Turn on thread page Beta

EU referendum fearmongering watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    8. Britain's Pensioner Care ScandalSeason 15 - Apr 4, 20167.
    Secrets of CadburySeason 15 - Mar 21, 20166.
    Housing Benefit MillionairesSeason 15 - Mar 14, 20165.
    Council House MillionairesSeason 15 - Mar 7, 20164.
    Dirty Secrets: What's Really in Our Air?Season 15 - Feb 22, 20163.
    999: Where's My Ambulance?Season 15 - Feb 15, 20162.
    How the Rich Avoid TaxSeason 15 - Feb 8, 20161.
    Where's My Missing MailSeason 15 - Feb 1, 2016

    ?
    Then it was panorama there's only a few investigative programs on a week.

    As if you couldn't have just checked bbc itv and c4 rather than coming on here to be a nause


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    You make a claim about something but you are unable to explain it so people have a clue what you are on about.
    You say its Dispatches, but you wont give any details or link it.

    I in good faith went to look for the relevant programme and its not there, now you sat its something else. If your going to make a claim or wnat people to watch soemthing becayse you are unable to explain things, then at least tell people accurately what it is.

    Ridiculous. Your the one making the claim.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    You make a claim about something but you are unable to explain it so people have a clue what you are on about.
    You say its Dispatches, but you wont give any details or link it.

    I in good faith went to look for the relevant programme and its not there, now you sat its something else. If your going to make a claim or wnat people to watch soemthing becayse you are unable to explain things, then at least tell people accurately what it is.

    Ridiculous. Your the one making the claim.
    I would reply but your just being an arse you know perfectly well what I mean


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I'm sure people can find a tv episode from last week themselves


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There's a Panorama program on iPlayer called Inside Europe's Terror Attacks, is that the one you meant?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    There's a Panorama program on iPlayer called Inside Europe's Terror Attacks, is that the one you meant?
    Yep


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    There's a Panorama program on iPlayer called Inside Europe's Terror Attacks, is that the one you meant?
    Thank you, it was bizarre to mention a program to watch then go out of you way in helping to identify it. Syill dont know the point he was making, but will look for open door policy and going in and out.

    Shouldnt have to be this hard.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    They were from Belgium, yes. But most of the members of the terrorist cells had travelled to Syria extensively in the build-up to the attacks, certainly abdeslam. They had been trained by IS, briefed by IS and armed by IS. I'm certainly not doubting that there are nutjobs from Europe. But so far as I can recall. every single terrorist attack has had some direct link to travel in the middle east.
    Please explain how Britain leaving the EU will reduce the numbers of Belgians travelling to Syria. Do you propose that we station tanks on the River Lys to keep the Belgians in?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Please explain how Britain leaving the EU will reduce the numbers of Belgians travelling to Syria. Do you propose that we station tanks on the River Lys to keep the Belgians in?
    Did you even read what I said? Britain leaving the EU will have no affect on Belgians travelling to Syria, and nowhere have I claimed it would. I said that the EU's immigration policy is directly responsible for the terrorist attacks on Brussels and Paris, and by extension Britain would be safer from such terrorist attacks outside of the EU where she would enjoy total control of her borders.

    I don't know if you're just playing dumb to try and argue your point, but I'll assume otherwise. The EU's open door immigration policy means that pretty much everyone in the middle east has unfettered access to Europe. Many of those who were part of the terrorist attacks on Brussels and Paris - certainly Abdeslam - had travelled extensively to and from Syria in the build-up to these attacks, where they received help in the plotting of these attacks from ISIS. This was made possible as a result of the total lack of control over who is entering Europe. It is hence not unreasonable to conjecture that the attacks may not have happened had it not been for the EU's immigration policy.

    With respect to Belgium, as you referred to that country in particular, it isn't about stopping people travelling to Syria. It's about making sure anyone who has travelled to Syria, especially if they have done so repeatedly, and meets any of the risk factors that might suggest a willingness to commit acts of terror, can be investigated further and put under surveillance if needs be. This is how we've been thwarting terror attacks for years. The problem now, is that people can gain access to our countries without going through any of the standard border checks, so we have little and less idea of who is actually in what country. Further, the massive increase in the number of people who potentially could be terrorists means that our home intelligence services are stretched incredibly thin, again increasing the risk of a successful terrorist attack.

    Unless there's a part of this that you can contest, then I don't really see what you're getting at.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Did you even read what I said? Britain leaving the EU will have no affect on Belgians travelling to Syria, and nowhere have I claimed it would. I said that the EU's immigration policy is directly responsible for the terrorist attacks on Brussels and Paris,
    As others have explained to you, these attacks were largely planned and implemented by native-born Belgians.The EU's immigration policies have nothing to do with the attacks. What has had an effect is that the Schegen system of open borders within the EU has made it easier within the Schengen zone, of which we are not a part, for terrorists to circulate and for arms to be imported.


    and by extension Britain would be safer from such terrorist attacks outside of the EU where she would enjoy total control of her borders.
    This is a non-sequiter. The differences between the level of control we have over our borders now and the level of of control we would have if we left the EU would make no difference to the terrorist risk.

    A Belgian born Islamist terrorist would be subject to passport checks but require no visa to enter the UK. An Australian born Islamist would be subject be subject to passport checks bit require no visa to enter the UK. At present we have no power to impose visa requirements on Belgians. We could impose visa requirements on Australians. If we left the EU we would be able to impose visa requirements on Belgians. However in the real world, and regardless of the atrocities committed by their nationals, it is inconceivable that we would ever require visas of either Belgians or Australians. No immigration restrictions were ever imposed on Ireland during any of the three IRA bombing campaigns on the mainland in 1938/40, 1960/61 or 1971/97

    I don't know if you're just playing dumb to try and argue your point, but I'll assume otherwise. The EU's open door immigration policy means that pretty much everyone in the middle east has unfettered access to Europe.
    That is neither the EU's policy nor its practical effect but even if it were, it would still be the case regardless of whether the UK was a member or not. The border policies of the UK would not change if we left the EU.


    Many of those who were part of the terrorist attacks on Brussels and Paris - certainly Abdeslam - had travelled extensively to and from Syria in the build-up to these attacks, where they received help in the plotting of these attacks from ISIS. This was made possible as a result of the total lack of control over who is entering Europe. It is hence not unreasonable to conjecture that the attacks may not have happened had it not been for the EU's immigration policy.
    And would still be able to do so if the UK left.

    With respect to Belgium, as you referred to that country in particular, it isn't about stopping people travelling to Syria. It's about making sure anyone who has travelled to Syria, especially if they have done so repeatedly, and meets any of the risk factors that might suggest a willingness to commit acts of terror, can be investigated further and put under surveillance if needs be. This is how we've been thwarting terror attacks for years. The problem now, is that people can gain access to our countries without going through any of the standard border checks, so we have little and less idea of who is actually in what country. Further, the massive increase in the number of people who potentially could be terrorists means that our home intelligence services are stretched incredibly thin, again increasing the risk of a successful terrorist attack.
    The UK leaving the EU will not suddenly turn the Belgian security services from a laughing stock into an efficient force.

    The Belgians have two problems. They have by far the weakest central government in Europe. That means it is virtually impossible to implement security policy or social policy changes. Secondly, although France has social policy failings, it has a very good security policy which means that Belgium, as a Francophone country with a weak security apparatus tends to operate as Dundalk did to Northern Ireland.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    As others have explained to you, these attacks were largely planned and implemented by native-born Belgians.The EU's immigration policies have nothing to do with the attacks. What has had an effect is that the Schegen system of open borders within the EU has made it easier within the Schengen zone, of which we are not a part, for terrorists to circulate and for arms to be imported.
    Do you accept that those who orchestrated the attack travelled extensively to and from Syria? Because if you do - and this is a verifiable fact - then I fail to understand how you think the EU's immigration policy isn't relevant. The EU has made it incredibly easy for people from the middle east to enter Europe. This was taken advantage of by those who orchestrated the attacks, and allowed them to consort with ISIS freely before returning to Europe. Abdeslam was a wanted man months before the attacks; he was only able to move in and out of europe so freely because the EU has ceded virtually all control of its borders.


    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    This is a non-sequiter. The differences between the level of control we have over our borders now and the level of of control we would have if we left the EU would make no difference to the terrorist risk.

    A Belgian born Islamist terrorist would be subject to passport checks but require no visa to enter the UK. An Australian born Islamist would be subject be subject to passport checks bit require no visa to enter the UK. At present we have no power to impose visa requirements on Belgians. We could impose visa requirements on Australians. If we left the EU we would be able to impose visa requirements on Belgians. However in the real world, and regardless of the atrocities committed by their nationals, it is inconceivable that we would ever require visas of either Belgians or Australians. No immigration restrictions were ever imposed on Ireland during any of the three IRA bombing campaigns on the mainland in 1938/40, 1960/61 or 1971/97
    Firstly, if you're suggesting that none of the immigrants who have entered Europe have made it to Britain then you're sorely mistaken. Plenty have made it through to Britain via Calais, and it is highly likely that the EU will ask Britain to shoulder some of the burden of the millions who continue to enter europe. Asides from that, I won't conjecture as to how exactly we would operate our borders after we left the EU, because frankly we don't know. What we do know is we would have the option to impose more or less whatever we so choose. Personally, that's something I think would make Britain safer, and indeed should be the right of any sovereign nation.


    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    That is neither the EU's policy nor its practical effect but even if it were, it would still be the case regardless of whether the UK was a member or not. The border policies of the UK would not change if we left the EU.
    Isn't it? Do you not remember Merkel saying that all immigrants were welcome in Germany? That's the very definition of open-door immigration.


    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    And would still be able to do so if the UK left.
    Again, I recommend you read both the comment which started this thread and my response. I did not, at all, make mention of Britain in my initial comment. I said that the EU's policy on immigration was responsible for the terrorist attacks.

    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The UK leaving the EU will not suddenly turn the Belgian security services from a laughing stock into an efficient force.

    The Belgians have two problems. They have by far the weakest central government in Europe. That means it is virtually impossible to implement security policy or social policy changes. Secondly, although France has social policy failings, it has a very good security policy which means that Belgium, as a Francophone country with a weak security apparatus tends to operate as Dundalk did to Northern Ireland.
    You're conflating the two issues, repeatedly. I never said that Britain leaving the EU would benefit Belgium. I said that Belgium has suffered at the hands of the EU's immigration policy, and by extension Britain would do well to distance itself lest it too be dragged in.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Do you accept that those who orchestrated the attack travelled extensively to and from Syria? Because if you do - and this is a verifiable fact - then I fail to understand how you think the EU's immigration policy isn't relevant. The EU has made it incredibly easy for people from the middle east to enter Europe. This was taken advantage of by those who orchestrated the attacks, and allowed them to consort with ISIS freely before returning to Europe. Abdeslam was a wanted man months before the attacks; he was only able to move in and out of europe so freely because the EU has ceded virtually all control of its borders.
    This has nothing to do with the EU's immigration policy because they were not immigrants. Once any member of his cell got himself to any country (e.g. Turkey or Cyprus) which had regular direct or indirect transport links to Belgium they could travel backwards and forwards like any tourist or businessman,


    Firstly, if you're suggesting that none of the immigrants who have entered Europe have made it to Britain then you're sorely mistaken.Plenty have made it through to Britain via Calais,
    First of all relatively few have made it to Britain. However, I repeat the point. This cell was composed of Belgian nationals. They didn't have to hide in the back of a lorry at Calais. They could travel first class on the Eurostar or take the ferry from Zeebrugge to Hull. You are aware, aren't you, that IRA gunmen have committed attacks in Belgium.

    Whilst there is a risk of Islamic terrorists hiding amongst refugee convoys, frankly it is more efficient for Isis to buy them a forged passport and stick them on a plane at Ankara.

    and it is highly likely that the EU will ask Britain to shoulder some of the burden of the millions who continue to enter europe.
    The EU has done so on several occasions and each time we have said, as we are entitled to do "no".


    Asides from that, I won't conjecture as to how exactly we would operate our borders after we left the EU, because frankly we don't know. What we do know is we would have the option to impose more or less whatever we so choose.
    That is a complete cop out. You well know that we would not in practice operate our borders any different to how we are doing it now.


    Personally, that's something I think would make Britain safer, and indeed should be the right of any sovereign nation.
    Please spare us this sovereignty nonsense. We are sovereign because we can repeal the European Communities Act. We are equally sovereign because we can simultaneously declare war on the USA and Russia. We can enter into an alliance with North Korea, declare 2+2=5 and impose a ban on Frenchmen drinking wine in Paris.

    All exercises of sovereignty have to exist in the real world and the plain fact is that our border polices would not change if we left the EU.




    Isn't it? Do you not remember Merkel saying that all immigrants were welcome in Germany? That's the very definition of open-door immigration.
    But that is not the very definition of an EU policy. Merkel acted entirely unilaterally with her statement.


    Again, I recommend you read both the comment which started this thread and my response. I did not, at all, make mention of Britain in my initial comment. I said that the EU's policy on immigration was responsible for the terrorist attacks.



    You're conflating the two issues, repeatedly. I never said that Britain leaving the EU would benefit Belgium. I said that Belgium has suffered at the hands of the EU's immigration policy, and by extension Britain would do well to distance itself lest it too be dragged in.
    Belgium has suffered in this from the Schengen open borders within Europe (but has benefited from this policy to a much greater extent) but not from the EU's immigration policy which has had no effect on these atrocities. The prime cause of what has happened is weak social policy which has meant no-one gave a damn about the growth of disaffected Muslims in a country dominated by Flemish/Walloon identity politics and weak security policy because of the absence of a strong central government. There used to be a Ulster joke "But are you a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew?" That is the what Belgium now has with its Muslim population.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,754

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.