The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[crookie]

That would have been a better point to lead off on with regards to crime, perhaps we can agree.

Only means anything if we know what % of the population are not UK Nationals, then we would have an idea if they are really shocking statistics, or just a fair reflection of the population

 

[crookie]

Actually just had a look. Latest stats show non UK Nationals at 8.5% of the population, so about a 45% increase proportionately in the numbers compared to UK Nationals in the prison system. That is quite shocking actually. But it would have to be qualified of course as it doesn't drill down to EU or Non EU Nationals, which in theory we have some control over

 

[JC Footy Genius]

That would have been a better point to lead off on with regards to crime, perhaps we can agree.

We can.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Britain must leave Europe to regain control of its borders and improve national security, a justice minister is warning, after it emerged that more than 1.6 million migrants moved to the UK from within the EU in nine years.

Dominic Raab will say current EU rules mean UK intelligence agencies are powerless to bar EU nationals believed to be linked to terrorism from entering the UK.
"Crucially, for UK intelligence agencies, we cannot bar individuals on whom we have sketchy intelligence but reason to believe may be linked to terrorist related or other serious criminal activity. Or who may have done something which gives rise to questions, such as visiting Syria, without a clear or credible reason.
"In most countries outside the EU, you can bet that individuals flagged in this way would not waltz through passport control without these doubts or question marks being answered or assuaged."

Mr Raab's comments come after new analysis found 50 of Europe's most dangerous offenders, including Adelhamid Abaaoud - a Belgian citizen who orchestrated the Paris terror attacks - had slipped into Britain undetected.

The latest migration figures, released by the statistics body following a request from eurosceptic Conservative MP Anne Main, show that in 2014 alone, 287,000 people from within the EU settled in Britain.

EU workers now at 2.1m, as of November 2015
'Old Europe' rising fastest
Romania and Bulgaria top 200,000 for first time
The Office for National Statistics says there are 2,108,000 workers from other EU countries in Britain.
Migrants from 'Old Europe' such as Spain and Greece rose fastest to 881,000, a rise of 18.8 per cent.
Romanian and Bulgarian workers reach 219,000, up 15.8 per cent year-on-year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...s-moved-to-Britain-from-EU-in-nine-years.html

Interesting.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Britain must leave Europe to regain control of its borders and improve national security, a justice minister is warning, after it emerged that more than 1.6 million migrants moved to the UK from within the EU in nine years.

Dominic Raab will say current EU rules mean UK intelligence agencies are powerless to bar EU nationals believed to be linked to terrorism from entering the UK.
"Crucially, for UK intelligence agencies, we cannot bar individuals on whom we have sketchy intelligence but reason to believe may be linked to terrorist related or other serious criminal activity. Or who may have done something which gives rise to questions, such as visiting Syria, without a clear or credible reason.
"In most countries outside the EU, you can bet that individuals flagged in this way would not waltz through passport control without these doubts or question marks being answered or assuaged."

Mr Raab's comments come after new analysis found 50 of Europe's most dangerous offenders, including Adelhamid Abaaoud - a Belgian citizen who orchestrated the Paris terror attacks - had slipped into Britain undetected.

The latest migration figures, released by the statistics body following a request from eurosceptic Conservative MP Anne Main, show that in 2014 alone, 287,000 people from within the EU settled in Britain.

EU workers now at 2.1m, as of November 2015
'Old Europe' rising fastest
Romania and Bulgaria top 200,000 for first time
The Office for National Statistics says there are 2,108,000 workers from other EU countries in Britain.
Migrants from 'Old Europe' such as Spain and Greece rose fastest to 881,000, a rise of 18.8 per cent.
Romanian and Bulgarian workers reach 219,000, up 15.8 per cent year-on-year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...s-moved-to-Britain-from-EU-in-nine-years.html

Interesting.

How did they "slip in undetected"? They do check passports at the uk border. They'd still be able to slip in undetected if we were out if the EU.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

How did they "slip in undetected"? They do check passports at the uk border. They'd still be able to slip in undetected if we were out if the EU.

Exploited the lower level of security (just show an EU passport) instead of undergoing more rigorous checks associated with non EU entrants to the UK?

As the article suggests if a Mr Wally Jumblatts turns up at x UK entry point with an EU passport with numerous entry stamps for Syria, Iraq ,Libya (extreme example but you get my point) as long as there was no security alert/ flag attached to that person they walk straight in. In other words we are relying on the weakest security link in the EU to be aware of all possible threats in their country and alert us. Recent events show numerous security failings and missed opportunities that ended in death and destruction.

What changes after Brexit? Well at least we regain the right to detain Mr Jumblatts for further questioning and stop his entry if we aren't satisfied with the answers. We can also stop him entering if we have any other doubts relating to intelligence we may have. On a wider point we can vary our entry requirements to all entrants as we see fit commensurate with any perceived threat. What a novel idea in the current climate.

Some will probably still get through but at least we are more responsible for our own security and if something goes wrong there is more accountability.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I'm bound to ask why, if it's all clear cut, the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of the Met feel that our security needs are best met by remaining.

 

[5ways]

Exploited the lower level of security (just show an EU passport) instead of undergoing more rigorous checks associated with non EU entrants to the UK?

As the article suggests if a Mr Wally Jumblatts turns up at x UK entry point with an EU passport with numerous entry stamps for Syria, Iraq ,Libya (extreme example but you get my point) as long as there was no security alert/ flag attached to that person they walk straight in. In other words we are relying on the weakest security link in the EU to be aware of all possible threats in their country and alert us. Recent events show numerous security failings and missed opportunities that ended in death and destruction.

What changes after Brexit? Well at least we regain the right to detain Mr Jumblatts for further questioning and stop his entry if we aren't satisfied with the answers. We can also stop him entering if we have any other doubts relating to intelligence we may have. On a wider point we can vary our entry requirements to all entrants as we see fit commensurate with any perceived threat. What a novel idea in the current climate.

Some will probably still get through but at least we are more responsible for our own security and if something goes wrong there is more accountability.

Wondering what these rigorous checks actually entail. Even if he had Syria stamps etc why would that stop him getting in. Can we not detain people on a whim currently? Can we not stop him entering if we have doubts right now? I think we can.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm bound to ask why, if it's all clear cut, the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of the Met feel that our security needs are best met by remaining.

is this a trick question? because they are in favour of remaining. you are making the naive assumption that they are giving you objective and independent views, they are guided by their personal/political preferences.

unless remaining in the EU means we'll be joining an unannounced cross border police force, the security of this country will not be affected either way by the outcome of the referendum. we will still co-operate on existing basis outside of official EU institutions, we'll still have an ineffective border force not checking people routinely, we'll still have police on the streets, detecitves behind the scenes and MI5, MI6, GCHQ doing their thing.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Wondering what these rigorous checks actually entail. Even if he had Syria stamps etc why would that stop him getting in. Can we not detain people on a whim currently? Can we not stop him entering if we have doubts right now? I think we can.

According to the Justice Minister mentioned in the article because of EU rules we can only prevent Eu citizens entry if they present "a genuine, serious and current threat" whatever that means. Certainly not on a whim or merely having doubts or even if they're already convicted of a serious (terrorist?) offence.

 

[5ways]

According to the Justice Minister mentioned in the article because of EU rules we can only prevent Eu citizens entry if they present "a genuine, serious and current threat" whatever that means. Certainly not on a whim or merely having doubts or even if they're already convicted of a serious (terrorist?) offence.

Doesn't really seem different to the status quo?

"
Question: The Vote Leave campaign has published a dossier of 50 dangerous citizens from EU states, including murderers and rapists, who have been allowed into Britain. It says this is evidence that the UK is “unable to prevent dangerous individuals from walking into the country” while it remains in the trade bloc. Is there any truth in this?

Answer: It is simply not the case that, as Nigel Farage has claimed, “we can’t stop people like this entering the country”. The EU’s 2004 citizenship directive makes it clear that the free movement of people within the EU is not an unqualified right and can be restricted on grounds of “public policy, public security or public health”. This means that serious offenders can be denied entry and the right to live in Britain.


However, the directive does say “previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures”, but adds that convicted criminals can be excluded on a case-by-case basis if they present “a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”.

"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...inals-allowed-free-entry-uk-vote-leave-claims

 

[Two Professors]

Just suppose my passport photo was ridiculous, why on earth do you think this might inconvenience me?

I must apologise.I had a vision of immigration staff laughing hysterically and delaying your progress through borders

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

According to the Justice Minister mentioned in the article because of EU rules we can only prevent Eu citizens entry if they present "a genuine, serious and current threat" whatever that means. Certainly not on a whim or merely having doubts or even if they're already convicted of a serious (terrorist?) offence.

If you can nick US tourists and some old bloke at a Labour Party conference on terrorist charges you can sure as hell detain anyone at the border if they're a "genuine, serious and current" threat. To suggest otherwise is nonsense....or plain scare mongering....something you outers seem to be doing a lot of at the moment.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

is this a trick question? because they are in favour of remaining. you are making the naive assumption that they are giving you objective and independent views, they are guided by their personal/political preferences.

unless remaining in the EU means we'll be joining an unannounced cross border police force, the security of this country will not be affected either way by the outcome of the referendum. we will still co-operate on existing basis outside of official EU institutions, we'll still have an ineffective border force not checking people routinely, we'll still have police on the streets, detecitves behind the scenes and MI5, MI6, GCHQ doing their thing.

The spooks seem on the whole unconcerned whether we remain or leave while the cops who've spoken out seem strongly in favour of remaining. They presumably have slightly different perspectives. I agree with you that our apparently excellent intelligence services will carry on doing their own thing irrespective.

If you think I'm naive in thinking that the UK's most senior policeman, speaking officially and on the record (and wearing his hat), was giving a professional opinion then I put my hands up.

I note your opinion that he must have been giving a personal opinion reflecting his own privately-held political beliefs. Can I assume that when the ex-head of MI6 said that we should leave the EU you felt that he to was simply giving a personal opinion reflecting his own privately-held political beliefs?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Doesn't really seem different to the status quo?

"
Question: The Vote Leave campaign has published a dossier of 50 dangerous citizens from EU states, including murderers and rapists, who have been allowed into Britain. It says this is evidence that the UK is “unable to prevent dangerous individuals from walking into the country” while it remains in the trade bloc. Is there any truth in this?

Answer: It is simply not the case that, as Nigel Farage has claimed, “we can’t stop people like this entering the country”. The EU’s 2004 citizenship directive makes it clear that the free movement of people within the EU is not an unqualified right and can be restricted on grounds of “public policy, public security or public health”. This means that serious offenders can be denied entry and the right to live in Britain.


However, the directive does say “previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures”, but adds that convicted criminals can be excluded on a case-by-case basis if they present “a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”.

"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...inals-allowed-free-entry-uk-vote-leave-claims

Eh? You mean the status quo that let in thousands of EU citizens with a history of criminal convictions who committed thousands of crimes in the Uk = thousands of new victims.

Or the 6,000 EU nationals refused entry since 2010 compared to the 67,000 people from non-EU countries who were barred from entry. Either non EU nationals are far more dangerous or a stricter security entry criteria is being enforced for non EU nationals.

 

[5ways]

Eh? You mean the status quo that let in thousands of EU citizens with a history of criminal convictions who committed thousands of crimes in the Uk = thousands of new victims.

Or the 6,000 EU nationals refused entry since 2010 compared to the 67,000 people from non-EU countries who were barred from entry. Either non EU nationals are far more dangerous or a stricter security entry criteria is being enforced for non EU nationals.

Status quo which is a passport check at the border and a routine database scan. If anything serious comes up they have grounds to bar entry. A "genuine, serious and current threat" I think gives you a lot of discretion.

Better info sharing and pan-European police databases are proper solutions to this problem. I seem to recall we opted back into these home and justice measures a few years ago. The system needs to come online properly - tragically this has come too late.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Status quo which is a passport check at the border and a routine database scan. If anything serious comes up they have grounds to bar entry. Better info sharing and pan-European police databases are proper solutions to this problem. I seem to recall we opted back into these home and justice measures a few years ago. The system needs to come online properly - tragically this has come too late.

That isn't strictly accurate but a criteria that is of a lower standard of security than that expected when assessing non EU citizens.

France, Belgium and Germany couldn't manage basic sharing of vital information needed to hamper or prevent the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels yet you are happy to rely on this flawed system rather than increasing our own security ... a bit risky?

 

[beorhthelm]

I note your opinion that he must have been giving a personal opinion reflecting his own privately-held political beliefs. Can I assume that when the ex-head of MI6 said that we should leave the EU you felt that he to was simply giving a personal opinion reflecting his own privately-held political beliefs?

im saying that all people have their personal view and that will colour the official outlook on the matter. they will ask questions, request briefings, commission reports that support that lead to conclusions they want. same as it ever is in politics.

 

[5ways]

That isn't strictly accurate but a criteria that is of a lower standard of security than that expected when assessing non EU citizens.

France, Belgium and Germany couldn't manage basic sharing of vital information needed to hamper or prevent the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels yet you are happy to rely on this flawed system rather than increasing our own security ... a bit risky?

No I'm not happy to rely on a flawed system but this is no perfect alternative. Like with other issues better to work together, in cooperation at a deeper level. Police and security info sharing surely will have to be completely rethought. I don't see any benefit to being outside the EU with regards to this.

 

[brighton fella]

I'm bound to ask why, if it's all clear cut, the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of the Met feel that our security needs are best met by remaining.

because irrespective of what they think these are the type of people who gain to benefit most out of the EU. just as blair kinnock and all of the rest have done so. all on a promise. .