Safer from terror attacks by leaving the EU?

[I1L2T3]

Stop the free movement of people into the UK.

 

But we don't have free movement. We have borders. We are not in Schengen. We already have the opportunity to deny entry to anyone we don't trust.

 

So what would you change?

[Hots on]

But we don't have free movement. We have borders. We are not in Schengen. We already have the opportunity to deny entry to anyone we don't trust.

 

So what would you change?

 

In effect this is meaningless. We may as well be in Schengen given that 300,000 net a year is the new norm.

[999tigger]

But we don't have free movement. We have borders. We are not in Schengen. We already have the opportunity to deny entry to anyone we don't trust.

 

So what would you change?

 

Dont point out the truth to him.

[I1L2T3]

In effect this is meaningless. We may as well be in Schengen given that 300,000 net a year is the new norm.

 

150,000 of the net increase is from non-EU countries, and is absolutely nothing to do with EU membership.

[Hots on]

150,000 of the net increase is from non-EU countries, and is absolutely nothing to do with EU membership.

 

There is in effect no border meaningful border controls in this country.

 

---------- Post added 24-03-2016 at 22:46 ----------

 

150,000 of the net increase is from non-EU countries, and is absolutely nothing to do with EU membership.

 

There is in effect no meaningful border controls in this country.

 

---------- Post added 24-03-2016 at 22:48 ----------

 

150,000 of the net increase is from non-EU countries, and is absolutely nothing to do with EU membership.

 

There is in effect no meaningful border controls in this country.

 

Forums gone funny again. Is it because inconvenient truths are being spoken??

 

---------- Post added 24-03-2016 at 22:49 ----------

 

150,000 of the net increase is from non-EU countries, and is absolutely nothing to do with EU membership.

 

There is in effect no meaningful border controls in this country.

 

The forums gone wonky again. Is it because inconvenient truths are being spoken??

[nomoney]

The only way to stop terrorist from coming in to the UK,is to leave the EU,it seems they have EU passports and are free to travel here,once here it is hard to deport them under EU rules.

[ihpb]

Sheffield City Council have made enough enemies of their own people for there to be terrorist attacks in the city. The fact that the people of Sheffield have elected and given carte blanche authority to the Local Authority means that all Sheffield people are responsible for the decisions of the Council and will bear the attacks spurned by its victims.

 

Bangladeshi workers began to arrive in Sheffield factories from 1945 and Pakistani immigration began in the 1950's to meet labour shortages. We didn't join the EU until 1973.

[sutty27]

But we don't have free movement. We have borders. We are not in Schengen. We already have the opportunity to deny entry to anyone we don't trust.

 

So what would you change?

 

There would be more security at the borders, more checks and fewer people to check, more people turned away and more people deported.

 

Its also not one of the main concerns of those that want to leave the EU, so even if it doesn't make us safer it most definitely won't make us less safe which is the claim made by those that want to stay. Odd that you want the leave to prove we will be safer whilst the people making the claim haven't even demonstrated how it will make us less safe.

Edited March 25, 2016 by sutty27

[andyofborg]

time to take a far more in depth look at who comes up to our borders? we need a visible presence on the st also, visible checkpoints at major events, public buildings, airports and rail stations.

we also need random checks on the general public in all situations with explosive detecting sniffer dogs.

we need to spend less on overseas aid and more on home defence priorities.

 

 

yup, we can do all that and probably should do some of them, however those things cost both in people to do it all and the time it takes to do that.

 

one thing i would say is that random checks would be pointless.

 

we are safer by leaving the EU and its constraints!

 

nope, at best we are as safe as we are now.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 09:07 ----------

 

Or we could just simply refuse them entry full stop. Then we could concentrate on our internal Islamic nutjobs.

 

I say your are Donald Trump and claim my 1 million dollars.

 

Refusing entry to all muslims is pointless, stupid and self defeating. A large number of people come into this country to for tourist and trade reasons you would end all that which really wouldn't do the economy a lot of good.

 

Equally, how do you know that people coming in are muslim anyway? You do know that white people can be muslims too and that not every brown person is a muslim dont you?

 

The only way to really be sure is to close down all international travel, totally utterly and completely.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 09:14 ----------

 

Sheffield City Council have made enough enemies of their own people for there to be terrorist attacks in the city. The fact that the people of Sheffield have elected and given carte blanche authority to the Local Authority means that all Sheffield people are responsible for the decisions of the Council and will bear the attacks spurned by its victims.

 

 

would you care to expand on that?

 

i for one would be interested to know why you think this.

[I1L2T3]

We would be safer, purely down to the fact that we could control our borders with more vigour if were out of the EU.

We must not be part of any OPEN BORDER agreement. Its pure stupidity.

 

Are you sure. If anything, without the cooperation of our European partners, it would be easier for people to get onto ferries to the UK. Then yeah we could have a secure border but the border would be on UK soil at the port. Where you going to put the thousands of people who could turn up every week? We can't impose our border on foreign sovereign territory without the explicit co-operation of the places where we want to impose the border.

 

There would be every incentive for the countries where the main ports are for ferries to the UK just to let the migrants/refugees get on the ferries. Or you could ask ferry companies to bear the strain of dealing with it all.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 10:40 ----------

 

There would be more security at the borders, more checks and fewer people to check, more people turned away and more people deported.

 

Its also not one of the main concerns of those that want to leave the EU, so even if it doesn't make us safer it most definitely won't make us less safe which is the claim made by those that want to stay. Odd that you want the leave to prove we will be safer whilst the people making the claim haven't even demonstrated how it will make us less safe.

 

The border would be in the UK. Not in France.

 

The people who want to stay in the EU don't have to prove anything. You have to tell us how it will be different and you are totally failing to produce any compelling arguments.

 

We already have strong borders. Only you are too blinkered to see it and can't guarantee that we wouldn't weaken them.