Safer from terror attacks by leaving the EU?

[melthebell]

So will you be happy to murder the thousands of men women and children?

How do you think that would play out?

 

You might find rather a large increease in terrorism. Well done for one of the most stupid posts ever.

and a crimes against humanity case at the hague?

[sutty27]

You really cannot be silly as you are making out. You cannot seriously think the problem is so simplistic to say "it's Frances problem".

 

We have an agreement at the moment that the our border – the big gates to the UK is on the French side.

 

If that agreement was revoked the border could move back to our English port.

Yep and we could just send people back to the country they just arrived from.

 

 

 

That would mean that Mr Asylum Seeker and Mr Economic Migrant will be able to freely travel across Europe through France and onto any boat they choose to get to the UK border which is now back on our soil.

 

Yep and we we be able to send them straight back to France.

 

So for every ferry that arrives we now have to deal with thousands of passengers and vehicles and lorries getting off sorting out who is resident who is a genuine visitor, who is seeking asylum or even something else.

 

We do that now.

 

We then find a handful of people who shouldn't be here and arrange to send them back on the next boat, during which time another 4 ferries have arrived.

 

France will have the same problem hence they will keep the deal we already have.

 

Lets not forget that once Mr Asylum Seeker and Mr Economic Migrant get back to France they are perfectly entitled to choose another ship and do exactly the same thing again.

 

Yep and if France want to revoked the deal we already have they will also have to suffer the consequences.

 

Round and round it goes. What you going to do when you cannot find a ferry to put them back on that day. Where you going to put them? Its easy to say, I wouldn't build camps but have you any idea who long the asylum process takes. Regardless of the EU in/out debate we still have international obligations which include asylum considerations.

 

There wouldn't be an asylum process, because to claim asylum they have to be running from an unsafe country, and they are not, they are running from safe countries to which they will be sent back.

 

 

What's the alternative? Spend money taking them to some airport and flying them back to their country of origin?

No they would go back to the country they just came from.

 

 

Your comments are falling in line with a lot of the mainstream media. Its far too easy to spout nonsensical statements like "block them getting in" "turn the boats around" "send em all back"

 

So someone agree with me then, yes it is that easy, the easy thing is making excuses for not doing it.

 

 

It does not always work like that in the real world. Even Australia is finding that out the hard way.

 

It will work in which ever way our government decided it will work. If they decide to send them back, back they will go.

 

 

Fact is that just like Airlines, having the checking BEFORE crossing is far more practical and sensible than trying to deal with upon disembarkation. We do not want to lose that.

 

We won't loose that because we will continue to cooperate with the EU and they with us, they have just as much to loose as we have if they no longer want to cooperate.

[andyofborg]

It will work in which ever way our government decided it will work

 

no, things dont work like that. the government might want things to work in a particular way but there is no guarantee that reality will match their aspirations.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 15:13 ----------

 

Employment in the UK isn't be dependant on having full or partial access to the single market.

 

a large number of jobs depend on the single market, if we lose access to it or gain access on worse terms then those jobs are at risk and there is no gurantee that any jobs lost will be quickly replaced by jobs dependent on mythical trade deals which will take years to negotiate if they appear at all

 

Leaving the EU, control over our own laws and reducing the net migration figures to a sustainable level.

 

we have control over our laws now

Edited March 25, 2016 by andyofborg

[sutty27]

no, things dont work like that. the government might want things to work in a particular way but there is no guarantee that reality will match their aspirations.

 

They do if you have a government with the gonads to implement the policies they want.

 

 

 

a large number of jobs depend on the single market, if we lose access to it or gain access on worse terms then those jobs are at risk and there is no gurantee that any jobs lost will be quickly replaced by jobs dependent on mythical trade deals which will take years to negotiate if they appear at all

 

On both sides, we buy stuff from the rest of the EU and that creates jobs in other EU countries, they buy stuff off us and that creates jobs here but we need a large influx of new people to carry out these jobs and most people would like to see that influx fall. So again they will loose more than us if we stop trading, and all the stuff we buy from them will need to be supplied by someone else or locally manufactured and that will create jobs here for the British unemployed instead of EU unemployed and a trading opportunity with other parts of the world. You are just looking at one side of the equation instead both sides of the equation.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 16:10 ----------

 

 

we have control over our laws now

 

We have control over some of our laws but not all and most are set by the EU, not the UK government.

[andyofborg]

They do if you have a government with the gonads to implement the policies they want.

 

 

no government can fully understand the consequences of its actions or implement its will in the face opposition from its citizens.

 

On both sides, we buy stuff from the rest of the EU and that creates jobs in other EU countries, they buy stuff off us and that creates jobs here but we need a large influx of new people to carry out these jobs and most people would like to see that influx fall. So again they will loose more than us if we stop trading, and all the stuff we buy from them will need to be supplied by someone or locally manufactures, which will create jobs here for the British unemployed instead of EU unemployed and a trading opportunity with other parts of the world. You are just looking at one side of the equation instead both sides of the equation.

 

i'm looking at both sides...

 

no one expects trade to stop shouid we leave the eu, the issue is the terms on which that trade is carried out. if a business is trading with the eu and has a small margin then even a small tariff could make that trade unprofitable with all the consequences that flow from that.

 

there is nothing stopping uk companies trading with the non-eu world now and a great many do that very successfully in part because of the trade deals which the eu has negotiated. outside the eu those deals wont be there. of course we could, and hopefully would, negotiate our own deals but they take time to negotiate and go through the necessary administrative steps to ratify them, during which time we would be trading at a disadvantage.

 

we are the 5th largest economy in the world, in part due to our membership of the eu, we may not be such an attractive partner ourside the eu and any deals we negotiate will reflect that.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 16:36 ----------

 

We have control over some of our laws but not all and most are set by the EU, not the UK government.

 

rather than implement the bare minumum to meet eu directives, the british parliament tends to add extra layers to them, for some things this probably makes sense but not for everything, and i imagine that most things we would have to legislate for anyway so it doesn't really matter where it starts.

[sutty27]

no government can fully understand the consequences of its actions or implement its will in the face opposition from its citizens.

 

They would be elected based on the policies in their election manifesto, we should then expect them to implement those policies even when people that didn't vote for them get the face on and complain.

 

 

 

i'm looking at both sides...

 

Clearly you did, because you didn't consider the fact that we buy more from them than they buy from us.

 

no one expects trade to stop shouid we leave the eu, the issue is the terms on which that trade is carried out. if a business is trading with the eu and has a small margin then even a small tariff could make that trade unprofitable with all the consequences that flow from that.

That would work both ways, if someone supplying the UK stops supplying the UK, it opens up an opportunity for someone in the UK to supply the good.

 

 

 

there is nothing stopping uk companies trading with the non-eu world now and a great many do that very successfully in part because of the trade deals which the eu has negotiated. outside the eu those deals wont be there. of course we could, and hopefully would, negotiate our own deals but they take time to negotiate and go through the necessary administrative steps to ratify them, during which time we would be trading at a disadvantage.

 

we are the 5th largest economy in the world, in part due to our membership of the eu, we may not be such an attractive partner ourside the eu and any deals we negotiate will reflect that.

 

Like you just said we are the fifth largest economy in the world we would be a very attractive trade partner.

[andyofborg]

They would be elected based on the policies in their election manifesto, we should then expect them to implement those policies even when people that didn't vote for them get the face on and complain.

 

 

but what about all the things which aren't in the manifesto?

 

 

Clearly you did, because you didn't consider the fact that we buy more from them than they buy from us.

 

we buy far more food and energy from the eu than they buy from us. we kinda need that, it might be possible to source these from elsewhere but only probably at a higher price.

 

That would work both ways, if someone supplying the UK stops supplying the UK, it opens up an opportunity for someone in the UK to supply the good.

 

assuming we have the staff with the skills to produce it.

 

 

Like you just said we are the fifth largest economy in the world we would be a very attractive trade partner.

 

no one knows if we would still be 5th outside of the eu and the eu would likely be a far more attractive trade partner to do a deal with.

[ECCOnoob]

 

rather than implement the bare minumum to meet eu directives, the british parliament tends to add extra layers to them, for some things this probably makes sense but not for everything, and i imagine that most things we would have to legislate for anyway so it doesn't really matter where it starts.

 

You are in the ball park.

 

A fact that many of the out campaign and frothy mouthed fail to realise is an EU directive cannot be placed directly upon any part of British lives.

 

We have a parliament with our own laws and own statutes. When a directive is set out by the EU, its up to our own government to implement the scope of it through the existing statutes, amendments or if necessary the repeal of a law so that the terms and purpose of a directive are met.

 

Its the "interpretation" of a directive which is applied not directly. Its still our OWN laws. Its still our OWN parliament. Its still our OWN policy that affects the man on the street.

[I1L2T3]

You are in the ball park.

 

A fact that many of the out campaign and frothy mouthed fail to realise is an EU directive cannot be placed directly upon any part of British lives.

 

We have a parliament with our own laws and own statutes. When a directive is set out by the EU, its up to our own government to implement the scope of it through the existing statutes, amendments or if necessary the repeal of a law so that the terms and purpose of a directive are met.

 

Its the "interpretation" of a directive which is applied not directly. Its still our OWN laws. Its still our OWN parliament. Its still our OWN policy that affects the man on the street.

 

Exactly, which is why Labour was rightly criticised at times for introducing very literal interpretations of EU laws onto our statute books while the French and Germans often interpreted them very loosely, to protect their own industries. Examples aplenty around competition law.

[unbeliever]

You are in the ball park.

 

A fact that many of the out campaign and frothy mouthed fail to realise is an EU directive cannot be placed directly upon any part of British lives.

 

We have a parliament with our own laws and own statutes. When a directive is set out by the EU, its up to our own government to implement the scope of it through the existing statutes, amendments or if necessary the repeal of a law so that the terms and purpose of a directive are met.

 

Its the "interpretation" of a directive which is applied not directly. Its still our OWN laws. Its still our OWN parliament. Its still our OWN policy that affects the man on the street.

 

That's nonsense.

The national parliaments' flexibility in implementing the EU directives is minimal.

If the EU don't think we've done exactly as we're told, we get taken to court and told to try again.

An EU directive is a dictate. The best we can ever do to resist is stall.

 

The government is currently resisting an order from the EU to apply full VAT to solar panels, home insulation and various other things favoured by the green movement. Currently they're on a rate of 5%.

The UK government thinks that low tax on such items is a good idea as they think people should be encouraged to buy them. The matter was judged against the UK last summer by the CJEU. So we can stall for a while, but if we don't implement the full VAT rate soon, we'll get fined.