Barack Obama: Brexit would put UK at 'back of the queue' in trade talks

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    The Americans would be outraged and rightly so.

    I've addressed the argument that he is entitled to tell us about America's standpoint and likely response several times now. In short, he is, but he went further than that.
    I would think a good proportion of Americans would not know who David Cameron is and not care at all what he'd have to say.

    Meh if he'd come out in favour of leave all the brexit lot would be saying how important it is to listen to the President of the greatest nation on earth while the remain campaign would be saying he should butt out.

    We're all hypocrites. Politics in a nutshell I guess.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Dont think Obama believes a word he is saying it is all favours for Cameron and vested interests for the US. Imagine him taking Camerons proposals to the US population there would be civil war in the States.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Treaties must be approuved by the Senate, which is not Democratic. Obama can make a statement, but it cannot predict the future. There are too many unknown in the equation.
    You are saying precisely nothing. If the credible voice of the USA is not the President of the USA, then who is it, and what are they saying about Brexit?

    While it may be true that treaties are approved by the Senate, they are negotiated by the executive, ie the President.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    As Obama said himself, there's nothing wrong with having more information. As Obama said himself, it's a decision for the British people. The Brexit campaign are looking very silly with their overreaction.

    To all those saying Obama won't even be Prez when we've gone through this, you're right - Hillary will, and she's running as a continuity candidate. Don't expect a complete U-turn.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Obama is suddenly very concerned about the migration now, how convenient.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpwbOsu2GVs

    The EU not only actively brings in migrants and asylum seekers from the Mediterranean and through refugee quotas, but it also makes it easier for terrorists to move around through Schengen (that's how one of the terrorists got to France, for example) and gives migrants more possibilities to remain and seek asylum through asylum legislation.

    At best, Obama doesn't know what he is talking about, and in any case, his claim to be concerned about European security while at the same time advocating for the disastrous EU is not believable.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Why do the leave voters come out with this pathetic response every time someone of influence disagrees with them? "You're not allowed to have an opinion, you're not even involved in this!!!"

    He's the leader of the most powerful country on the planet, and one of our closest allies. What happens to the UK affects him and the rest of the world. He's far more intelligent than most of the people that will be voting in this referendum. He's entitled to express his concerns, just like you're entitled to throw a tantrum when he does so. And he's entitled to take action to stop us making an unfavourable decision.
    You know what I think America should do? .....


    Maybe Corbyn should go over to tell the Americans what he thinks they should do with their guns.

    He'd probably come back in a box.



    I'm already annoyed at how biased the current government has been. They should be neutral and perhaps state what they think is best, whilst presenting both sides of the argument.

    This is a referendum for the UK, not America. So realistically, it's actually none of Obama's business (no matter how much of a great pres I think he is).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I cant understand how this thread lasts 5 pages. The UK dont have some sort of special privileges so this estimate given is pretty accurate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    I'm already annoyed at how biased the current government has been. They should be neutral and perhaps state what they think is best, whilst presenting both sides of the argument.

    This is a referendum for the UK, not America. So realistically, it's actually none of Obama's business (no matter how much of a great pres I think he is).
    They have stated what they think is best. That is staying within the EU.

    There is no reason for them to stay neutral if they think that Brexit would be a disaster.

    It is Obama's business since will directly affect America.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I suggest Obama pays more attention to that corrupted media corporation that they call United States of America and leaves Europe alone (he can take Merkel and Van Rompuy with him).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plstudent)
    The EU not only actively brings in migrants and asylum seekers from the Mediterranean and through refugee quotas, but it also makes it easier for terrorists to move around through Schengen (that's how one of the terrorists got to France, for example) and gives migrants more possibilities to remain and seek asylum through asylum legislation.
    That's why the UK is part of the Schengen agreement on intelligence sharing.

    Apart from that, you're not seriously suggesting that terrorists or their ideology stop at borders? It seems to me that the vast majority of the islamist-based terrorism, or plots thereof, from a UK perspective have been homegrown. ie these people were born in the UK or had citizenship.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    That's why the UK is part of the Schengen agreement on intelligence sharing.

    Apart from that, you're not seriously suggesting that terrorists or their ideology stop at borders? It seems to me that the vast majority of the islamist-based terrorism, or plots thereof, from a UK perspective have been homegrown. ie these people were born in the UK or had citizenship.
    What I am saying very clearly is that the EU has facilitated the movement of terrorists through Schengen, and that the UK is powerless to stop suspected terrorists with EU passports from entering the country. Intelligence sharing didn't help Belgium or France. France introduced border controls after the fact, which is a recognition of the failure of Schengen and EU migration controls.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ibly-high.html

    I could go on about how Sweden and other countries have introduced border controls to stop migration, but this wasn't primarily related to terrorism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plstudent)
    What I am saying very clearly is that the EU has facilitated the movement of terrorists through Schengen, and that the UK is powerless to stop suspected terrorists with EU passports from entering the country. Intelligence sharing didn't help Belgium or France. France introduced border controls after the fact, which is a recognition of the failure of Schengen and EU migration controls.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ibly-high.html

    I could go on about how Sweden and other countries have introduced border controls to stop migration, but this wasn't primarily related to terrorism.
    Yeah, probably because most of the France/Belgium attackers (including the leaders) were born and lived their whole lives in Brussels.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plstudent)
    What I am saying very clearly is that the EU has facilitated the movement of terrorists through Schengen, and that the UK is powerless to stop suspected terrorists with EU passports from entering the country. Intelligence sharing didn't help Belgium or France. France introduced border controls after the fact, which is a recognition of the failure of Schengen and EU migration controls.
    This again is one of those brainless posts which relies upon a lack of knowledge by the original poster, or their brainwashing by the likes of Farage and Johnson. The UK can stop any EU citizen crossing its borders on the basis on national security. This is a core limitation that pervades all EU treaties. That France put in place border controls, and other countries have done the same, is not a failure of EU policy, it is, again, foreseen by Schengen and other treaties that member states can reinstate border controls to safeguard national security.

    We can also deport/exclude EU citizens who have serious criminal convictions or who otherwise pose a threat to society.

    Even if these points were not true, it would be the case that we cannot exclude terrorists/criminals who do not require visas in order to travel to the UK. So, apart from EU citizens here is a list of states whose citizens can travel to the UK without a visa for a stay of up to six months:

    Citizens of Commonwealth countries who have the right of abode in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act 1971.
    Andorra
    Antigua and Barbuda
    Argentina
    Australia
    Bahamas
    Barbados
    Belize
    Botswana
    Brazil
    Brunei
    Canada
    Chile
    Costa Rica
    Dominica
    Timor-Leste
    El Salvador
    Grenada
    Guatemala
    Honduras
    Hong Kong
    Israel
    Japan
    Kiribati
    Macau
    Malaysia
    Maldives
    Marshall Islands
    Mauritius
    Mexico
    Monaco
    FS Micronesia
    Namibia
    Nauru
    New Zealand
    Nicaragua
    Palau
    Panama
    Papua New Guinea
    Paraguay
    Saint Kitts and Nevis
    Saint Lucia
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
    Samoa
    San Marino
    Seychelles
    Singapore
    Solomon Islands
    South Korea
    Taiwan
    Tonga
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Tuvalu
    United States
    Uruguay
    Vanuatu
    Vatican City

    Additionally these states have an electronic visa waiver scheme:

    Kuwait
    Oman
    Qatar
    United Arab Emirates

    Do you believe that all of these states are exempt from links to terrorism, or indeed other criminality?

    The main part of what you seem to be taking from that article is that Domenic Raab, a Conservative Eurosceptic, says that the powers of exclusion given to EU member states are not strong enough. That seems to be his opinion, with no evidence given, rather than that of the UK government.

    If you had bothered to read the entire article you would have found this:

    However Damian Green, a Conservative MP and former Home Office minister who is campaigning for Britain to stay in, said that since 2010 6,000 European citizens have been barred from entering the UK.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Why do the leave voters come out with this pathetic response every time someone of influence disagrees with them? "You're not allowed to have an opinion, you're not even involved in this!!!"

    He's the leader of the most powerful country on the planet, and one of our closest allies. What happens to the UK affects him and the rest of the world. He's far more intelligent than most of the people that will be voting in this referendum. He's entitled to express his concerns, just like you're entitled to throw a tantrum when he does so. And he's entitled to take action to stop us making an unfavourable decision.
    But whether those actions are moral on the other hand...?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    But whether those actions are moral on the other hand...?
    What's he done that's immoral?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I am not prepared to argue anything right now, so quote me in the morning/afternoon and I might get back to it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Yeah, probably because most of the France/Belgium attackers (including the leaders) were born and lived their whole lives in Brussels.
    Probably what? You do realize that by being French/Belgian citizens that gives them free movement within the EU?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Could you highlight what he said in particular and why it is unacceptable?



    Sorry, I profoundly disagree. I don't think he could have been more respectful, as he highlighted it's OUR choice. He didn't attack anyone advocating brexit. This is not manipulation this is him openly stating what he thinks is in both the UKs and US's interests and why that was the case. This is a grave decision with far reaching considerations. He would have been remiss not to. See my latest topic regarding barrosso and the s n p.
    ?.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    This again is one of those brainless posts which relies upon a lack of knowledge by the original poster, or their brainwashing by the likes of Farage and Johnson. The UK can stop any EU citizen crossing its borders on the basis on national security. This is a core limitation that pervades all EU treaties. That France put in place border controls, and other countries have done the same, is not a failure of EU policy, it is, again, foreseen by Schengen and other treaties that member states can reinstate border controls to safeguard national security.

    We can also deport/exclude EU citizens who have serious criminal convictions or who otherwise pose a threat to society.

    Even if these points were not true, it would be the case that we cannot exclude terrorists/criminals who do not require visas in order to travel to the UK. So, apart from EU citizens here is a list of states whose citizens can travel to the UK without a visa for a stay of up to six months:

    Citizens of Commonwealth countries who have the right of abode in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act 1971.
    Andorra
    Antigua and Barbuda
    Argentina
    Australia
    Bahamas
    Barbados
    Belize
    Botswana
    Brazil
    Brunei
    Canada
    Chile
    Costa Rica
    Dominica
    Timor-Leste
    El Salvador
    Grenada
    Guatemala
    Honduras
    Hong Kong
    Israel
    Japan
    Kiribati
    Macau
    Malaysia
    Maldives
    Marshall Islands
    Mauritius
    Mexico
    Monaco
    FS Micronesia
    Namibia
    Nauru
    New Zealand
    Nicaragua
    Palau
    Panama
    Papua New Guinea
    Paraguay
    Saint Kitts and Nevis
    Saint Lucia
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
    Samoa
    San Marino
    Seychelles
    Singapore
    Solomon Islands
    South Korea
    Taiwan
    Tonga
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Tuvalu
    United States
    Uruguay
    Vanuatu
    Vatican City

    Additionally these states have an electronic visa waiver scheme:

    Kuwait
    Oman
    Qatar
    United Arab Emirates

    Do you believe that all of these states are exempt from links to terrorism, or indeed other criminality?



    The main part of what you seem to be taking from that article is that Domenic Raab, a Conservative Eurosceptic, says that the powers of exclusion given to EU member states are not strong enough. That seems to be his opinion, with no evidence given, rather than that of the UK government.

    If you had bothered to read the entire article you would have found this:
    The comparison to a country like Argentina is ridiculous because of the geographical proximity of EU countries. Some of the terror attacks were carried out in coordination between operatives in France and Belgium, for example.

    The EU makes it much harder to bar criminal suspects from entering, relative to the standards that need to be met to bar other suspects, which is what Raab is arguing and is totally correct.

    'This week those campaigning to stay in the EU pointed out that 6,000 EU nationals have been turned away from the UK since 2010. That is absolutely right. 'But, 67,000 non-EU nationals were refused entry. That is ten times the number, even though we've had double the number of European nationals visiting the UK over that period.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...z-Britain.html

    The fact that France put border controls in place after the terror attacks accounted to a recognition of a double failure of EU policy. Firstly, it was a failure to secure the external borders, letting in the "refugee". Secondly, it was recognition that Schengen is a risky move that eliminates the possibility for member states to police their borders and vet immigrants. It didn't help that the French government wanted to appear strong and put on a big show after the fact. Schengen is supposed the be the rule and border controls are supposed to be temporary, under EU regulations. Sweden, ravaged by mass immigration, is now dancing around the rules and putting in place controls that are de facto permanent, but the EU is complaining.

    The movement of criminals is, however, but a minor issue within the much bigger problem of the free movement of peoples. Cameron was asked by Farage before the negotiations in a televised debate whether he was willing to admit that the free movement of peoples was not on the table. Cameron said that wasn't true, and at the end of the negotiations, he came back with nothing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plstudent)
    The comparison to a country like Argentina is ridiculous because of the geographical proximity of EU countries. Some of the terror attacks were carried out in coordination between operatives in France and Belgium, for example.
    Proximity has noting to do with anything. You were arguing that the EU made it easier for terrorists to get into the UK. I pointed out that there are more than 60 countries whose citizens can visit the UK without visas. Apart from anything else what you should have learnt in the past few years is that geographical distance is not a barrier to terrorist plots, they have access to telephones and the internet too.

    The EU makes it much harder to bar criminal suspects from entering, relative to the standards that need to be met to bar other suspects, which is what Raab is arguing and is totally correct.
    Your previous argument was that this was almost impossible, that is obviously untrue.

    'This week those campaigning to stay in the EU pointed out that 6,000 EU nationals have been turned away from the UK since 2010. That is absolutely right. 'But, 67,000 non-EU nationals were refused entry. That is ten times the number, even though we've had double the number of European nationals visiting the UK over that period.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...z-Britain.html
    Please, please do apply some critical faculties to what you read, you make yourself look very silly comparing 6,000 EU citizens excluded to 67,000 non-EU citizens. The primary reason is that it is very easy for EU citizens to fulfil the criteria to come to the UK, they do not need visas and they can come here for almost any reason (leisure, work, study, etc). On the other hand non-EU citizens may need a visa for any visit at all, and will definitely need a visa if they intend to work or study here. It's very easy to see that if someone's papers are not in order, or that they appear to be coming here to work/study without a visa, or their story does not check out for some reason or other, then they can be excluded. Additionally, there are far fewer restrictions on what EU citizens can bring into the UK by way of goods, so it could even be that people are excluded for bringing in goods that are not allowed.

    The fact that France put border controls in place after the terror attacks accounted to a recognition of a double failure of EU policy.
    This is not a failure of EU policy, it is absolutely foreseen and accounted for in the EU treaties.

    Firstly, it was a failure to secure the external borders, letting in the "refugee".
    Erm, isn't it true that the vast majority of these migrants are smuggled across borders, and many of them have false papers? That is what happened in the case you are talking about. That's not a failure to secure the external border per se, it's an indication that criminals will try to circumvent restrictions. People manage to do this crossing the boarder of almost every country in the world - including the UK.

    Secondly, it was recognition that Schengen is a risky move that eliminates the possibility for member states to police their borders and vet immigrants.
    No, because they can carry out spot checks at any time, and they can restore border controls in times of national emergencies.

    It didn't help that the French government wanted to appear strong and put on a big show after the fact. Schengen is supposed the be the rule and border controls are supposed to be temporary, under EU regulations. Sweden, ravaged by mass immigration, is now dancing around the rules and putting in place controls that are de facto permanent, but the EU is complaining.
    There has been a big problem with people smuggling through Greece. This is probably not foreseen by the treaties. But, as I understand it any member state can opt out of Schengen for up to two years. So we are a long way from the treaties being breached. Whatever to problem here, it has very little so do with the terrorism that you are complaining about.

    In any event I believe the issues of migration in Sweden are for the Swedish people to resolve, and nothing to do with the UK's position in the EU.

    The movement of criminals is, however, but a minor issue within the much bigger problem of the free movement of peoples. Cameron was asked by Farage before the negotiations in a televised debate whether he was willing to admit that the free movement of peoples was not on the table. Cameron said that wasn't true, and at the end of the negotiations, he came back with nothing.
    He came back with a solution concerning social security payments, that is directly effective on the free movement of people.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 30, 2016
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.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
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

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