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

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    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? No. They are appointments, and in that appointments they are surrounded be 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.
    So are you telling me that someone who has no expertise whatsoever in defence was appointed by a government to be secretary of defence?

    Grow up.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    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.
    How on earth does a guy basically saying the organisation he is head off is basically crap and ineffective not negate its effectiveness? What planet are you on!?



    You are going round in circles...costantly repeating the EU keep us safe.. The EU is good for security.. The EU helps inteligence services exchange information.. whilst offering nothing to substantiate them views or show how they are more effective than we would be as a direct consequence of being out of the EU Whilst repeatedly ignoring my points and questions to the contrary

    . The last thing i have to say to you in this discussion is there is nothing wrong with changing your mind when someone makes a case that goes against your initial beliefs our understanding. In fact its a very good thing that shows you are intelligent and open minded.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    So no reference to the EU then.
    France is an EU member. 'Other allies' refers to EU members fighting against ISIS.

    But if you really want to be a massive crybaby, there are more sources:

    A focus on “countries of origin and transit” is indeed needed. But that means a sustained, difficult, expensive, strategic effort, working with EU and other partners. A cheap but counterproductive military gesture is no answer.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...refugee-crisis

    Although this article is critical of the airstrikes, it clearly shows that a reason for bombing Syria is to directly help our EU allies.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    How on earth does a guy basically saying the organisation he is head off is basically crap and ineffective not negate its effectiveness? What planet are you on!?



    You are going round in circles...costantly repeating the EU keep us safe.. The EU is good for security.. The EU helps inteligence services exchange information..

    Whilst repeatedly ignoring my points and questions to the contrary. The last thing i have to say to you in this discussion is there is nothing wrong with changing your mind when someone makes a case that goes against your initial beliefs our understanding. In fact its a very good thing that shows you are intelligent and open minded.
    Are you telling me that the layer of security the EU offers makes us less safe?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    So are you telling me that someone who has no expertise whatsoever in defence was appointed by a government to be secretary of defence?

    Grow up.
    Yes. Research their backgrounds. You don't have to be an expert on defence to be a defence secretary. That isn't their job.

    Is Jo Johnson qualified biologist? No. But he is the science minister. Is Jeremy Hunt a Doctor or nurse? No, but he is the health secretary. Being a secretary means you are there to implement the governments party policy into that department. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to be an expert in that area. That is why we employ people like generals, and professors, and civil servants - they are the experts who advise the sectary, and thus the government.


    Once again you show that you have no basic understanding of the issue at hand.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    ...

    "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.
    ...
    1a) It is not a passport-free zone, especially not for non EU-citizens.
    1b) The problem is not the EU nor EU Law, but to less police, illusionary politicians and financial problems. Take e.g. Germany: Passport-free-zone? Not at all, theoretically any person above 16 years old has to have an identity card with them and yes, you go to the police in case you have none. The current problems are due to: cost-cuts and thus less police and less well trained police, no plans how to tackle crisis, left illusionists, etc. ,,, Schengen is the last thing, causing those problems. EU Law is NOT the problem. a BREXIT won't change anything. The UK can't close his eyes concerning refugees and as refugees are not EU-citizens, nothing will change. (Anybody who wants to play a role in international politics and has to pay and participate. So the UK will stay participating, because though British Politicians tell their people, what they want to hear, after a BREXIT, they will just pay the same amount to other bodies to avoid a foreign policy harakiri or isolation.)

    2) Border controls are far more difficult for countries, who aren't islands and it will be even more difficult for those countries, if not supported by richer countries like e.g. the UK.

    3) Refugees are there, with the EU or without the EU.

    4) The UK has a high enough percentage of home grown terrorists. There is no need to smuggle terrorists into Britain. That is the sad truth, and thus basically all arguments concerning terrorism are nonsense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    Yes. Research their backgrounds. You don't have to be an expert on defence to be a defence secretary. That isn't their job.

    Is Jo Johnson qualified biologist? No. But he is the science minister. Is Jeremy Hunt a Doctor or nurse? No, but he is the health secretary. Being a secretary means you are there to implement the governments party policy into that department. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to be an expert in that area. That is why we employ people like generals, and professors, and civil servants - they are the experts who advise the sectary, and thus the government.


    Once again you show that you have no basic understanding of the issue at hand.
    I have lost interest in your stupid, ill-informed isolationist views.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    France is an EU member. 'Other allies' refers to EU members fighting against ISIS.

    But if you really want to be a massive crybaby, there are more sources:

    A focus on “countries of origin and transit” is indeed needed. But that means a sustained, difficult, expensive, strategic effort, working with EU and other partners. A cheap but counterproductive military gesture is no answer.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...refugee-crisis

    Although this article is critical of the airstrikes, it clearly shows that a reason for bombing Syria is to directly help our EU allies.
    I didn't realise that the US, Kurds and Iraqi Army are in the EU.

    It wasn't a reference to the EU. The EU has no influence, and had no influence in the decision making. Just because France is in the EU, that does not mean that Cameron et al was referring to the EU.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    I have lost interest in your stupid, ill-informed isolationist views.
    You need to read the background of the various departmental secretaries. it is you that are ill-informed, and seemingly ignorant of the job of what a secretary entails.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    I didn't realise that the US, Kurds and Iraqi Army are in the EU.

    It wasn't a reference to the EU. The EU has no influence, and had no influence in the decision making. Just because France is in the EU, that does not mean that Cameron et al was referring to the EU.
    You're ****ing dumb, and I have lost interest in your stupid attacks. You play dumb and attack the tiny cogs in the argument rather than looking at the bigger picture.

    Welcome to my ignore list
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    Are you telling me that the layer of security the EU offers makes us less safe?
    Not neccesarily the security but when you realise how poor and ineffective that security is in exchange for hundreds of millions of people being allowed to come to the UK or anywhere in the EU at will including from war zones rampant with west hating Jihadis.. then the overall effect is distinctly negative and makes us far more vulnerable.

    Controlling who comes here strictly (When i say strictly i mean not anyone unchecked from War torn countries filled with hundreds of thousands of terrorists) + our own inteligence services + normal exchanges between inteligence services

    or

    No control who comes here including soon to be EU residents from who knows where it the middle east / north africa + EU inteligence servies (Which we would have anyway)

    Option 1 all day and is the option i am arguing. We will still exchange intel with Germany/France/Holland and so forth and vice versa outside the EU
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    You're ****ing dumb, and I have lost interest in your stupid attacks. You play dumb and attack the tiny cogs in the argument rather than looking at the bigger picture.

    Welcome to my ignore list
    I am answering your questions, and you are make the dumb links.

    The US, Kurds and Iraqi Army are not in the EU, and the airstrikes were not in regards to the EU.

    You don't like that I am proving you to be wrong.

    Research their backgrounds and their job description. Being a secretary of something doesn't automatically make you an expert in that field, because if it was then we would have no need for academics, generals, doctors, scientists. They may become an expert after being in for a long time, dealing with issues and gaining experience. But they are not appointed because they are experts, and they are not automatically experts because they are a "secretary". They are merely democratically elected officials that serve as a link between the government policy, and that department. They may eventually become an expert, but that doesn't mean that automatically they are correct on everything in regards to that department.

    Does Fallon know how to assault and clear a building of enemy and free hostages? No. Ian Duncan Smith does, and he was also a shadow defence secretary and is voting out.

    If we are going to go by simplistic previous/ current jobs. as you are by simply saying he is the defence secretary , then I'm sticking with Ian Duncan Smith when it comes to defence.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    I have lost interest in your stupid, ill-informed isolationist views.
    You might not like his views, but the annoying thing for you is they're correct.

    Political appointees are not by default experts in their field. They may well become one by dint of their time working there, but they're not immediately. After all, from where does someone get the experience to be a PM?

    But OK, let's assume for a moment you're right and that anyone who's a defence secretary / shadow secretary or former military officer is an undeniable expert in the field.
    IDS is a former shadow defence secretary and ex-Army officer...
    Offline

    20
    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.
    No they don't lol.

    All the conservative ones are saying we will be killed by jihadis if we don't vote in their camp.

    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    You're ****ing dumb, and I have lost interest in your stupid attacks. You play dumb and attack the tiny cogs in the argument rather than looking at the bigger picture.Welcome to my ignore list
    You can't ignore us all!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The EU is a Satanic regime being controlled by Freemasons and the Catholic Church, and is part of a plan on the part of that sinister cabal, that synagogue of Satan, Cameron's Cabinet, to destroy our country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    No they don't lol.

    All the conservative ones are saying we will be killed by jihadis if we don't vote in their camp.

    You can't ignore us all!
    1) Some of those economic migrants in Europe would have likely had terrorist infiltration as 70% are not Syrian refugees.
    2) After 5 years, they can all come here.
    3) Turkey could join, increasing the risk.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CSAdam)
    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.
    You do realise that every major leader and country in the EU wants full political union except the UK? A Remain vote will trigger this political union because UK leaders will not feel empowered to object.

    What will the union be like? In Foreign Policy and Defence the EU will be focussed on the East, its borders with Russia and the Middle East (this already happens). The UK will no longer block the European Defence Force and the EU will get its own army. The EU will take over higher education because it is essential to the cohesion of EU. Welfare will be contributory as in other EU countries because of free movement of labour and people, the legal system will be changed to be compatible with Code Napoleon, juries will be phased out, the NHS will be de-nationalised to that it no longer violates the free market. Etc, etc.

    The UK will not be able to oppose these changes, they are already in the Treaties and UK only has 8.5% of vote in EU Council. In effect the UK will be terminated.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    1a) It is not a passport-free zone, especially not for non EU-citizens.

    ..
    I was simply quoting the head of Interpol who said that not policing borders helped terrorists. You say he was wrong...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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.
    There is no risk of 50+% within 10-20 years but the process (increasing % each year) is on-going, including in this country, and it's not obvious if it will stop and, if so, why and how.

    Suppose it stops in some countries but not others. I think there will emerge a permanent divide between those two groups of countries, and them being members of the same political union will no longer make sense.

    Currently Britain's policy is that if you want to be an economic immigrant then you must earn over 35k/year and if you are an asylum seeker you had better already have a visa to enter the country which in practice means very few people can claim asylum.

    Currently Germany's policy is to increase its population by about 1% each year via the asylum system with totally unselected young men from third world countries that are mostly Islamic. The two immigrant pools are going to be very different; they probably have very little overlap in terms of background. If that continues for twenty five years then Britain and Germany, which in 1990 were very similar countries, would not be in 2040. At that point a visa requirement might make sense.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    I was simply quoting the head of Interpol who said that not policing borders helped terrorists. You say he was wrong...
    No, I did not. Please use your reading comprehension. Not policing borders and passport free zone are two different things. As you might have read in some countries you can be controlled anywhere anytime and NO EU LAW says something against it.
 
 
 
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
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.