Iain Duncan Smith - "Staying in EU increases terror risk"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35624409
He says that staying in the EU makes us more vulnerable to 'Paris-style' attacks from ISIS.
While this is true, there are flaws in this argument.
1. The most likely source of an attack from ISIS will be a British, home-grown radical, and not a militant coming from Syria to Britain.
2. Britain will still be a target for ISIS, even if we drop out of the EU.
3. Iain Duncan Smith says that the terror risk 'increases' if we stay in the EU, it will not increase, it will stay the same.
And my fourth, and final point, argues directly against him.
4. Leaving the EU breaks up our relationship with Germany, France and other EU countries. We will no longer stand in absolute solidarity in response to terrorism like the Paris attacks in November. The most beautiful thing was how many people were co-operating and helping each other after the massacres. Personally, I think that our relationship and our profoundness on our stances against ISIS and terrorism will be hindered if we decide to drop out.
He says that staying in the EU makes us more vulnerable to 'Paris-style' attacks from ISIS.
While this is true, there are flaws in this argument.
1. The most likely source of an attack from ISIS will be a British, home-grown radical, and not a militant coming from Syria to Britain.
2. Britain will still be a target for ISIS, even if we drop out of the EU.
3. Iain Duncan Smith says that the terror risk 'increases' if we stay in the EU, it will not increase, it will stay the same.
And my fourth, and final point, argues directly against him.
4. Leaving the EU breaks up our relationship with Germany, France and other EU countries. We will no longer stand in absolute solidarity in response to terrorism like the Paris attacks in November. The most beautiful thing was how many people were co-operating and helping each other after the massacres. Personally, I think that our relationship and our profoundness on our stances against ISIS and terrorism will be hindered if we decide to drop out.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Frank Underwood
And my fourth, and final point, argues directly against him.
4. Leaving the EU breaks up our relationship with Germany, France and other EU countries. We will no longer stand in absolute solidarity in response to terrorism like the Paris attacks in November. The most beautiful thing was how many people were co-operating and helping each other after the massacres. Personally, I think that our relationship and our profoundness on our stances against ISIS and terrorism will be hindered if we decide to drop out.
And my fourth, and final point, argues directly against him.
4. Leaving the EU breaks up our relationship with Germany, France and other EU countries. We will no longer stand in absolute solidarity in response to terrorism like the Paris attacks in November. The most beautiful thing was how many people were co-operating and helping each other after the massacres. Personally, I think that our relationship and our profoundness on our stances against ISIS and terrorism will be hindered if we decide to drop out.
Your other 3 arguments say that being a member of the EU has no effect on terrorism.
As for argument 4, Britain no longer has an independent role in foreign affairs, our vote to bomb Syria was a vote in response to an EU Council decision and similar votes were also taken across the EU in the same week.
If Britain were outside the EU it would have an independent voice in Foreign Affairs that would add to that of the EU, rather than just being a part of it.
Treaty on European Union as amended by Lisbon, Article 26(1):
"1. The European Council shall identify the Union’s strategic interests, determine the objectives of and define general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, including for matters with defence implications. It shall adopt the necessary decisions."
The voice of the UK was only heard in the UK.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by newpersonage
Your other 3 arguments say that being a member of the EU has no effect on terrorism.
As for argument 4, Britain no longer has an independent role in foreign affairs, our vote to bomb Syria was a vote in response to an EU Council decision and similar votes were also taken across the EU in the same week.
If Britain were outside the EU it would have an independent voice in Foreign Affairs that would add to that of the EU, rather than just being a part of it.
Treaty on European Union as amended by Lisbon, Article 26(1):
"1. The European Council shall identify the Union’s strategic interests, determine the objectives of and define general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, including for matters with defence implications. It shall adopt the necessary decisions."
The voice of the UK was only heard in the UK.
As for argument 4, Britain no longer has an independent role in foreign affairs, our vote to bomb Syria was a vote in response to an EU Council decision and similar votes were also taken across the EU in the same week.
If Britain were outside the EU it would have an independent voice in Foreign Affairs that would add to that of the EU, rather than just being a part of it.
Treaty on European Union as amended by Lisbon, Article 26(1):
"1. The European Council shall identify the Union’s strategic interests, determine the objectives of and define general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, including for matters with defence implications. It shall adopt the necessary decisions."
The voice of the UK was only heard in the UK.
If the EU as a whole targets terrorism, instead of individual nations, it would dilute the effect of assigning blame to countries.
If the UK alone decided to bomb ISIS, we would become the target, but instead many other European countries are as well.
And my point is that being in the EU strengthens British-French or British-German relations, which are essential, given that we can share intelligence and work together to stop terrorism instead of alone.
Original post by Frank Underwood
If the EU as a whole targets terrorism, instead of individual nations, it would dilute the effect of assigning blame to countries.
If the UK alone decided to bomb ISIS, we would become the target, but instead many other European countries are as well.
And my point is that being in the EU strengthens British-French or British-German relations, which are essential, given that we can share intelligence and work together to stop terrorism instead of alone.
If the UK alone decided to bomb ISIS, we would become the target, but instead many other European countries are as well.
And my point is that being in the EU strengthens British-French or British-German relations, which are essential, given that we can share intelligence and work together to stop terrorism instead of alone.
What is this myth about fighting terrorism alone? The UK shares information with its allies, whether they be Canada or Germany and vice versa. The UK is not alone and will have reciprocal agreements with the EU after a Brexit (the EU will want this as well as the UK).
Apart from this mythologising about "being alone", the only important truth about the EU and terrorism is that spoken by the recently retired head of Interpol who said that terrorist attacks were closely linked to open borders in the EU. This is what he said:
"EUROPE’S open-border arrangement, which enables travel through 26 countries without passport checks or border controls, is effectively an international passport-free zone for terrorists to execute attacks on the Continent and make their escape.
This is one of the most obvious lessons of the horrific terrorist attacks that struck Paris last week. And it offers one of the simplest solutions. The open borders arrangement should be suspended, and each of the participating countries should begin immediately to systematically screen all passports against a database of stolen and lost passports maintained by Interpol, the international police organization.
Leading up to these latest attacks, none of those countries systematically screened passports or verified the identities of those crossing borders by land or at seaports or airports. This is like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe. And they have been accepting the invitation.
In the past decade or so, terrorist attacks in Madrid and London and the assassination of Serbia’s prime minister were all linked to fake or stolen passports. Now we have Paris."
So yes, Iain Duncan Smith is right, he is supported by no less an authority than the Head of Interpol. Interpol is the real International Police ("Europol" is the pro-EU apparatchiks).
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by newpersonage
This is one of the most obvious lessons of the horrific terrorist attacks that struck Paris last week. And it offers one of the simplest solutions. The open borders arrangement should be suspended, and each of the participating countries should begin immediately to systematically screen all passports against a database of stolen and lost passports maintained by Interpol, the international police organization.
This is one of the most obvious lessons of the horrific terrorist attacks that struck Paris last week. And it offers one of the simplest solutions. The open borders arrangement should be suspended, and each of the participating countries should begin immediately to systematically screen all passports against a database of stolen and lost passports maintained by Interpol, the international police organization.
How do we persuade the Dutch and the Belgians to do this on their common border if we are not a member of the EU.
Unless we introduce visas for Belgian and Spanish holidaymakers no doubt with reciprocal treatment, what effect does leaving the EU have on our external border?
Original post by nulli tertius
How do we persuade the Dutch and the Belgians to do this on their common border if we are not a member of the EU.
Unless we introduce visas for Belgian and Spanish holidaymakers no doubt with reciprocal treatment, what effect does leaving the EU have on our external border?
Unless we introduce visas for Belgian and Spanish holidaymakers no doubt with reciprocal treatment, what effect does leaving the EU have on our external border?
The EU will be a single, unified state in 20 years after a Brexit. Nearly all the governments of the other countries have openly stated that they want political union. Only the UK was stopping this development. Belgium and Holland will be regions of a single nation with a common police force and common legal system.
The ferries and tunnel from UK to EU will need to check passports. The check should, ideally, be completed in transit so that there are no delays at either end.
Original post by nulli tertius
How do we persuade the Dutch and the Belgians to do this on their common border if we are not a member of the EU.
Unless we introduce visas for Belgian and Spanish holidaymakers no doubt with reciprocal treatment, what effect does leaving the EU have on our external border?
Unless we introduce visas for Belgian and Spanish holidaymakers no doubt with reciprocal treatment, what effect does leaving the EU have on our external border?
If the continent chooses Islamification and Britain does not then a visa requirement for the continent is a logical and likely outcome, just as we have a visa requirement for Iran and Egypt.
Britain chooses to waive visa requirements with culturally similar countries and an Islamified continent would no longer be culturally similar enough to a non-Islamified Britain, despite its continued geographical proximity. People still go on holiday to Egypt.
Visa-free travel will remain if Britain also chooses Islamification or if both Britain and the continent turn against it. The implication of what Smith is saying is that he expects the muslim share of the continent's population to grow much faster than that of Britain. That is probably true if his party remains in power in Britain while the likes of Merkel remain in power on the continent.
Original post by Frank Underwood
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35624409
He says that staying in the EU makes us more vulnerable to 'Paris-style' attacks from ISIS.
While this is true, there are flaws in this argument.
1. The most likely source of an attack from ISIS will be a British, home-grown radical, and not a militant coming from Syria to Britain.
2. Britain will still be a target for ISIS, even if we drop out of the EU.
3. Iain Duncan Smith says that the terror risk 'increases' if we stay in the EU, it will not increase, it will stay the same.
And my fourth, and final point, argues directly against him.
4. Leaving the EU breaks up our relationship with Germany, France and other EU countries. We will no longer stand in absolute solidarity in response to terrorism like the Paris attacks in November. The most beautiful thing was how many people were co-operating and helping each other after the massacres. Personally, I think that our relationship and our profoundness on our stances against ISIS and terrorism will be hindered if we decide to drop out.
He says that staying in the EU makes us more vulnerable to 'Paris-style' attacks from ISIS.
While this is true, there are flaws in this argument.
1. The most likely source of an attack from ISIS will be a British, home-grown radical, and not a militant coming from Syria to Britain.
2. Britain will still be a target for ISIS, even if we drop out of the EU.
3. Iain Duncan Smith says that the terror risk 'increases' if we stay in the EU, it will not increase, it will stay the same.
And my fourth, and final point, argues directly against him.
4. Leaving the EU breaks up our relationship with Germany, France and other EU countries. We will no longer stand in absolute solidarity in response to terrorism like the Paris attacks in November. The most beautiful thing was how many people were co-operating and helping each other after the massacres. Personally, I think that our relationship and our profoundness on our stances against ISIS and terrorism will be hindered if we decide to drop out.
Complete nonsense. France and Germany isn't going to stop sharing intelligence if we leave the EU. We are still going to be close allies, members of Nato and have a moral interest in not allowing the citizens of close ally to be murdered. Especially since we have better intelligence services than them and invest money into it.
As usual, you are talking ****.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AlwaysWatching
Complete nonsense. France and Germany isn't going to stop sharing intelligence if we leave the EU. We are still going to be close allies, members of Nato and have a moral interest in not allowing the citizens of close ally to be murdered. Especially since we have better intelligence services than them and invest money into it.
As usual, you are talking ****.
As usual, you are talking ****.
You're talking complete nonsense and making things up / not even reading what I said, as per usual.
I didn't say France and Germany are going to stop sharing intelligence, I'm talking about the direct relationship provided by being in the EU being threatened, read about it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35628051
If you scroll down, little buddy, it's your word against Michael Fallon's.
I will send you £500 if you can find anything that I said from my OP to back up your claim that I said that France and Germany are going to instantaneously stop sending intelligence. Freaking dumb idiot.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by newpersonage
The ferries and tunnel from UK to EU will need to check passports.
This already happens.
Original post by Frank Underwood
And my fourth, and final point, argues directly against him.
4. Leaving the EU breaks up our relationship with Germany, France and other EU countries. We will no longer stand in absolute solidarity in response to terrorism like the Paris attacks in November. The most beautiful thing was how many people were co-operating and helping each other after the massacres. Personally, I think that our relationship and our profoundness on our stances against ISIS and terrorism will be hindered if we decide to drop out.
4. Leaving the EU breaks up our relationship with Germany, France and other EU countries. We will no longer stand in absolute solidarity in response to terrorism like the Paris attacks in November. The most beautiful thing was how many people were co-operating and helping each other after the massacres. Personally, I think that our relationship and our profoundness on our stances against ISIS and terrorism will be hindered if we decide to drop out.
The decision of the people to stand up and help one another had nothing whatsoever to do with any political union. The British people stood firm with the Americans after 9/11 despite no formal political union.
What is this "absolute solitarity" of which you speak in this context? Why is it dependant on being joined to someone? Why would it be diminished if we weren't politically connected?
Doesn't it kinda go without saying that the majority of people abhor violence of that sort? Do we really need to be politically joined to someone to express sadness?
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here.
He's wrong because, as you have said, it won't increase it will stay the same. Also there some fantasised stories here about the future of the EU and that of the UK. I personally see no downsides to staying in; the standard of living is, on the whole, favourable as are the policies regarding pretty much everything in the EU's jurisdiction. Yes there are some things people may not agree with but that is the case in the microcosm of local government and will not change with a so-called Brexit.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Drewski
This already happens.
The decision of the people to stand up and help one another had nothing whatsoever to do with any political union. The British people stood firm with the Americans after 9/11 despite no formal political union.
What is this "absolute solitarity" of which you speak in this context? Why is it dependant on being joined to someone? Why would it be diminished if we weren't politically connected?
Doesn't it kinda go without saying that the majority of people abhor violence of that sort? Do we really need to be politically joined to someone to express sadness?
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here.
The decision of the people to stand up and help one another had nothing whatsoever to do with any political union. The British people stood firm with the Americans after 9/11 despite no formal political union.
What is this "absolute solitarity" of which you speak in this context? Why is it dependant on being joined to someone? Why would it be diminished if we weren't politically connected?
Doesn't it kinda go without saying that the majority of people abhor violence of that sort? Do we really need to be politically joined to someone to express sadness?
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here.
All I am saying is that the EU strengthen's the relationship between Britain and France so that we support each other in times of need. There is a massive section on the EU response to the Paris attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks#European_Union
And if Britain had been outside the EU, they wouldn't have been pressured to commit to airstrikes in Syria as well as Iraq.
Original post by Frank Underwood
All I am saying is that the EU strengthen's the relationship between Britain and France so that we support each other in times of need. There is a massive section on the EU response to the Paris attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks#European_Union
And if Britain had been outside the EU, they wouldn't have been pressured to commit to airstrikes in Syria as well as Iraq.
And if Britain had been outside the EU, they wouldn't have been pressured to commit to airstrikes in Syria as well as Iraq.
Yes, they would have. Our action wasn't driven by a political connection to them.
Don't mistake actions by members of the EU for actions because of the EU. They are not the same thing.
Remember, we wanted to start airstrikes in Syria 2 years previously. That we didn't was down to our own politicians, not foreign ones. It was the same national politicians who made this choice.
Be careful not to present your opinion as fact. You can't prove what you claim.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Frank Underwood
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35624409
He says that staying in the EU makes us more vulnerable to 'Paris-style' attacks from ISIS.
While this is true, there are flaws in this argument.
1. The most likely source of an attack from ISIS will be a British, home-grown radical, and not a militant coming from Syria to Britain.
2. Britain will still be a target for ISIS, even if we drop out of the EU.
3. Iain Duncan Smith says that the terror risk 'increases' if we stay in the EU, it will not increase, it will stay the same.
And my fourth, and final point, argues directly against him.
4. Leaving the EU breaks up our relationship with Germany, France and other EU countries. We will no longer stand in absolute solidarity in response to terrorism like the Paris attacks in November. The most beautiful thing was how many people were co-operating and helping each other after the massacres. Personally, I think that our relationship and our profoundness on our stances against ISIS and terrorism will be hindered if we decide to drop out.
He says that staying in the EU makes us more vulnerable to 'Paris-style' attacks from ISIS.
While this is true, there are flaws in this argument.
1. The most likely source of an attack from ISIS will be a British, home-grown radical, and not a militant coming from Syria to Britain.
2. Britain will still be a target for ISIS, even if we drop out of the EU.
3. Iain Duncan Smith says that the terror risk 'increases' if we stay in the EU, it will not increase, it will stay the same.
And my fourth, and final point, argues directly against him.
4. Leaving the EU breaks up our relationship with Germany, France and other EU countries. We will no longer stand in absolute solidarity in response to terrorism like the Paris attacks in November. The most beautiful thing was how many people were co-operating and helping each other after the massacres. Personally, I think that our relationship and our profoundness on our stances against ISIS and terrorism will be hindered if we decide to drop out.
I despise Ian Duncan Smith but what he says is correct here.
Im sorry but having open borders with war zones like the middle east simply makes us more at risk of terrorism.. it has already proven so with the last Paris Massacre.
I have heard so much BS about how being in the EU means we can divulge information easily about criminals coming from Eastern Europe so we can identify them when they come to live here and guess what... time and time again a murderer or rapist comes to the UK from Some small E Europe country and makes UK citizens their latest victims
There has been so many examples of this. The example below comes to mind because the detective leading the investigation was on crimewatch explaining how difficult it was to apprehend the suspect because he was from the EU and they had no idea which country
He moved to the UK about four years ago with his mum and brother after catching a bus. He used his Slovakian ID card during the £24 trip.Once in the UK he did various cash-in-hand jobs and did not have a bank account.Detective Superintendent Nick Wallen, who led the investigation, said it had been “massively challenging”. (Not to mention hugely labour intensive at you, the British taxpayers expense)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/leeds-rape-man-sentenced-20-6658908
Reagrdless we seem to do ok liasing with non EU countries about terror threats and sharing inteligence. Egypt air bomb? USA? Australia
Your fourth point makes no sense. So we cannot stand in solidarity with victims of the next Islamic massacre because we are not members of the same politcal union?
- wut(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by newpersonage
The EU will be a single, unified state in 20 years after a Brexit. Nearly all the governments of the other countries have openly stated that they want political union. Only the UK was stopping this development. Belgium and Holland will be regions of a single nation with a common police force and common legal system.
The ferries and tunnel from UK to EU will need to check passports. The check should, ideally, be completed in transit so that there are no delays at either end.
The ferries and tunnel from UK to EU will need to check passports. The check should, ideally, be completed in transit so that there are no delays at either end.
But you said
The open borders arrangement should be suspended, and each of the participating countries should begin immediately to systematically screen all passports against a database of stolen and lost passports maintained by Interpol, the international police organization.
I want to know how you think British diplomats should aim to bring this about, with specific reference to the Dutch-Belgian border after we leave the EU?
Original post by Observatory
If the continent chooses Islamification and Britain does not then a visa requirement for the continent is a logical and likely outcome, just as we have a visa requirement for Iran and Egypt.
Britain chooses to waive visa requirements with culturally similar countries and an Islamified continent would no longer be culturally similar enough to a non-Islamified Britain, despite its continued geographical proximity. People still go on holiday to Egypt.
Visa-free travel will remain if Britain also chooses Islamification or if both Britain and the continent turn against it. The implication of what Smith is saying is that he expects the muslim share of the continent's population to grow much faster than that of Britain. That is probably true if his party remains in power in Britain while the likes of Merkel remain in power on the continent.
Britain chooses to waive visa requirements with culturally similar countries and an Islamified continent would no longer be culturally similar enough to a non-Islamified Britain, despite its continued geographical proximity. People still go on holiday to Egypt.
Visa-free travel will remain if Britain also chooses Islamification or if both Britain and the continent turn against it. The implication of what Smith is saying is that he expects the muslim share of the continent's population to grow much faster than that of Britain. That is probably true if his party remains in power in Britain while the likes of Merkel remain in power on the continent.
Where has this paranoid nonsense come from? There is no risk of Islamification in any states in Europe that do not today have a Muslim majority population, Bosnia, Albania and the Golden Horn of Turkey.
Smith was saying that we would co-operate with EU members on security matters as we do with other friendly governments which is fine as far as it goes but will not be the same as having immediate access to a lot of anti-terrorist data.
Original post by Drewski
Yes, they would have. Our action wasn't driven by a political connection to them.
Don't mistake actions by members of the EU for actions because of the EU. They are not the same thing.
Remember, we wanted to start airstrikes in Syria 2 years previously. That we didn't was down to our own politicians, not foreign ones. It was the same national politicians who made this choice.
Be careful not to present your opinion as fact. You can't prove what you claim.
Don't mistake actions by members of the EU for actions because of the EU. They are not the same thing.
Remember, we wanted to start airstrikes in Syria 2 years previously. That we didn't was down to our own politicians, not foreign ones. It was the same national politicians who made this choice.
Be careful not to present your opinion as fact. You can't prove what you claim.
Oh stop crying, I'm not presenting my opinion as fact.
But the truth is that in the run-up to the vote, one significant reason used by the government to justify use was because "of our allies in the EU needing assistance". Maybe we would have helped out in Syria without membership, but one big reason to justify use was because of our allies requesting help. If we took an isolationist stance and left the EU, we would be less likely to do that.
Original post by Betelgeuse-
I despise Ian Duncan Smith but what he says is correct here.
Im sorry but having open borders with war zones like the middle east simply makes us more at risk of terrorism.. it has already proven so with the last Paris Massacre.
I have heard so much BS about how being in the EU means we can divulge information easily about criminals coming from Eastern Europe so we can identify them when they come to live here and guess what... time and time again a murderer or rapist comes to the UK from Some small E Europe country and makes UK citizens their latest victims
There has been so many examples of this. The example below comes to mind because the detective leading the investigation was on crimewatch explaining how difficult it was to apprehend the suspect because he was from the EU and they had no idea which country
He moved to the UK about four years ago with his mum and brother after catching a bus. He used his Slovakian ID card during the £24 trip.Once in the UK he did various cash-in-hand jobs and did not have a bank account.Detective Superintendent Nick Wallen, who led the investigation, said it had been “massively challenging”. (Not to mention hugely labour intensive at you, the British taxpayers expense)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/leeds-rape-man-sentenced-20-6658908
Reagrdless we seem to do ok liasing with non EU countries about terror threats and sharing inteligence. Egypt air bomb? USA? Australia
Your fourth point makes no sense. So we cannot stand in solidarity with victims of the next Islamic massacre because we are not members of the same politcal union? - wut
Im sorry but having open borders with war zones like the middle east simply makes us more at risk of terrorism.. it has already proven so with the last Paris Massacre.
I have heard so much BS about how being in the EU means we can divulge information easily about criminals coming from Eastern Europe so we can identify them when they come to live here and guess what... time and time again a murderer or rapist comes to the UK from Some small E Europe country and makes UK citizens their latest victims
There has been so many examples of this. The example below comes to mind because the detective leading the investigation was on crimewatch explaining how difficult it was to apprehend the suspect because he was from the EU and they had no idea which country
He moved to the UK about four years ago with his mum and brother after catching a bus. He used his Slovakian ID card during the £24 trip.Once in the UK he did various cash-in-hand jobs and did not have a bank account.Detective Superintendent Nick Wallen, who led the investigation, said it had been “massively challenging”. (Not to mention hugely labour intensive at you, the British taxpayers expense)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/leeds-rape-man-sentenced-20-6658908
Reagrdless we seem to do ok liasing with non EU countries about terror threats and sharing inteligence. Egypt air bomb? USA? Australia
Your fourth point makes no sense. So we cannot stand in solidarity with victims of the next Islamic massacre because we are not members of the same politcal union?
- wutOpening our borders might increase the risk of terrorism, but being in the EU prompts sharing of intelligence end security aid. In 2005 someone who tried to attack Britain in a terrorist incident was handed back after being found in Europe just days after the attempt, I doubt it would have happened so quickly if we weren't in the EU.
And back to the original point, almost every attempted terrorist attack in Britain was attempted by locally born radicals. Take a look at the London tube bombings, three out of four of the attackers were BORN IN ENGLAND. We face a greater threat from HOME GROWN islamist extremists, and I am yet to see a successful ISIL attack on british soil as a direct result of the immigration. So you have no evidence to back up your point that Britain's EU membership directly affects the terrorist risk here by immigration.
Being outside of the EU increases our risk because within the EU, if we all take action the threat is diluted across all countries participating. If, out of the blue, Britain decided to start bombing a terrorist group, we would be directly under their crosshairs, but because it is a joint coalition effort, we are not the only target. France, and Germany are bigger targets right now because it is easier to smuggle arms into those places and there isn't as strong border control. So quit making this argument, it is stupid.
And piss off with The Mirror articles, it's as savage as the Daily Express and Daily Mail.
My fourth point makes sense you just read it wrong because you wanted to use it to attack my overall argument. My point is simply that EU membership catalyses better co-operation between the UK and France and Germany and other EU countries in time of need. Are France going to come rushing to our aid if we back out of the economy which they consider us a vital constituent of?
A very cheap, petty scare-tactic. Would expect nothing less from IDS.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- higher English 10 markers
- my eng literature notes (grade 7/8) (gsce 2022)
- English Literature Macbeth
- Can someone correct my Macbeth essay
- Inspector calls predictions?/ tips 2023
- Could anyone mark this essay and give me a mark out of 30, English Lit Paper 1 AQA
- How is Macbeth presented as a guilty character?
- Analysis of the Macbeth movie
- "there's husandry in heaven quote" - Banquo
- Can someone please give me feedback on this essay?
- Practice questions- An inspector calls
- What characters do I need to learn quotes for for Macbeth AQA?
- Full marks from English lit essay?
- walking home after a night out - dangerous?
- Do I need to be supervised to use a squat rack?
- Harvard in-text-citations - is this correct?
- PLS MARK THIS FOR GCSE'S: How is theme of supernatural presented in Macbeth
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
- Edexcel English Lit Paper 1: Macbeth Section A, Question 1: Grade 9 Answer?
- Best inspector calls quotes?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
November 2023 Illegal Migration Intake Unit - Intake Response Team - Immigration OffiLast reply 1 minute ago
Official Cardiff University Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 2 minutes ago
Jaguar (JLR) Degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Part Time or Distance Learning Funding if I didn't complete first degreeLast reply 10 minutes ago
2024 entry A100 / A101 Medicine fastest and slowest offer sendersMedicine
862
Last reply 14 minutes ago
Official University of Bath Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 14 minutes ago
Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadMedical Schools
1128
Last reply 15 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 15 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 16 minutes ago
DWP EO Job Centre Work Coach - March 2024Trending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
