[Update] The UK votes to leave the EU

Originally Posted by Big Brian

that is a silly comment. It makes it harder for them to get in if we leave.

How?

[Big Brian]

Originally Posted by Hugh

How?

We would tighten up our border and immigration controls:

The EU immigration and border system is ‘like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe’ says former head of Interpol.

The EU’s open border system - the ‘Schengen’ system - has recently been condemned by the former Secretary General of Interpol, Ronald K Noble, as ‘an international passport-free zone for terrorists to execute attacks on the Continent and make their escape’.

https://www.facebook.com/voteleave/p...34728186704110

[Osem]

To be fair, regardless of Schengen madness, we ought to have tightened up our own border controls many years ago. If we had, however, the Jungle in Calais would now be the size of a small city and I don't suppose the French would've appreciated that...

Leaving the EU on its own certainly isn't going to solve our very own illegal migration crisis.

[Big Brian]

Originally Posted by Osem

To be fair, regardless of Schengen madness, we ought to have tightened up our own border controls many years ago. If we had, however, the Jungle in Calais would now be the size of a small city and I don't suppose the French would've appreciated that...

Leaving the EU on its own certainly isn't going to solve our very own illegal migration crisis.

I thought it was the size of a small city and growing all the time. Despite where they move them to it is growing.

[heero_yuy]

The former head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove has just given a big boost for the Brexit campaign. Coming barely days after the terror attacks in Brussels, the former spy chief has said that the UK would be safer outside the European Union.

Writing in the current affairs magazine Prospect, he said: "Whether one is an enthusiastic European or not, the truth about Brexit from a national security perspective is that the cost to Britain would be low. Brexit would bring two potentially important security gains: the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights - remember the difficulty of extraditing the extremist Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque - and more importantly, greater control over immigration from the European Union."

Pouring cold water over claims by Prime Minister David Cameron that the UK is more secure inside the bloc, he said that Europe could not turn its back on Britain if it left the EU because London's intelligence services "give much more" than they get in return. Dearlove led the Secret Intelligence Service from 1999 to 2004.

Dearlove was also highly critical of the EU's intelligence bodies, describing them as the "leakiest ships of state" and colanders riddled with holes. He said: "The larger powers cannot put their best intelligence material into such colanders. The British voice is nonetheless very influential because its intelligence and security community is, an will certainly remain, the strongest and most mature in Europe."

Linky

I'd certainly take his words over and above those of self serving carear politicians.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Big Brian

I thought it was the size of a small city and growing all the time. Despite where they move them to it is growing.

I'm not sure 4-6,000 population quite constitutes a small city (Cathedral cities aside) but you are right that it's not getting any smaller.

[Big Brian]

Originally Posted by Osem

I'm not sure 4-6,000 population quite constitutes a small city but you are right that it's growing.

I know Towns with smaller populations in my area.

---------- Post added at 09:00 ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Linky

I'd certainly take his words over and above those of self serving carear politicians.

Indeed. A man who should be in the know comes out with basically what I said about making it harder for terrorists to gain entry into the UK.

The European Convention of Human Rights is a separate organisation to the EU. We'll still be part of it if we leave the EU, is there a proposal to leave the ECHR as well? The membership of the ECHR is much larger than the EU and encompasses pretty much every other European nation.

Also when he says we can leave does that mean there is a stipulation that EU members have to also be a member of the Council of Europe?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Big Brian

I know Towns with smaller populations in my area.

---------- Post added at 09:00 ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 ----------



Indeed. A man who should be in the know comes out with basically what I said about making it harder for terrorists to gain entry into the UK.

So do I, which is why I used the term small city to describe what the Jungle would have become had we got our act together. It's already a town.

---------- Post added at 09:19 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------

With the IN campaign reminding us of all the wonderful benefits or being such a valued and respected member of the club as well as all the doom which will inevitably ensue if we dare to leave, I'm wondering how long it'll be before they start telling us we ought to pay more for the privilege of staying in...

Originally Posted by Osem

With the IN campaign reminding us of all the wonderful benefits or being such a valued and respected member of the club as well as all the doom which will inevitably ensue if we dare to leave, I'm wondering how long it'll be before they start telling us we ought to pay more for the privilege of staying in...

The Economist has an article today that better makes the point about trade deals: http://www.economist.com/news/britai...le-trade-winds

As for the trade deficit, what matters is the share of exports: some 45% of British exports go to other EU countries, whereas only around 7% of their total exports come to Britain. It is true that German carmakers would want to sell to the British market. But several other countries run bilateral deficits with Britain or barely trade with it at all; a deal would not interest them.

The WTO option would not remove non-tariff barriers, nor even tariffs on many products, such as cars (which attract a levy of around 10%). The Canadian deal does not cover all goods. And both the WTO and Canadian options omit most services, including financial ones, which make up Britain’s biggest exports to the EU. Rival financial centres such as Paris, Frankfurt and Dublin would seize the chance to win back business following Brexit.

Hopes of easy trade deals with the rest of the world also look illusory. Lawyers say Britain would have to replace all the EU’s 53 free-trade pacts, which would be hard with tough negotiators like South Korea or Mexico. Several big countries, including America, China and India, are negotiating new deals with the EU, from which a post-Brexit Britain would be excluded.

[Big Brian]

Originally Posted by Osem

So do I, which is why I used the term small city to describe what the Jungle would have become had we got our act together. It's already a town.

---------- Post added at 09:19 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------

With the IN campaign reminding us of all the wonderful benefits or being such a valued and respected member of the club as well as all the doom which will inevitably ensue if we dare to leave, I'm wondering how long it'll be before they start telling us we ought to pay more for the privilege of staying in...

They already have: Costs are expected to rise to £73 m. per week and it cost £3 bn. more last year than forecast:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-expected.html

On a lighter note but showing the stupidity of the EU:

Bonkers EU bureaucrats sparks crazy safety row over... OVEN GLOVES:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/636541/Oven-gloves-EU

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Economist has an article today that better makes the point about trade deals: http://www.economist.com/news/britai...le-trade-winds

Those countries would then have a great deal of pressure applied by the Germans and other major exporters to the UK to toe the line or face the consequences. Let's not try to pretend the Germans don't effectively run the EU.

Originally Posted by Osem

Those countries would then have a great deal of pressure applied by the Germans and other major exporters to the UK to toe the line or face the consequences. Let's not try to pretend the Germans don't effectively run the EU.

This seems to be another assumption to add the list of many about what would happen to this trade deal. The point is that there is a lot of things that make it clear that a deal that doesn't impact on services is unlikely and since that's our biggest export it shouldn't be ignored.

What is we get a choice between a Canada style deal with products including or we get services but have to accept free movement? Even Germany might be willing to take a hit on some exports if they think they can attract more financial or technology services companies to Frankfurt and Berlin respectively. Services unevenly benefits us.

Anyway to balance out my article spam here is one that talks of the companies that think they'll benefit from leaving. Linking it because it's something Chris mentioned a couple of pages ago: https://next.ft.com/content/99e022ce...2-006d8d362ba3

[Big Brian]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Economist has an article today that better makes the point about trade deals: http://www.economist.com/news/britai...le-trade-winds

Are you having a laugh. Notice the date on that article? 26 Mar 2016. Today is the 24th. Anyhow isn't the Economist just a little biased?

Don't you think that the EU, especially Germany and France would be falling over themselves to negotiate a good trade deal with the UK? Someone touched on this a few pages back saying they could see a France, German and UK Bloc and I totally agree with that. More scaremongering in that rag I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Big Brian

Are you having a laugh. Notice the date on that article? 26 Mar 2016. Today is the 24th. Anyhow isn't the Economist just a little biased?

It's wrong because of the date stamp? I don't see why that matters. They seem to use the weekend date for their publication, no idea why.

The Economist is pro-EU yes but no-one else on here is publishing neutral sources. The Economist is hardly a sensationalist magazine is it.

Don't you think that the EU, especially Germany and France would be falling over themselves to negotiate a good trade deal with the UK? Someone touched on this a few pages back saying they could see a France, German and UK Bloc and I totally agree with that.

Why would they? As the article states all 27 European nations have to agree, they may all want to put in provisions, and not all of them have trade deficits with the UK. We are dependent on services more than a lot of them are so well and what happens if we end up with a Canada deal that doesn't include them? That would be harmful to the economy.

More scaremongering in that rag I'm afraid.

You can't dismiss every concern as scaremongering and every source as a 'rag'.