EU Referendum

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Sir Richard Dearlove makes a pretty good argument to counter Remain claims that leaving the EU would be detrimental to UK Security.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ecurity-says-former-head-of-mi6-a6948841.html

Indeed he suggests that UK security out of the EU could be improved due to the potential for better immigration control and if we were to dump the European Convention on Human Rights (which lest we forget is nothing to do with the EU but is legislation under the Council of Europe - a completely separate body of 47 signatories including all of the EU) and so we could more easily deport whoever we wished.

I will add that I won't dismiss his views as simply being those of one individual - but will accept them as expert opinion from someone I would expect to understand such matters.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Osbo has said in his Budget speech that the OBR has stated that the Uk would be worse off if we left the EU. The OBR has denied this claim saying it has made no such forecast.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35824624

No - but they included comments made by others as they themselves don't forecast on the assumption of UK having left...

OBR chairman Robert Chote said: "But what we have also pointed out is that if you look at the things City economists and other economists are saying, if there were a vote to leave, then people expect a period of uncertainty while the new relationship with the EU
is negotiated, and that could have implications for consumer and business confidence, and financial markets.

"So we cited other people's work on that, but we made no explicit judgement ourselves."

I hope it would be reasonable for us to assume that the OBR would only include comments and forecasts of other reputable bodies or institutions.

 

[SocketRocket]

Nigel has some views on the current Turkey arrangement.

[video=youtube;u-6VpOK2nOw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-6VpOK2nOw[/video]

 

[daverollo]

Sir Richard Dearlove makes a pretty good argument to counter Remain claims that leaving the EU would be detrimental to UK Security.

That seems a very rationale explanation to me. It's also a pity that someone from the leave camp (Arron Banks) jumped at the opportunity to further the leave argument so soon after the Brussels attack, even though his point is still very valid. Disappointed with Dan Jarvis's response though, when does he think the time is right to have a mature and constructive debate?

You have to question the level of security services within the EU, Turkey deported one of the bombers last year (albeit back to the Netherlands) and warned them that he was a risk. Clearly tracking him was not carried out.

I watched the Farage rant yesterday, loathe him as you may, he makes a passionate argument and you do have to wonder what the impact will be opening the border up to Turkey and it's population to have free movement across Europe is surely only going to add to the current migration/refugee issue that Europe is facing.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

That seems a very rationale explanation to me. It's also a pity that someone from the leave camp (Arron Banks) jumped at the opportunity to further the leave argument so soon after the Brussels attack, even though his point is still very valid. Disappointed with Dan Jarvis's response though, when does he think the time is right to have a mature and constructive debate?

You have to question the level of security services within the EU, Turkey deported one of the bombers last year (albeit back to the Netherlands) and warned them that he was a risk. Clearly tracking him was not carried out.

I watched the Farage rant yesterday, loathe him as you may, he makes a passionate argument and you do have to wonder what the impact will be opening the border up to Turkey and it's population to have free movement across Europe is surely only going to add to the current migration/refugee issue that Europe is facing.

How I might respond to the very valid nature of Dearlove's argument would be by saying that UK security seems pretty darned good today in the context of the EU - and that the flaws being highlighted over such as Belgian internal security and intelligence can be sorted, and things tightened up bu EU security organisations working even more effectively together.

So if we accept that the UK is at the top of the EU pile in respect of security and intelligence - would it not be better all round to work with the other EU countries to help them up to the UK level. On our own the UK may be 'secure' - working bilaterally as required. But even then the Achilles heel of UK security could be wherever is the weak point in European security.

 

[daverollo]

How I might respond to the very valid nature of Dearlove's argument would be by saying that UK security seems pretty darned good today in the context of the EU - and that the flaws being highlighted over such as Belgian internal security and intelligence can be sorted, and things tightened up bu EU security organisations working even more effectively together.

So if we accept that the UK is at the top of the EU pile in respect of security and intelligence - would it not be better all round to work with the other EU countries to help them up to the UK level. On our own the UK may be 'secure' - working bilaterally as required. But even then the Achilles heel of UK security could be wherever is the weak point in European security.

It's a fair point, but security services should not be bound by being members of a particular club. I am sure our security services work and share information with USA, Australia, Canada etc as well as other countries within the EU. In fact we should look to assist where possible any allie.

As Sir Richard points out
"If a security source in Germany learns that a terrorist attack is being planned in London, Germany’s domestic intelligence service is certainly not going to withhold the intelligence from MI5 simply because the UK is not an EU member.”

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It's a fair point, but security services should not be bound by being members of a particular club. I am sure our security services work and share information with USA, Australia, Canada etc as well as other countries within the EU. In fact we should look to assist where possible any allie.

As Sir Richard points out
"If a security source in Germany learns that a terrorist attack is being planned in London, Germany’s domestic intelligence service is certainly not going to withhold the intelligence from MI5 simply because the UK is not an EU member.”

Information flow between UK and EU nations security and intelligence forces may not change - however joint activities addressing pan-European security, agreement of roles and responsibilities, and coordination of these when we are not 'in the club' may be a bit more complicated and prone to failure.

Maybe it's a bit like having an OK football team that's played together pretty well for a good while and everyone knows everyone else's strengths and weaknesses - their best player leaves for greener pastures - rather pissing the rest off - but occasionally fancies a game with the 'old team' and comes knocking, They can't really refuse but he's not part of the team any more - and fitting back in is never too easy - especially as he'll want the team to adjust their play to get the best out of his skills. Petty squabbles, resentments, team doesn;t play so good trying to accommodate their ex-star, and things go wrong from time to time.

Yes that's simplistic - but a lot of the Pro and No arguments are rather so.

 

[SocketRocket]

Information flow between UK and EU nations security and intelligence forces may not change - however joint activities addressing pan-European security, agreement of roles and responsibilities, and coordination of these when we are not 'in the club' may be a bit more complicated and prone to failure.

Maybe it's a bit like having an OK football team that's played together pretty well for a good while and everyone knows everyone else's strengths and weaknesses - their best player leaves for greener pastures - rather pissing the rest off - but occasionally fancies a game with the 'old team' and comes knocking, They can't really refuse but he's not part of the team any more - and fitting back in is never too easy - especially as he'll want the team to adjust their play to get the best out of his skills. Petty squabbles, resentments, team doesn;t play so good trying to accommodate their ex-star, and things go wrong from time to time.

Yes that's simplistic - but a lot of the Pro and No arguments are rather so.

Your analogy and argument sounds rather like grasping at straws. Of course there would not be any downgrading of security cooperation between the Uk and EU members after Brexit.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Your analogy and argument sounds rather like grasping at straws. Of course there would not be any downgrading of security cooperation between the Uk and EU members after Brexit.

I'm not actually suggesting things will be any worse, and indeed I suggested my analogy may well be too simplistic.

It just seems rather obvious to me that if you have a grouping with formal links beyond security and intelligence (as in the EU) then accommodating an 'outsider' whose interest is only security and intelligence may cause some issues in working together and sharing some aspects of intelligence.

I'm thinking along lines of the simple fact that the UK and the EU nations will be competitors in many areas economic and commercial, and it is likely that the lines between economic/commercial and security/intelligence may get blurred from time to time, and when it does sharing aspects of intelligence and agreeing responsibilities etc may be problematic as the UK will be seen to have a conflict of interest.

On this specific matter I am actually finding myself rather more on the Dearlove side of the fence that I'd want to be. But I guess that's what can happen if you take expert opinion seriously and don't just dismiss it if it doesn't fit with your own position.

 

[SocketRocket]

I'm not actually suggesting things will be any worse, and indeed I suggested my analogy may well be too simplistic.

It just seems rather obvious to me that if you have a grouping with formal links beyond security and intelligence (as in the EU) then accommodating an 'outsider' whose interest is only security and intelligence may cause some issues in working together and sharing some aspects of intelligence.

I'm thinking along lines of the simple fact that the UK and the EU nations will be competitors in many areas economic and commercial, and it is likely that the lines between economic/commercial and security/intelligence may get blurred from time to time, and when it does sharing aspects of intelligence and agreeing responsibilities etc may be problematic as the UK will be seen to have a conflict of interest.

On this specific matter I am actually finding myself rather more on the Dearlove side of the fence that I'd want to be. But I guess that's what can happen if you take expert opinion seriously and don't just dismiss it if it doesn't fit with your own position.

Countries in the EU trade without tariff but companies still compete for business. That will be the same in or out

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Countries in the EU trade without tariff but companies still compete for business. That will be the same in or out

I was talking about security discussions and information sharing - and potential conflict of interest that could mean that some aspects of comemrcially sensitive but security related information might not be shared as fully as it might. But in truth I doubt that it would be significant in any case,

As it happens my feeling is that on the In/Out debate I'm not sure that security and Intelligence sharing is a decisive factor. With UK in the EU, security and intell sharing are far from perfect, outside of the EU they will also be far from perfect. Things could improve if UK stays in; UK could make things better out. Immigration Control is I think much more of a societal and political issue than a security issue.

Dumping the European Convention on Human Rights is not something I think we should do - and in the great scheme of things not being able to kick out the likes of Abu Hamza as it contravenes his human rights is I think generates noise than damage such as he actually does. In fact I suspect that remaining signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights would be required of us as we negotiate access to the single market.

 

[drdel]

The UK's security is better than continental Europe because of the Channel and despite the EU's desire to remove barriers.

 

[Old Skier]

Really? So we just don't bother with any warnings about such things...that's the answer - the EU meddling. In this sort of thing let the meddle.

Are you really suggesting that the EU should spend time and money on legislation on putting warnings on packets of balloons.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Are you really suggesting that the EU should spend time and money on legislation on putting warnings on packets of balloons.

Balloons as a choke factor can be very dangerous for small children, it is amazing how many parents are unaware of this.

http://www.marshallbrain.com/cp/balloons.htm

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Well it's good that the EU debate has reached the real vote turning subjects of finance , immigration , sovreignty and warning labels on Ballons !

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Well it's good that the EU debate has reached the real vote turning subjects of finance , immigration , sovreignty and warning labels on Ballons !

Would you rather that kids died from their parents ignorance ?.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Would you rather that kids died from their parents ignorance ?.

Behave yourself

It doesn't take a label for any sensible human being to understand the dangers of swallowing a lot of stuff.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Behave yourself

It doesn't take a label for any sensible human being to understand the dangers of swallowing a lot of stuff.

And it's not a big deal if the EU thing it's worthwhile just having the warning. We don't need the warning on fag packets to know it's not good for you - but the warning is there, besides - the point was actually that BoJo was suggesting that the EU had banned under 8yr olds from blowing up balloons. He was using that as an example of EU absurd meddling legislation, when in fact what he was saying was an untruth - being said for effect and to plant an idea in the mind of anyone listening to him and inclined to belief a word he says,

 

[Foxholer]

Behave yourself

It doesn't take a label for any sensible human being to understand the dangers of swallowing a lot of stuff.

http://www.drgreene.com/dangers-balloons/

Seems a worthwhile idea too!

 

[SocketRocket]

Would you rather that kids died from their parents ignorance ?.

Maybe the parents should have a label