Safer from terror attacks by leaving the EU?

[andyofborg]

So you think France could refuse to accept them from us, but we must accept them from France, odd that isn't it.

 

If they arrive here from France and if we don't want them, they are on the next boat back to France, France wouldn't have a say in the matter.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 11:45 ----------

 

Yes I have thought that through it is the EU supporters that haven't thought it through.

 

why do you think they will all come from France?

[sutty27]

equally, you haven't really explained how leaving would make them stronger.

I have but it doesn't really matter because it isn't the main concern of those wanting to leave the EU.

 

how do you tell if someone who turns up at your border is a terrorist or not?

 

With great difficulty I suspect.

 

 

clearly, there is much more which can and needs to be done to improve that sort of cooperation but walking away from the strucures which can deliver it across 28 nations seems very counter productive.

 

Leaving the EU wouldn't mean walking away from cross border cooperation.

 

what if they didn't come from france?

 

If they arrive from France they go back to France, if France don't want them they can always send them back to the country they walked through or drove through to get to France.

[I1L2T3]

So you think France could refuse to accept them from us, but we must accept them from France, odd that isn't it.

 

If they arrive here from France and if we don't want them, they are on the next boat back to France, France wouldn't have a say in the matter.

 

Yes it would. It could just put them back on the ferry and tell them to claim asylum in the UK.

 

Where are we going to build processing centres for tens of thousands of people, and who is going to pay for it all?

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 11:53 ----------

 

Leaving the EU wouldn't mean walking away from cross border cooperation.

 

Really? That is exactly what France is suggesting would happen.

[andyofborg]

Leaving the EU wouldn't mean walking away from cross border cooperation.

 

hopefully not, but it would make it harder to negotiate and maintain.

[redfox]

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

[sutty27]

1. If we leave the EU and want participation in the single market then a condition of participation could be free-er movement of people. Switzerland, Iceland and Norway are required to be part of the Schengen zone as a condition of their participation. There are no guarantees a similar condition would not be forced on us.

If our government agreed to that after leaving the EU they would become unelectable.

 

 

2. Various treaties and agreements exist which allow us to operate our border on foreign soil in EU countries. There is no guarantee those agreements would remain in force if we left the EU. Simple question do you want the border to be in Calais or Dover?

 

There is also no reason fro those agreements to be dissolved.

 

 

 

3. We already have strong borders. We have the Schengen opt-out, and we have an opt-out on EU-wide asylum policy. We now have the capability as part of a two speed EU to negotiate specific new opt-outs to our advantage, e.g. maybe something like specific entry requirements on anybody admitted to the EU from Syria/Iraq from 2014 onwards which is kind of what we did with Bulgarian/Romanian migrants. We risk losing that if we leave the EU (see point 1)

Yes we do but they could be stronger.

 

 

4. Making our own trade deals, especially with more powerful partners exposes us to conditions around movement of people from those partners that the EU would never permit. Do you want an extra 200,000 Chinese/Indian students every year? Think about it.

 

No it doesn't.

 

 

 

5. Brexiteers have made a lot of noise about re-establishing trade with the commonwealth. Any deals will inevitably involve conditions about movement of people. 2 billion people and 500 million Muslims. Ready for it?

 

No they wouldn't.

 

If even just two of these things come true then you have a bigger problem than now. You can't guarantee they won't come true because you have no idea what will happen. If we stay in the EU none of these things will come true.

 

Staying in is madness, leaving is risky but not as risky as staying in.

 

 

 

 

And they could simply get back on the ferry, as a foot passenger for about £15. Or maybe the French would pay their fare.

Yep and once again they would be sent back.

 

 

That's academic anyway. All they have to do when they get here is say they are claiming asylum then they are our problem. And they'd be on our soil.

 

You really don't have a clue what you are arguing for. It's sad really.

 

We wouldn't have to grant them asylum because they would have arrived from a safe country.

[I1L2T3]

hopefully not, but it would make it harder to negotiate and maintain.

 

With none of the guarantees we have now.

 

It seems to me what some people are really arguing for is an enhanced version of what we already have, but to get there they want to dismantle what we have and build it all again without having any of the advantages we have now.

[sutty27]

why do you think they will all come from France?

 

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.

[I1L2T3]

If our government agreed to that after leaving the EU they would become unelectable.

 

 

 

 

There is also no reason fro those agreements to be dissolved.

 

 

 

 

Yes we do but they could be stronger.

 

 

 

 

No it doesn't.

 

 

 

 

 

No they wouldn't.

 

 

 

Staying in is madness, leaving is risky but not as risky as staying in.

 

 

 

 

Yep and once again they would be sent back.

 

 

 

We wouldn't have to grant them asylum because they would have arrived from a safe country.

 

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

[sutty27]

Yes it would. It could just put them back on the ferry and tell them to claim asylum in the UK.

 

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

 

Where are we going to build processing centres for tens of thousands of people, and who is going to pay for it all?

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

 

 

Really? That is exactly what France is suggesting would happen.

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

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2016 at 12:04 ----------

 

hopefully not, but it would make it harder to negotiate and maintain.

 

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