David Cameron says ISIS support Brexit!

[BritBrit]

David Cameron is getting really desperate now, his latest claims is that ISIS back Brexit! Seems the WW3 claims didn't work. Seems to be ISIS would support the EU because they have completely opened borders to them & let them move freely around Europe to commit attacks e.g. Paris & Brussels

order-order.com/2016/05/17/cameron-weaponises-isis/

Alistair Campbell claimed in April that ISIS favoured Brexit. Do we believe Tony Blair's former spin doctor?

Cameron has contrasted "strength in numbers" with supposedly "giving up" on our allies. But of course, collaboration has always been possible between countries that aren't in a political union.

I also don't see how it would be safer to allow the UK's top-quality armed forces to be subsumed into an EU Army.

Apparently DC was answering questions after a speech. It's difficult to understand the context because no one appears to have reported the question. He was responding to criticisms of an earlier speech, in which he said another conflict in Europe couldn’t be ruled out if we voted out, he said Vladimir Putin would welcome a Brexit, adding he suspects the leader of Isis, would too.

Lol! Fighting over the support of ISIS!

What have we come to?

This is ludicrous! I don't see why he is behaving like this!?

He is saying things with more desperation as time goes by. A bit like the Scottish Indyref; secure in his belief in the outcome he wanted at first and panicking at the outcome he didn't want by the end.

The polls show neck and neck to an uncomfortable degree for him I suspect.

He must think we're all,stupid.

secure in his belief in the outcome he wanted at first and panicking at the outcome he didn't want by the end

I was reading recently about how the public did not even ask for a referendum. He only offered it to calm some in-party fighting. If this sets off a chain reaction, with other countries demanding their own, I wonder how he'll go down in history? He must be squirming/kicking himself every day.

that's spot on fourmummy, I think he's terrified about his legacy actually. What a spectacular own goal Brexit would be. (from his perspective, obviously)

about ISIS, I doubt they're that bothered, but on balance they'd probably welcome anything that destabilises Europe. In any case I don't see how that's any more ridiculous than Boris's recent claims about Napoleon and the Nazis.

fourmummy I understand the calling of the referendum because of the rise of UKIP before the General Election and DC fearing losing hoards of traditional Tory voters to UKIP, couplesd with the fact DC never in a million years thought he would return to Government with an overall majority. He thought the LibDems or another party forming his coalition party would simply and easily put a stop to any promise or talk of a referendum.

But having promised it in his manifesto, he's obliged to see it through.

"Seems to be ISIS would support the EU because they have completely opened borders to them & let them move freely around Europe to commit attacks e.g. Paris & Brussels"

OP - you do know that those attacks were carried out by European citizens of those two countries, not ISIS flooding into Europe to do it. Unless ISIS are so fucking good that they planted the parents of those terrorists here 30 years ago before ISIS even existed? Because to be honest, if they are that shit hot at forward planning, we are going to lose anyway.

Some of the attackers were EU citizens, others were refugees able to cross the EU because of EU rules e.g. one of the airport suicide bombers was an ISIS fighter in Syria. It is even more important if they are EU citizens to get our of the EU because they can come to the UK at anytime, for example one of the Paris attackers because he had an EU passport actually came to the UK & took photos of UK football stadiums to plan attacks

www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/paris-terrorist-staked-out-major-7629205

edition.cnn.com/2016/04/22/europe/brussels-attacker-idd-as-isis-jailer-in-syria/

If ISIS invade us (post Brexit), would that be before WW3 but after the 7 plagues of Egypt?

I think we need answers.

Don't worry mateysmum - because at least if we brexit we will have a fully funded NHS, an increased funded army and extra police officers to protect us - all paid for by the 0.23% of GDP we currently send to Europe.

That is if they can get past our suddenly water tight border controls.

Or, you know, maybe both sides are talking bullshit.

No, all of the French and Belgium terrorists were EU citizens

It is even more important if they are EU citizens to get our of the EU because they can come to the UK at anytime

that wouldn't change after Brexit, unless you want to make EU citizens apply for visas before they can pop over to London for the weekend... "free movement" is mostly about the right to work, I don't think anyone is saying EU citizens will be barred from visiting.

and all EU citizens are already controlled at the borders and security checks carried out. So what exactly would Brexit add in terms of security?

OP - again, read that article. Hostages have accused him of having been a jailer in Syria, although that is not proven. Also, and this is important he is BELGIAN. He carried out an attack in BELGIUM. Do you see how that has nothing to do with the EU and opened borders?

By the way - I think the point that Cameron was making is completely nonsensical, but equally, so is yours.

Chalalala that is exactly what I am suggesting, the UK would be free to introduce a visa system after Brexit like most non EU nations do. If someone does not fulfill the visa requirements e.g. no criminal record, check against terror lists (& other criteria for immigration) they don't get a visa like every other non EU nation does

BritBrit introducing tourism visas is a very bad idea for a number of reasons.

Visa requirements would harm British tourism and business - report on economic impact here ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/13317/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native

The EU has a block visa policy, so if Britain were to introduce visa for EU citizens, in return Brits would be ^required to apply for visas for visits to any EU country. Applications need to be made at least 3 months in advance, normally at a consulate, with fingerprints provided from all applicants, proof of travel insurance and reason for travel, and €60 fee.

Now, you may say, this is all worth it because security is priceless!

Except that short-term visas would not make anyone safer.

To screen out potential terrorists, you need information. If the information comes from the British side (say they've committed a crime in Britain before), this is already known by border security agents, and they will already be stopping the person at the border the way things are currently set up. If the information comes from the EU (kind of likely if we're talking about EU terrorists), then Britain relies on information coming from other EU countries, mostly through the Schengen Information System and the European Criminal Records Information System. Which the UK has access to as an EU country.

If the UK were to leave the EU, it would have if anything less access to all this EU information about potential terrorists. The EU has not granted ECRIS access to any non-EU country, and the only non-EU countries with access to the SIS are Norway and Switzerland, both part of Schengen.

These are just a few reasons why it's all a bad idea, for a more detailed explanation see
eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/goodbye-cruel-world-visas-for-holidays.html

Chalala, they want Five Eyes info, they have to give access to EU info. The intelligence services in Europe are not joined up, and not as efficient as the Five Eyes grouping. The Belgians still haven't got a scooby who is in Molenbeek, and Belgian has more jihadists who have gone to (and returned from) Syria than any other EU member state.

There is another massive (non EU) organisation in Brussels where intelligence gets traded!

I fail to see why the EU couldn't implement a system like Turkey (rock up at Istanbul airport, pays your money and get your passport stamped), or Oman, same principle; or even, something like ESTA for UK citizens to visit the EU, just as I suspect we would do for them. An ESTA system might well be the way to go on both sides.

Ok scaryteacher, but how would a Turkey or ESTA-like system make anyone safer?

You would rock up at the Paris Eurostar terminal and get a short-term visa from an automated system that uses the exact same information already available to the UK borders agents (Who already regularly use it to deny entrance to EU citizens.)

That's a lot of extra hassle and cost for little to no extra security, surely?

ESTA seems to work well for the US, and they can and do refuse people on security grounds, previous convictions, etc. The point with ESTA is that you have to complete it before you travel, and you are refused at that point, and then have to apply for a visa from the embassy.

Some people evidently could avoid that like diplomats, and those with specific NATO travel orders for example.

First the Nazi comparison, now ISIS. It's getting ridiculous on both sides. What happened to sane, normal debate?

scaryteacher, the same information already used at the Border would be used to make the same decision, only ahead of travel - and that's assuming it is indeed the same quality of information after Brexit.

so again - a lot of hassle, a lot of negotiations with the EU, a lot of costs, all for dubious security gains.

For example BritBrit raised the case of Mohamed Abrini, the French terrorist who went to visit the UK ahead of the Paris attacks, as an example of why Britain would be safer outside the EU. But Abrini would not have been stopped by this type of short-term visa.

Surely the most efficient way to fight terror is not to move forward in time the point at which the terror checks are made, it is through intelligence and international cooperation. It's possible Brexit would not significantly harm this, but I have trouble seeing how it could improve it.

Surely the most efficient way to fight terror is not to move forward in time the point at which the terror checks are made, it is through intelligence and international cooperation. It's possible Brexit would not significantly harm this, but I have trouble seeing how it could improve it.

The European intelligence services are fragmented, underfunded and do not work well. Juncker's think tank (at the EU) latest wheeze was to have an EU Intelligence service along the lines of US Homeland Security, and have it staffed by UK seconded national experts, presumably from MI5 and 6. Less secure for us certainly, and perhaps an attempt to get Five Eyes intel via the back door.

We have the intelligence, but the international cooperation is the tricky bit. Shall we say that not all Intelligence services are either willing to share what they have; don't realise what they have; don't act on what they have, or are porous and not entirely trustworthy?

"The European intelligence services are fragmented, underfunded and do not work well. "

So given that, whilst we are at an immediate and real threat from both international and domestic terrorism you think we should tie them up in negotiating new treaties instead of getting on with the job in hand? At the same time as our security services would be tied up with negotiations too.

Well, its a plan I suppose.

Since when do the European Intelligence services negotiate new EU treaties? Our security services don't negotiate new treaties either, that's not in their remit. The Fonctionnaires in Brussels and the Civil Servants and FCO bods in UK will be the ones doing the negotiating as will UKREP in Brussels.

It could explain why European Intelligence services don't work so well if they are negotiating treaties instead of doing their job!