Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Iain Duncan Smith - "Staying in EU increases terror risk" watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    Opening 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.
    Why? Being part of the EU doesn't necessarily mean we communicate quicker or more effectively in sharing intelligence. It simply throws up far more problems and threats.

    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    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.
    Nowhere have i disagreed that the home home grown threat is greater than the threat from an immigrant (At the moment). I will likely change my tune in 12-18 months after a couple of million identity less people settle in Europe from Syria and god knows where else as the EU will likely try to force on its members. Yes i do have evidence that EU membership directly affects the terrorst risk.. because the most appalling and devastating attack was partly carried out by a so called refugee in a place closer to London than Edinburgh. Even if we choose to believe that EU membership means better inteligence sharing (Which i completely refute) Schengen and the mass immigration heading this way simply negates that advantage and some anyway.

    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    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.
    How does it? Where is the evidence that the threat is diluted? Seems France is just getting a little unlucky this past year. It will be Romanias turn next because its just as a desirable target as London :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    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?
    1) Attacking the source instead of the content, regardless of what you compare it too does not make it any less true. I know it hurts your little narrative you're small prejudiced brain is running but it happened and I can show you the same story from different sources if you wish? Maybe you could watch the episode of crimewatch i alluded too..

    No you're fourth point is total conjecture which i reasonably questioned and I see you have failed to address. Just saying "EU membership catalyses / harmonises / cooperation between members" without even trying to substantiate them claims, particularly when i am offering up evidence to the contrary does not work. It might sound good / logical but it simply IS NOT reality.

    Yes France will come to our aid in time of need and we will do likewise.. our history, friendship and interests go back long before the European political union. sigh
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    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.
    It wouldn't change a thing. That statement would remain exactly the same except it would change to "our NATO allies".

    Your arguments are very post hoc ergo propter hoc.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Sensationalist bull****.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Why? Being part of the EU doesn't necessarily mean we communicate quicker or more effectively in sharing intelligence. It simply throws up far more problems and threats.



    Nowhere have i disagreed that the home home grown threat is greater than the threat from an immigrant (At the moment). I will likely change my tune in 12-18 months after a couple of million identity less people settle in Europe from Syria and god knows where else as the EU will likely try to force on its members. Yes i do have evidence that EU membership directly affects the terrorst risk.. because the most appalling and devastating attack was partly carried out by a so called refugee in a place closer to London than Edinburgh. Even if we choose to believe that EU membership means better inteligence sharing (Which i completely refute) Schengen and the mass immigration heading this way simply negates that advantage and some anyway.



    How does it? Where is the evidence that the threat is diluted? Seems France is just getting a little unlucky this past year. It will be Romanias turn next because its just as a desirable target as London :rolleyes:



    1) Attacking the source instead of the content, regardless of what you compare it too does not make it any less true. I know it hurts your little narrative you're small prejudiced brain is running but it happened and I can show you the same story from different sources if you wish? Maybe you could watch the episode of crimewatch i alluded too..

    No you're fourth point is total conjecture which i reasonably questioned and I see you have failed to address. Just saying "EU membership catalyses / harmonises / cooperation between members" without even trying to substantiate them claims, particularly when i am offering up evidence to the contrary does not work. It might sound good / logical but it simply IS NOT reality.

    Yes France will come to our aid in time of need and we will do likewise.. our history, friendship and interests go back long before the European political union. sigh
    David Cameron made that point about returning the terrorist on the House of Commons today, because it is easier to get someone into a country belonging to the EU when trying to deport criminals.

    And I can't believe you just said that, about the EU not supporting intelligence sharing, that's a complete lie, read this: http://jamesigoewalsh.com/jcms.pdf

    "The European Union (EU) has developed three institutions to facilitate intelligence sharingbetween its Member States: the Berne Group, Europol and the EuropeanUnion Military Staff. These institutions serve the useful function of creating technicalmechanisms for the diffusion of intelligence among national authorities. But they do nottackle the problem of mistrust, which is the key barrier to fully effective intelligence sharing.This article shows that mistrust of the interests of other Member States inhibitsintelligence-sharing, that existing institutions fail to overcome this mistrust and suggestchanges that could lead to more effective sharing."

    more here: http://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=71039

    and anywhere, just google "EU counterterrorism intelligence sharing"

    I honestly can't believe you just refuted EU intelligence sharing, seriously.... that's just completely incorrect.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    One of the few men in the government with more than two braincells to rub together.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It wouldn't change a thing. That statement would remain exactly the same except it would change to "our NATO allies".

    Your arguments are very post hoc ergo propter hoc.
    Says you who dips in and out of arguments, nitpicking corrections as leverage to attack the whole argument.

    The EU facilitates better international relations which makes us safer, simple as that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    David Cameron made that point about returning the terrorist on the House of Commons today, because it is easier to get someone into a country belonging to the EU when trying to deport criminals.

    And I can't believe you just said that, about the EU not supporting intelligence sharing, that's a complete lie, read this: http://jamesigoewalsh.com/jcms.pdf

    "The European Union (EU) has developed three institutions to facilitate intelligence sharingbetween its Member States: the Berne Group, Europol and the EuropeanUnion Military Staff. These institutions serve the useful function of creating technicalmechanisms for the diffusion of intelligence among national authorities. But they do nottackle the problem of mistrust, which is the key barrier to fully effective intelligence sharing.This article shows that mistrust of the interests of other Member States inhibitsintelligence-sharing, that existing institutions fail to overcome this mistrust and suggestchanges that could lead to more effective sharing."

    more here: http://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=71039

    and anywhere, just google "EU counterterrorism intelligence sharing"

    I honestly can't believe you just refuted EU intelligence sharing, seriously.... that's just completely incorrect.
    I refuted the efficacy of it compared to non EU intelligence sharing.
    Not that it exists. Something i am sure you understood...

    One of the first links when i google "EU intelligence sharing" :rolleyes:

    http://www.politico.eu/article/europ...ter-terrorism/

    “There is a black hole of information,” Europol Director Rob Wainwright said.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    The EU facilitates better international relations which makes us safer, simple as that.
    I don't disagree with that, I just think the example you chose isn't describing that. It's circumstantial at best.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    I refuted the efficacy of it compared to non EU intelligence sharing.
    Not that it exists. Something i am sure you understood...

    One of the first links when i google "EU intelligence sharing" :rolleyes:

    http://www.politico.eu/article/europ...ter-terrorism/

    “There is a black hole of information,” Europol Director Rob Wainwright said.
    Didn't you see what happened on NYE in Munich?

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-terror-tipoff

    Attempted suicide bombings at train stations

    How was it thwarted?


    "Police in Munich have insisted they were right to evacuate two major railway stations in the German city on New Year’s Eve, saying they had received a concrete tipoff from foreign intelligence agencies that a group affiliated to Islamic State was planning to carry out a Paris-style attack."


    Believe in its effectiveness or not, the tipoff was from an international source. The EU facilitated this.

    "the police had received three similar intelligence tipoffs from French intelligence services in recent weeks, and that they had been dismissed as not credible."

    French intelligence prevented a massacre in Munich, so the EU membership readily prompts intelligence sharing and the EU therefore prevented an ISIS attack. It's not useless, maybe it has holes but it is definitely something to consider losing when you decide to turn your back on one of the world's most fragile economy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    Didn't you see what happened on NYE in Munich?

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-terror-tipoff

    Attempted suicide bombings at train stations

    How was it thwarted?


    "Police in Munich have insisted they were right to evacuate two major railway stations in the German city on New Year’s Eve, saying they had received a concrete tipoff from foreign intelligence agencies that a group affiliated to Islamic State was planning to carry out a Paris-style attack."


    Believe in its effectiveness or not, the tipoff was from an international source. The EU facilitated this.
    And you believe countries that are not joined by EU would/do not share intelligence like this? You think if France was not an EU member it would not have tipped of German intelligence services?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    And you believe countries that are not joined by EU would/do not share intelligence like this? You think if France was not an EU member it would not have tipped of German intelligence services?
    I think that the EU makes sharing intelligence efficient and reliable.

    Just drop the argument already, almost every politician in Britain agrees that the EU makes the UK safer.

    Our borders are much more secure than France's, we are overseas, and the arms trade through Brussels and various other countries obviously doesn't exist here to the same extent. Not to mention our security service is much better anyway.

    Leaving the EU will not make us safer.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    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-politic...endum-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.
    And you believe everything Fallon says? Or just when it suits your opinion?

    "Leaving the EU breaks up our relationship with Germany, France and other EU countries" - simply nonsense.

    Our solidarity with our allies against terrorism will not change, regardless of the outcome of the EU vote.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    I think that the EU makes sharing intelligence efficient and reliable.

    Just drop the argument already, almost every politician in Britain agrees that the EU makes the UK safer.

    Our borders are much more secure than France's, we are overseas, and the arms trade through Brussels and various other countries obviously doesn't exist here to the same extent. Not to mention our security service is much better anyway.

    Leaving the EU will not make us safer.
    lol I mean did you even read the article I quoted? It has the head of Europol, and inteligence service you cited yourself saying

    “There is a black hole of information,” Europol Director Rob Wainwright said.

    lmao - Why didn't you just outright say at the start, "look im firmly entrenched in my position like a creationist and no amount of reason or evidence will make me re consider my position?"

    Every politican who has vested interests in the EU agrees we are safer lmao... Career before the people.

    Right so because of our OWN great inteligence services and resources.. coupled with our Sea preventing people from just walking in here like they do in every other EU country we are safer... LMFAO - You do realise this is arguing against the EU and what it stands for...

    Are you very young by any chance? Like 14-18?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    And you believe everything Fallon says? Or just when it suits your opinion?"Leaving the EU breaks up our relationship with Germany, France and other EU countries" - simply nonsense.Our solidarity with our allies against terrorism will not change, regardless of the outcome of the EU vote.
    Are you deliberately acting light-headed? Fallon is the secretary of defence, he is an expert on the subject. I am aware of the potential for tory bias but with so many tories being open about their opposition, I would be surprised that he's lying. Why would he lie anyway? That would make the argument easily attackable by the opposition to this. And yes it will, we will be looked down upon internationally for backing out of the economy which we are seen to be a vital constituent of.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    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.
    source?

    I'm pretty sure there was reference to allies, but not EU allies. It had nothing to do with the political union, and we would have still done the air strikes if we were outside the EU.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    lol I mean did you even read the article I quoted? It has the head of Europol, and inteligence service you cited yourself saying

    “There is a black hole of information,” Europol Director Rob Wainwright said.

    lmao - Why didn't you just outright say at the start, look im firmly entrenched in my position like a creationist and no amount of reason or evidence will make me re consider my position?

    Every politican who has vested interests in the EU agrees we are safer lmao... Career before the people.

    Right so because of our OWN great inteligence services and resources.. coupled with our Sea preventing people from just walking in here like they do in every other EU country we are safer... LMFAO - You do realise this is arguing against the EU and what it stands for...

    Are you very young by any chance? Like 14-18?
    There is a black hole of information, but that doesn't negate its effectiveness. What don't you understand? Everything has flaws in it, but that doesn't mean we should just ditch it and go our own way.

    The EU provides another layer of security onto Britain's already strong security.

    And piss off with the insults.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    source?

    I'm pretty sure there was reference to allies, but not EU allies. It had nothing to do with the political union, and we would have still done the air strikes if we were outside the EU.
    "In a statement to the Commons the prime minister asked: “If not now, when?” Cameron said the UK could not afford to stand aside from the fight and it was morally unacceptable to leave the US, France and other allies to carry the burden."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ria-airstrikes


    now please quit nitpicking for no reason
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    Are you deliberately acting light-headed? Fallon is the secretary of defence, he is an expert on the subject. I am aware of the potential for tory bias but with so many tories being open about their opposition, I would be surprised that he's lying. Why would he lie anyway? That would make the argument easily attackable by the opposition to this. And yes it will, we will be looked down upon internationally for backing out of the economy which we are seen to be a vital constituent of.
    No, a defence secretary is not necessarily a expert on defence. Is the shadow secretary,Thornberry an expert on defence? Is Jeremy hunt an expert on the NHS? Is Jo Johnson an expert on biology?No. They are appointments, and in that appointments they are surrounded by experts. They are not experts themselves, they are appointed to make decisions, not to be an expert.

    He's not "lying", but he's not telling the truth either. It's his interpretation. That doesn't mean he is right. Liam Fox is an ex defence secretary, and he is for leaving the EU. As are many ex generals.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Imagine how much the Brexit bunch would carp and whinge if they couldn't go on holiday in France or Spain without getting a visa.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    "In a statement to the Commons the prime minister asked: “If not now, when?” Cameron said the UK could not afford to stand aside from the fight and it was morally unacceptable to leave the US, France and other allies to carry the burden."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ria-airstrikes


    now please quit nitpicking for no reason
    So no reference to the EU then.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 26, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.