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

Will the English Channel come to our rescue again? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think the English Channel will be one of greatest assets in the problems that are likely to come to Europe in terms of the mass movement of people, jihadists entering countries easily by land, etc. Yes, there are boats, flights and the Eurotunnel, but properly utilised the English Channel gives us a big advantage compared to the continent in my view.

    What do you think?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It certainly prevents people from simply walking across, but thanks to unchecked immigration there are plenty of people already in the UK who pose a threat to national security. This is evidenced by the number of British citizens who sympathise or have gone out to join ISIS.
    We won't kick them out though because their human rights trump everything.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    We need to cave in the Euro Tunnel first,
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    I think the English Channel will be one of greatest assets in the problems that are likely to come to Europe in terms of the mass movement of people, jihadists entering countries easily by land, etc. Yes, there are boats, flights and the Eurotunnel, but properly utilised the English Channel gives us a big advantage compared to the continent in my view.

    What do you think?
    The channel is more important in keeping out guns and explosives. Even in the IRA years, it was a real struggle for terrorists to get hold of military grade weapons. Most bombs comprised small quantities of commercial explosive plus home made stuff.

    Most Islamic terrorists in the UK seem to be homegrown.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The channel is more important in keeping out guns and explosives. Even in the IRA years, it was a real struggle for terrorists to get hold of military grade weapons. Most bombs comprised small quantities of commercial explosive plus home made stuff.

    Most Islamic terrorists in the UK seem to be homegrown.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The IRA was slightly different in that Ireland has its own manufacturing laws I guess.

    Yet, they are incapable of attacking.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IAmNero)
    The IRA was slightly different in that Ireland has its own manufacturing laws I guess.

    Yet, they are incapable of attacking.
    It isn't really different. You have two countries Britain and Ireland separated by sea from the continent and it was very difficult, and still is difficult, to smuggle military grade weapons and explosives in.

    The attackers yesterday had Kalashnikovs. The killers of Lee Rigby had a cleaver, knives and a single revolver. The IRA never managed an attack on the mainland with an assault rifle.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The perpetrators of the Paris and Brussels attacks were able to cross borders relatively easily but I feel that doing so in the U.K. would be a lot tougher.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    The perpetrators of the Paris and Brussels attacks were able to cross borders relatively easily but I feel that doing so in the U.K. would be a lot tougher.
    That is true for the Paris attacks but is there any sign yet that the Brussels attackers crossed a Schengen zone internal border?

    Their guns and explosives will certainly have crossed borders.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    That is true for the Paris attacks but is there any sign yet that the Brussels attackers crossed a Schengen zone internal border?

    Their guns and explosives will certainly have crossed borders.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That was not my point. They have the luxury of doing that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The channel is more important in keeping out guns and explosives. Even in the IRA years, it was a real struggle for terrorists to get hold of military grade weapons. Most bombs comprised small quantities of commercial explosive plus home made stuff.

    Most Islamic terrorists in the UK seem to be homegrown.
    They're imports but voluntary imports.

    Channel makes it cheaper to end those voluntary imports but is not the fundamental issue.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The channel is more important in keeping out guns and explosives. Even in the IRA years, it was a real struggle for terrorists to get hold of military grade weapons. Most bombs comprised small quantities of commercial explosive plus home made stuff.

    Most Islamic terrorists in the UK seem to be homegrown.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The IRA aren't terrorist.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    The IRA aren't terrorist.
    What planet are you from?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    They're imports but voluntary imports.

    Channel makes it cheaper to end those voluntary imports but is not the fundamental issue.
    I am sorry. I do not understand your point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    What planet are you from?
    Ireland 1845
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    The IRA aren't terrorist.
    A terrorist is the other side's freedom fighter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    There needs to be more naval destroyers to turn back the herds heading over from North Africa and Greece. Then there needs to be a large scale deployment of the military to search every vehicle entering Britain to stop the swarm from Calais illegally entering. The jungle camps in Calais should be a temporary cage to keep them all in as military soldiers surround the camps. When the logistics have been organised all of the illegal migrants should be removed from Europe to where they came from.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I am sorry. I do not understand your point.
    I wanted to think before replying to this, because the point I was making wasn't very obvious from what I wrote, and is a bit wider than the specifics of this issue.

    Neither side in the EU debate is really talking about the EU; both are talking about something more like "the international system". You are pointing out that, right now, the UK would have more or less free movement with mainland Europe regardless of the EU. That's true. The 'Leave' side is making a vague qualitative argument that EU membership makes it easier for people to enter the UK because it just feels like that. Note that you have made a comparable argument for 'Remain' in the past, arguing that the EU keeps the Calais jungle in Calais when the agreements on which that arrangement is based are also unrelated to the EU. It just feels like it should be so. This is because people are confusing the EU with "the international system", because supporters of one tend to be supporters of the other.

    If we want to remain a nationstate with historical continuity from before 1950, we need to either shut down or greatly change the criteria for immigration. As continental [Western] European countries are going to cease being nationstates with historical continuity from before 1950 in the next decades, it means stringent visa requirements with those countries, frankly a lot of people being turned away. That means seceding from the international system. Seceding from the EU is a necessary precondition of seceding from the international system, but does not constitute secession from the international system. Leaving the EU, on its own, brings us almost nowhere; it will make little difference to the prosperity or international relations of this country (in either direction). What it does is open possibilities to adopt different policies, policies that are at odds with historical and international precedent.

    The relevance of the Channel is that, if we wanted to secede from the international system, the Channel would make it much cheaper. We could just decide to go our own way and tell the continentals and the Americans to go hang. Because of their geography, the Germans probably could not, or at least would find it much less secure and much less comfortable.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I wanted to think before replying to this, because the point I was making wasn't very obvious from what I wrote, and is a bit wider than the specifics of this issue.

    Neither side in the EU debate is really talking about the EU; both are talking about something more like "the international system". You are pointing out that, right now, the UK would have more or less free movement with mainland Europe regardless of the EU. That's true. The 'Leave' side is making a vague qualitative argument that EU membership makes it easier for people to enter the UK because it just feels like that. Note that you have made a comparable argument for 'Remain' in the past, arguing that the EU keeps the Calais jungle in Calais when the agreements on which that arrangement is based are also unrelated to the EU. It just feels like it should be so. This is because people are confusing the EU with "the international system", because supporters of one tend to be supporters of the other.

    If we want to remain a nationstate with historical continuity from before 1950, we need to either shut down or greatly change the criteria for immigration. As continental [Western] European countries are going to cease being nationstates with historical continuity from before 1950 in the next decades, it means stringent visa requirements with those countries, frankly a lot of people being turned away. That means seceding from the international system. Seceding from the EU is a necessary precondition of seceding from the international system, but does not constitute secession from the international system. Leaving the EU, on its own, brings us almost nowhere; it will make little difference to the prosperity or international relations of this country (in either direction). What it does is open possibilities to adopt different policies, policies that are at odds with historical and international precedent.

    The relevance of the Channel is that, if we wanted to secede from the international system, the Channel would make it much cheaper. We could just decide to go our own way and tell the continentals and the Americans to go hang. Because of their geography, the Germans probably could not, or at least would find it much less secure and much less comfortable.
    I disagree with you here because I think that by far the majority of the persons on both sides wish to preserve what you call the international system. There is a relatively small minority who perceive racial (though often dressed up as cultural) identity as an issue of overwhelming importance. They do not care if the they or the country is poorer so long as it is white. The EU issue has allowed them to escape from a political ghetto, because their position on the EU is aligned with mainstream "leave" opinion.

    To the majority of the British public "historical continuity from before 1950" is the idea that British policy is built around international trade (not necessarily free trade) but the idea that Britain sells goods abroad. That is deeply engrained and one sees this in the EU arguments that our international trade would be better if we stay/leave the EU.

    Britain has an historical issue with immigration and not with race. Read any material from the 1960s to 1980s and the "colour issue" is almost always seen in terms of black Caribbean immigration. Look back to the turn of the 20th century and it was central European Jews where the political debate lay. That has completely disappeared from the political agenda not because those populations have disappeared but because they are not migrating here. It is Poles and Syrians who are now the issue.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I disagree with you here because I think that by far the majority of the persons on both sides wish to preserve what you call the international system. There is a relatively small minority who perceive racial (though often dressed up as cultural) identity as an issue of overwhelming importance. They do not care if the they or the country is poorer so long as it is white. The EU issue has allowed them to escape from a political ghetto, because their position on the EU is aligned with mainstream "leave" opinion.
    I accept that few people want to secede from the international system. On the other hand, few want its end goal, of some kind of a bureaucratic world state; in fact it sounds equally as fantastic as the idea of secession. The 'Remain' campaign is not running on a platform of keeping open the option to join the Euro, and the prospect of a European army. Most people who oppose the international system just want to go back a bit, or at least not go forward; most people who support the international system just want to go forward a bit, or at least not go backward. My point is not that very many people are extreme opponents of the international system; my point is that it is the international system that is in question, and not the EU as such. It is the same reason the ECHR is lumped together with the EU.

    (What the Remain campaign is saying - I think reasonably - is that if you want to stay in the same place or only go back a bit, the EU is not very problematic: moderate opponents of the international system should also support the EU status quo, since leaving the EU only offers important changes to extreme opponents of the international system. However what they omit to say is that staying in the same place is not something EU membership offers, and that it will drift over time to a more extreme version of the international system. But that is a digression.)

    To the majority of the British public "historical continuity from before 1950" is the idea that British policy is built around international trade (not necessarily free trade) but the idea that Britain sells goods abroad. That is deeply engrained and one sees this in the EU arguments that our international trade would be better if we stay/leave the EU.

    Britain has an historical issue with immigration and not with race. Read any material from the 1960s to 1980s and the "colour issue" is almost always seen in terms of black Caribbean immigration. Look back to the turn of the 20th century and it was central European Jews where the political debate lay. That has completely disappeared from the political agenda not because those populations have disappeared but because they are not migrating here. It is Poles and Syrians who are now the issue.
    I don't think Britain's conception of itself is based wholly or primarily on international trade. Nor do I think it is a racial conception. It is however based on a number of ideas that are not shared by all people, probably not shared by most people, on this planet. It is possible to accept such people as immigrants and still preserve the existing conception of Britain, but not at a rate so fast that they do not dissolve, but rather change the conception of Britain themselves. That is what is happening, which did not happen with Central European Jews or Afro-Carribeans; the numbers were too small and the rate too low.

    If Britain wants to alter this trend then it either needs to impose a much lower quota on immigrant numbers or it needs to impose requirements such that only people who are already like the existing population can enter as immigrants, or both. However, if the rest of the EU does not do these things, then Britain would also have to impose those filters on the EU, as an assumption of cultural similarity between Britain and the likes of France and Germany that could have been assumed in 1980 will no longer hold.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)



    It is possible to accept such people as immigrants and still preserve the existing conception of Britain, but not at a rate so fast that they do not dissolve, but rather change the conception of Britain themselves. That is what is happening, which did not happen with Central European Jews or Afro-Carribeans; the numbers were too small and the rate too low.
    This did not happen with the Afro-Caribbeans, and Jewish demographics are notorious for not 'dissolving'.

    Not that I mean this in a pejorative manner, although 'notorious' is suggestive of that meaning. It's for lack of a better word.

    Whilst the Jewish people are somewhat resistant to being dissolved, they are also renowned for being reclusive, which is why I suspect they are targeted by actual xenophobes. They often opt to retain their identity while contributing to society as a whole, their influence on British identity is negligible.

    The Afro-Caribbean influence on British culture on the other hand is undeniable, it has influenced the British identity. From the commonly used language to the arts. Some good some bad........ Yardies, knife crime, gun crime, crime in general. Music, food, special policies built almost specifically around them including youth programs, charities, positive discrimination, Trident.
    The list really is endless, and the divide is still quite measurable contrary to their influence on our society as a whole. You need only look at the crime stats.

    It's the assault on the English language I cant stand though, the common tongue of the UK has become almost incomprehensible. Innit bruv, unless ya wanna beef wit me. I got bare beef wit chief finkin I is soft in da ends innit.

    I'd much prefer good ole English slang, bloody, have a butchers at that, bees knees, blimey, blinding. It's a dead art though, replaced with the previously mentioned. It actually had a bit of thought behind it, where as the other is incoherent euphemisms that often don't make any bloody sense.
 
 
 
  • 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 like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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

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