_mp_backtrac...s_don_t_matter
I'd have thought allowing anything as serious as immigration to reach a 'saturation point' before having to do something about it is asking for big trouble, especially given the problems of integration and radicalisation we're already facing. Clearly not for Ms Maskell. I wonder what she suggests we do after her 'saturation point' has been reached and her extra one week for NHS treatment becomes 2, 3, 4... Does she think people will suddenly stop coming when we put a sign up saying 'FULL'?
When she's not encouraging saturation, I don't suppose Ms Maskell is quite so relaxed about NHS resources, waiting times etc. when there's scope for blaming the Tories.