The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[JC Footy Genius]

few days ago dave was saying we need to stay in and secure european borders
might just be an idea to secure our own first ..........................................they really do not have a clue the good news is most getting in illegally are here for the money ,but it takes one to get in to mean us harm, just one.
and as for letting those that p1ssed off to Syria and want to come back they need their passports shredding

Shame his opponent in the Tory Leadership election didn't win David Davis the then Shadow Home Secretary.

Mr Davis said some of the perpetrators of the Paris and Brussels terror attacks had been able to "move freely" throughout the EU which was "just one practical example of the damage done by the free movement of people to international security".
"Many of these killers... were EU citizens which means that even though we're outside Schengen we can't stop them coming to Britain," he added.
He also criticised EU plans for visa-free access for Turkish citizens - as part of a deal for Turkish help in tackling Europe's migration crisis - saying it will mean "we've opened up the access for terrorists".

Well worth the risk for a hypothetical extra few percent in GDP growth

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Possibly the most idiotic post on this entire thread. Bizarre.

Don't shoot the messenger. It was IDS who said we'd face great risk of being attacked in the streets by Islamists if we stayed in, at the same time as he came up with the ludicrous and untrue suggestion that the border of the EU was being extended from' Greece to Syria'. What's really bizarre (and idiotic) is the suggestion that only the In campaign is trying to worry people. Both sides are doing it, which was my point.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

interesting
the Germans are still storing up trouble for themselves and only an out vote will secure our borders and immigrants will still be trying to get in whatever happens it just up to us to except the ones we need and maybe toss out some of those we don't.

That's quite right.

 

[Two Professors]

Had given up on this thread,but idiotic statements must be answered.First,if Turkey gets even provisional membership of the EU,then the EU border is obviously Syria-try
looking at an atlas!!!!!!!!!
German citizenship can be obtained in as little as 2 years by marrying a German citizen,and there are a lot of moslems there already.
Thats enough for the Eurin crowd to absorb for a couple of days.

 

[5ways]

Shame his opponent in the Tory Leadership election didn't win David Davis the then Shadow Home Secretary.

Mr Davis said some of the perpetrators of the Paris and Brussels terror attacks had been able to "move freely" throughout the EU which was "just one practical example of the damage done by the free movement of people to international security".
"Many of these killers... were EU citizens which means that even though we're outside Schengen we can't stop them coming to Britain," he added.
He also criticised EU plans for visa-free access for Turkish citizens - as part of a deal for Turkish help in tackling Europe's migration crisis - saying it will mean "we've opened up the access for terrorists".

Well worth the risk for a hypothetical extra few percent in GDP growth

It's not hypothetical - it's what all the studies show. Also; we can deport Europeans and we can ban Europeans from entry at the border. Moreover there is no passport free access: the UK has an opt out from the Schengen Area and will never be obliged to join.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

It's not hypothetical - it's what all the studies show. Also; we can deport Europeans and we can ban Europeans from entry at the border. Moreover there is no passport free access: the UK has an opt out from the Schengen Area and will never be obliged to join.

Tell that to the ECHR.....they managed quite well to stop us deporting criminals and terrorist.

 

[pastafarian]

why was [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION] banned from the thread?
apart from slight handbags at one point with Herr T he is just putting forward his position as he sees it for others to agree or disagree with (ie debate)

very poor decision

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It's not hypothetical - it's what all the studies show. Also; we can deport Europeans and we can ban Europeans from entry at the border. Moreover there is no passport free access: the UK has an opt out from the Schengen Area and will never be obliged to join.

See definition of the word hypothetical. Economic forecasting is notoriously inaccurate even over short periods when trying to predict relatively straightforward scenarios let alone the multi faceted complexity and numerous assumptions needed to accurately predict a post Brexit world. I know you are desperate to portray them as fact to justify your staying in view but no matter how many times you repeat this it doesn't make it true.

Yes we can deport EU citizens if they commit a criminal offence which in the case of a potential suicide bomber is rather a redundant point. Yes we can ban people entering the country if they are known to be a threat. Do we or our EU partners know who all the terrorists are? Most of the Paris and Brussels attackers had EU passports giving them the potential of free access to this country. Schengen allows free movement of people across Europe unfortunately this also includes terrorists and weaponry. There are thousands of migrants waiting at Calais trying to get in every day some succeed*, we are not immune from the failings in the Schengen area.

If we are really serious about our Security we should be doing all we can to limit the threat. The former head of MI6 and other prominent figures believe having increased control of our borders could be an important security benefit post Brexit. You like to believe hypothetical economic forecasts why don't you believe their expert opinion?

*www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?335650-UK-border-Security

PS Good point on the ECHR from Seagull on the Wing. Easier to deport some of these nutjobs if we didn't have to adhere to their rulings. (And yes I know it's not an EU institution)

 

[brighton fella]

why was [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION] banned from the thread?
apart from slight handbags at one point with Herr T he is just putting forward his position as he sees it for others to agree or disagree with (ie debate)

very poor decision

strikes me the only ones to ever get banned from NSC are coming from the centre right , meanwhile leftist views are appreciated and welcomed. and they say freedom of speech is still going strong in this country.
there's no hiding the fact of which side of the political fence admin sits..

 

[sten_super]

Well worth the risk for a hypothetical extra few percent in GDP growth

This is going to be controversial, but you state this as if it's an obvious falsehood - and I'm not sure it is. Our government (and others) make these kinds of decisions all the time. As an example, 1,700 people died on the roads in 2014 - the government could take stringent measures to reduce this (e.g. enforce 30 mph speed limits nationwide) but don't because the economic cost is deemed to be excessive. The government (through the NHS) funds some life saving drugs and not others, due to the cost. It's a very emotive subject, but I don't think it's as simple as saying 'economic growth is not worth increasing the risk to human life'. Or rather, if it is then there's lots of other legislation that needs changing too.

Besides which, you're trying to equate two hypotheticals - a hypothetical increase in terrorist activities in the UK and a hypothetical increase in GDP growth. The interesting question then of course is 'how hypothetical'? Is the modelled economic growth differential more or less hypothetical than the increase in terrorist activity (and therefore increase in risk to human life)?

 

[GT49er]

Don't shoot the messenger. It was IDS who said we'd face great risk of being attacked in the streets by Islamists if we stayed in, at the same time as he came up with the ludicrous and untrue suggestion that the border of the EU was being extended from' Greece to Syria'. What's really bizarre (and idiotic) is the suggestion that only the In campaign is trying to worry people. Both sides are doing it, which was my point.

Fair enough - I didn't know that IDS said that. If he did (and his words weren't twisted or misquoted, something we'll see a lot of, along with scare stories in this campaign) I'll be very disappointed in him. Got a link to where he said it?

 

[beorhthelm]

Fair enough - I didn't know that IDS said that. If he did (and his words weren't twisted or misquoted, something we'll see a lot of, along with scare stories in this campaign) I'll be very disappointed in him. Got a link to where he said it?

sadly both sides have been abusing fear over security to promote their case.

 

[5ways]

See definition of the word hypothetical. Economic forecasting is notoriously inaccurate even over short periods when trying to predict relatively straightforward scenarios let alone the multi faceted complexity and numerous assumptions needed to accurately predict a post Brexit world. I know you are desperate to portray them as fact to justify your staying in view but no matter how many times you repeat this it doesn't make it true.

Yes we can deport EU citizens if they commit a criminal offence which in the case of a potential suicide bomber is rather a redundant point. Yes we can ban people entering the country if they are known to be a threat. Do we or our EU partners know who all the terrorists are? Most of the Paris and Brussels attackers had EU passports giving them the potential of free access to this country. Schengen allows free movement of people across Europe unfortunately this also includes terrorists and weaponry. There are thousands of migrants waiting at Calais trying to get in every day some succeed*, we are not immune from the failings in the Schengen area.

If we are really serious about our Security we should be doing all we can to limit the threat. The former head of MI6 and other prominent figures believe having increased control of our borders could be an important security benefit post Brexit. You like to believe hypothetical economic forecasts why don't you believe their expert opinion?

*www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?335650-UK-border-Security

PS Good point on the ECHR from Seagull on the Wing. Easier to deport some of these nutjobs if we didn't have to adhere to their rulings. (And yes I know it's not an EU institution)

To say any potential economic downside is merely 'hypothetical', or a 'possibility' is to try and portray it as though it could go either way. The predictions vary from roughly 'disruptive' to 'destructive'. There is no positive economic argument, only varying degrees of damage.

We're not immune from the schegen area but we wouldn't be after Brexit either. We prevent dangerous individuals from crossing into the UK by working more closely with our EU partners - better info sharing, better collaboration. We have EU devices like the European Arrest Warrant and so on. If we were outside the EU we would still need a valid reason for a Belgian or French person to bar entry. To find out if a person is dangerous we need closer cooperation not withdrawal.

 

[glasfryn]

To say any potential economic downside is merely 'hypothetical', or a 'possibility' is to try and portray it as though it could go either way. The predictions vary from roughly 'disruptive' to 'destructive'. There is no positive economic argument, only varying degrees of damage.

We're not immune from the schegen area but we wouldn't be after Brexit either. We prevent dangerous individuals from crossing into the UK by working more closely with our EU partners - better info sharing, better collaboration. We have EU devices like the European Arrest Warrant and so on. If we were outside the EU we would still need a valid reason for a Belgian or French person to bar entry. To find out if a person is dangerous we need closer cooperation not withdrawal.

what you mean like the Belgians did with the info they got from the turks about one of the brothers who has just killed 30 people
every time I watch the TV we have intelligence people from the UK saying better off out.
our borders will I hope be secure then and if we don't like the them they stay out

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Had given up on this thread,but idiotic statements must be answered.First,if Turkey gets even provisional membership of the EU,then the EU border is obviously Syria-try
looking at an atlas!!!!!!!!!
German citizenship can be obtained in as little as 2 years by marrying a German citizen,and there are a lot of moslems there already.
Thats enough for the Eurin crowd to absorb for a couple of days.

No, you try looking at an atlas. In saying that the EU border was being moved from Greece to Syria IDS was attempting to mislead. He should have said 'Greece to Turkey' but presumably couldn't resist throwing in the toxic word 'Syria'. In fact he shouldn't have said it at all because he was attempting to conflate visa-free travel (which I don't think has been confirmed yet) with EU membership.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Fair enough - I didn't know that IDS said that. If he did (and his words weren't twisted or misquoted, something we'll see a lot of, along with scare stories in this campaign) I'll be very disappointed in him. Got a link to where he said it?

Sorry it was in The Times, I think on Monday but not certain. I'll try to dig it out. I promise I didn't invent it, and I doubt The Times did either. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that only the Outers scaremonger. Both sides do it from time to time, and it will get worse as June gets closer.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

This is going to be controversial, but you state this as if it's an obvious falsehood - and I'm not sure it is. Our government (and others) make these kinds of decisions all the time. As an example, 1,700 people died on the roads in 2014 - the government could take stringent measures to reduce this (e.g. enforce 30 mph speed limits nationwide) but don't because the economic cost is deemed to be excessive. The government (through the NHS) funds some life saving drugs and not others, due to the cost. It's a very emotive subject, but I don't think it's as simple as saying 'economic growth is not worth increasing the risk to human life'. Or rather, if it is then there's lots of other legislation that needs changing too.

Besides which, you're trying to equate two hypotheticals - a hypothetical increase in terrorist activities in the UK and a hypothetical increase in GDP growth. The interesting question then of course is 'how hypothetical'? Is the modelled economic growth differential more or less hypothetical than the increase in terrorist activity (and therefore increase in risk to human life)?

I'm not sure what you mean by the stating an obvious falsehood part. I don't think the Government are making a considered decision between possible economic benefit v possible security risk. According to them we would be safer staying in and economically better off so there is no downside which makes you wonder why give us a referendum in the first place or suggest Brexit was an option a couple of months ago if this was true. Anyone would think their position is mainly based on Tory party interests rather than the national interest. Surely not. Bet DC is regretting it now though!

Agree with you about the interesting 'How Hypothetical'question bit. As I explained previously Economic forecasting is so inexact I am surprised people even get payed to carry out studies on events with no precedent, Brexit. As for the security threat there are at least some hard facts to base an opinion on. We know Terrorists are trying to kill us, we know numerous plots have been foiled in the UK this year, we know terrorists are exploiting the porous European Outer Borders, we know they are exploiting the lack of internal borders, we know most of the terrorists in the two recent attacks were EU citizens, we know they had a right to come to this country at any time, we know over a million people have entered Europe from a war ravaged part of the world riven with religious sectarian violence, we know the checks on their identity have been cursory at best, we know authorities estimate thousands are terrorists. You don't have to be the retired Head of MI6 or the Former Chairman of the Cobra Intelligence Group to realise having more control of our borders in this environment might be a good idea.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

To say any potential economic downside is merely 'hypothetical', or a 'possibility' is to try and portray it as though it could go either way. The predictions vary from roughly 'disruptive' to 'destructive'. There is no positive economic argument, only varying degrees of damage.

We're not immune from the schegen area but we wouldn't be after Brexit either. We prevent dangerous individuals from crossing into the UK by working more closely with our EU partners - better info sharing, better collaboration. We have EU devices like the European Arrest Warrant and so on. If we were outside the EU we would still need a valid reason for a Belgian or French person to bar entry. To find out if a person is dangerous we need closer cooperation not withdrawal.

Who talked about a downside I said the Hypothetical benefit of GDP growth after staying in. Also I seem to remember some reports suggesting an overall net long term benefit in certain scenarios.

Not immune but would have more control of our borders which in the current environment can only be a good thing. You either haven't read or are ignoring the views of the ex head of MI6 or the Former Chairman of the Cobra Intelligence Group the man responsible for coordinating the work of the national intelligence agencies, including MI5 and MI6, during the July 2005 London bombings, the Madrid and Bali attacks. Of course other opinions are available.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opinions/brexit-would-not-damage-uk-security

http://richard-kemp.com/quitting-the-eu-would-help-not-hinder-our-security/

 

[5ways]

Who talked about a downside I said the Hypothetical benefit of GDP growth after staying in. Also I seem to remember some reports suggesting an overall net long term benefit in certain scenarios.

Not immune but would have more control of our borders which in the current environment can only be a good thing. You either haven't read or are ignoring the views of the ex head of MI6 or the Former Chairman of the Cobra Intelligence Group the man responsible for coordinating the work of the national intelligence agencies, including MI5 and MI6, during the July 2005 London bombings, the Madrid and Bali attacks. Of course other opinions are available.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opinions/brexit-would-not-damage-uk-security

http://richard-kemp.com/quitting-the-eu-would-help-not-hinder-our-security/

I have read it and I take his argument seriously - you know I'm a fan of expert opinion.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I have read it and I take his argument seriously - you know I'm a fan of expert opinion.

Good man. Out of interest if God forbid we had an attack in this country in the next month perpetrated by one or more individuals who gained easier access to this country because of free movement would it change your opinion/vote?