Safer from terror attacks by leaving the EU?

[I1L2T3]

Because Calais is in France, but like I said in that same post, which ever country they arrive from that is the country they will go back to.

 

If they arrive from Germany sent back to Germany.

 

All they have to do is say they are claiming asylum. The rule on 'first safe country' has been all but torn up anyway.

[sutty27]

France wouldn't have a say in the matter !

 

My that's an insightful view of the interaction between states - which book did you get that pearl from ?

 

I think with respect the French would have a say and you wouldn't like the answer. There are international rules that govern these sorts of things you know and they are not all made by European countries - try the United Nations on that one - maybe we should leave that too

 

If they chose to send people they don't want here, it would only be fair for us to send them back. You think fairness is a one way street, if they mess with us we will mess with them, it won't happen though because will still have cross border cooperation with them.

[I1L2T3]

No they haven't but if they did it would be their loss.

 

Yes they have. I watched the French ambassador to the UK being interviewed on the news and that is exactly what she said.

 

How would it be their loss? It would save them a lot of money and resources, and get rid of the camps.

[sutty27]

Keep your head in the sand. All you've done is said how you'd like it to work without providing any guarantees at all. You can't provide any guarantees because you don't know what will happen and you don't know what you are arguing for. All just a leap in the dark

 

Take your head out of the sand.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 12:08 ----------

 

All they have to do is say they are claiming asylum. The rule on 'first safe country' has been all but torn up anyway.

 

No they don't we will be in control of our rules, if we don't want them we will be able to send them back.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 12:08 ----------

 

Yes they have. I watched the French ambassador to the UK being interviewed on the news and that is exactly what she said.

 

How would it be their loss? It would save them a lot of money and resources, and get rid of the camps.

 

No it wouldn't it would cost them more because we would keep sending them back.

[ECCOnoob]

And we could put them on the return journey and tell them to claim asylum is France.

 

I wouldn't build processing centres, I would send them back to the country they just came from.

 

Wow, I never knew it was so simple.

 

Like a giant game of refugee tennis. Boat comes in and before anyone even steps a foot on the ramp, we close it up and send it straight back again.

 

How long do you seriously think that's gonna last before something gives.

[altus]

If they chose to send people they don't want here, it would only be fair for us to send them back. You think fairness is a one way street, if they mess with us we will mess with them, it won't happen though because will still have cross border cooperation with them.

 

They wouldn't be sending them here. They'd just wouldn't stop them from coming here as they do now. The result would be the camps get exported to Dover.

[andyofborg]

 

No it wouldn't make it harder, it would make it easier.

 

how would it make it easier?

 

it's clear there must be better cooperation between the eu states on this issue and there will be a great deal of pressure to do that, I'm not sure how us sitting on the outside trying to negotiate 27 individual deals at the same time would be very easy.

 

returning people to where they came from, isn't always possible and there are a whole host of rules which govern this and the "first safe country" is more of a guideline in the international treaties and perhaps more formally part of the eu law we've just walked away from. regardless of the legalities there is the more practical point of actually doing it. who pays for this? i doubt the receiving country will, expecting the transport company to absorb the cost, every non-paying person takes the seat of a paying one, will soon make a route unprofitable which will cost jobs and if someone turns up on the last plane/ferry/train we have to put them somewhere overnight until we can send them back.

 

on the wider issues, it's true that no one really knows which of the current arrangements will fall if we leave there is no guarantee that any will remain either and the chaos which ensues while we try and work out which ones survive will do no one any good.

 

it seems unlikely that the eu, would allow us access to the single market without the same conditions as other non eu countries which means the free movement of people, a budget contribution and implementation of eu directives at least in so far as they affect the single market.

 

whether or not that makes the government unelectable is not really the eu's problem.

 

i'm sure we could negotiate a deal which almost gets us full access to the single market without the other bits but almost isn't the same as full and that might not be good enough especially if you are operating on a tight margin.

[sutty27]

They wouldn't be sending them here. They'd just wouldn't stop them from coming here as they do now. The result would be the camps get exported to Dover.

 

They would be facilitating it by allowing to travel freely through their country to get here, and we will just send them back to France, they are Frances problem not ours, if France doesn't want them they should have stopped them getting into France.

[I1L2T3]

Take your head out of the sand.

 

I haven't got my head in the sand. We have safe borders, we have good intelligence servers and a border agency that with some decent resourcing would be world class. We don't have to leave the EU to resource it properly.

 

It may be a surprise but I feel safe in this country as it is. I feel very nervous about how leaving the EU would impact that.

[sutty27]

how would it make it easier?

 

it's clear there must be better cooperation between the eu states on this issue and there will be a great deal of pressure to do that, I'm not sure how us sitting on the outside trying to negotiate 27 individual deals at the same time would be very easy.

 

We wouldn't negotiate 27 different deals, just one with the EU.

 

 

returning people to where they came from, isn't always possible and there are a whole host of rules which govern this and the "first safe country" is more of a guideline in the international treaties and perhaps more formally part of the eu law we've just walked away from. regardless of the legalities there is the more practical point of actually doing it. who pays for this? i doubt the receiving country will, expecting the transport company to absorb the cost, every non-paying person takes the seat of a paying one, will soon make a route unprofitable which will cost jobs and if someone turns up on the last plane/ferry/train we have to put them somewhere overnight until we can send them back.

 

Yes it is always possible, and they wouldn't be sent back to their country of origin they would be sent back to the country they arrived from.

 

it seems unlikely that the eu, would allow us access to the single market without the same conditions as other non eu countries which means the free movement of people, a budget contribution and implementation of eu directives at least in so far as they affect the single market.

 

whether or not that makes the government unelectable is not really the eu's problem.

 

It would be our governments problem hence they wouldn't negotiate a deal that involved the free movement of people.

 

 

i'm sure we could negotiate a deal which almost gets us full access to the single market without the other bits but almost isn't the same as full and that might not be good enough especially if you are operating on a tight margin.

 

Whether we get full access or partial access isn't an important issue for most of the people wanting to leave.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 12:46 ----------

 

I haven't got my head in the sand. We have safe borders, we have good intelligence servers and a border agency that with some decent resourcing would be world class. We don't have to leave the EU to resource it properly.

 

It may be a surprise but I feel safe in this country as it is. I feel very nervous about how leaving the EU would impact that.

 

Yes your head is in the sand, and yes we have the best intelligence servers in the EU, they will want to cooperate with us.

 

I also feel safe in the country as it is, most people that want Brexit very likely feel safe in the country as it is, leaving however would make it safer and it isn't an overly important issue for those wanting Brexit, its the EU supporters that think it's an important issue and they that made the incorrect claim that we wouldn't be safe if we leave the EU, they are talking nonsense and can't back up what they say, so they have moved the burden of proof on those that didn't bring the matter up.

Edited March 25, 2016 by sutty27