General Chat

Brexit would be a 'gamble' that leaves Britain at greater risk of terror attacks warn SEVEN former police chiefs

Former officers said Britain was safer as a member of the European Union. They cited factors such as the European Arrest Warrant in an open letter. Chiefs said Brexit would be a 'disadvantage in tackling terrorism'

By Tim Sculthorpe, Mailonline Deputy Political Editor D.M.
Published: 13:54, 5 June 2016 | Updated: 14:02, 5 June 2016

Seven former police chiefs have urged voters to reject Brexit because it would be a gamble with security that leaves security at risk. The officers, which include two former commissioners of the Met, said EU membership was good for security because of the access to systems such as the European Arrest Warrant. In an open letter, the group said quitting the trading bloc would 'put us at a disadvantage in tackling terrorism and organised crime'.

Security and justice issues were cited by Home Secretary Theresa May when she announced she would be supporting the Remain campaign in February. Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair Sir Hugh Orde, former President of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Among the signatories of the letter were former Met Commissioner Lord Blair (left) and Sir Hugh Orde, the former President of the Association of Chief Police Officers And the group was backed today by former home secretary Charles Clarke and serving Home Office Minister James Brokenshire. nThe seven said: 'As former Chief Officers and Policing professionals our experience has been better than most about what is required to tackle terrorism and crime and to keep the people of our country safe. 'This is why we believe that Britain will be safer inside the European Union, and that leaving Europe would make us less safe and put us at a disadvantage in tackling terrorism and organised crime.'

They added: 'The EU helps our police forces to work together, making it harder for criminals and terrorists to evade justice.
'We do not believe that staying in Europe makes us more vulnerable, it is not credible to argue so, all the evidence is to the contrary.
'We can see no case for taking such a gamble with our security that leaving the EU would entail.'

The open letter was signed by Sir Matt Baggott, former Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Lord Blair of Boughton, former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and Lord Condon, former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

Also included were Sir Peter Fahy, former Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Sir Hugh Orde, former President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Paul Scott-Lee, former Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary and Peter Neyroud, former Chief Executive Officer for the National Policing Improvement Agency, and former Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police.
The former police chiefs intervention was endorsed today by Home Office Minister James Brokenshire who warned the terror threat needed closer European cooperation

The former police chiefs intervention was endorsed today by Home Office Minister James Brokenshire who warned the terror threat needed closer European cooperation. Mr Brokenshire said: 'The firm view from those with significant frontline experience of fighting organised crime and terrorism is that we gain clear security benefits by remaining in the EU.

'Britain gets the best of both worlds by harnessing our access to EU security systems in combination with our enduring intelligence relationships with partners like the US.
'At a time of continuing terrorist threat our domestic security requires us to work even more closely with our European partners.
'It's difficult to see how we can possibly do this by shouting from the sidelines rather than sitting at the table as an equal member.'

Mr Clarke said: 'Michael Gove might not want to hear from experts but I trust the opinion of those who have spent their careers fighting crime and terrorism.

'These distinguished police chiefs who know a thing or two about our security could not be clearer - we are safer in the EU than we would be out on our own.'

Depends on where you're from.

They know nuffink, MG knows everyfink.

They know nowt, MG knows. (Quite succinct, that one - no long, drawn-out conversations from this neck of the woods.)


Sorry, Rollo, couldn't resist it. :-D :-D :-D

In fact, although I occasionally disagree with your point of view, I think you and I often read from the same page tha knaas. :-D

I know who I would rather believe and it is not MG. But where is T May, she seems to be keeping a very low profile at the moment. Why?

It is everybody's interest to share intelligence information.
It cuts two ways.
So why should being in or out of a particular organisation affect that exchange?

Presumably security chiefs, intelligence officers, and senior police know their job and the affect leaving the EU might have rather better than a morally bankrupt, failed party leader, another failed party leader, and a small ratty looking little man with a weak chin and an unimpressive sojourn as education minister...not forgetting of course the cherubic blond comic who does HIGNFY rather well but isn't really to be trusted with anything more important ;-)

Rose :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

:-D :-D Ann

I've heard this arguement before but with due respect it's not like the main land hasn't had it's security "lapses" and been attacked. As Brian said why wouldn't they still share any information, it's a two way street and the UK is more than able to glean information as much and in many cases more than most European countries.
This should not be the reason for your vote whichever way you choose to vote.

However we don't know how many security breaches have been identified before they could do any damage. Our security forces are well respected and I feel it is definitely something to take into account.

They haven't said information WON'T be shared, just that the most effective and fastest way of doing so is when all the countries potentially affected are part of the EU.

These aren't my words, they are the opinions of those who are actually doing that job and those who have done it in the past. And having listened to the debate between those for or against Brexit within the security sector the INs have the better argument IMO.

Okay without trying to start anything....why is it easier to pass the information if you're in the EU ? They either phone someone or email someone or text them. One would assume they're not typing each number each time just hitting a multi send button....so why do you have to be in the EU to do that. Don't Israel pass on information to those they're friends with around the world for instance ? Would Germany not tell the USA immediately if they thought there was a threat ?

I don't know Caroline...so I have to trust to the intelligence of those that do the job? Much like I can't actually tell you how scientists found the Higgs Boson particle but accept the word of those who know more than me that they actually did.

But I assume that it isn't just about typing a number on a phone or an email.
If everyone knew the specifics of how intelligence is shared within the EU ( or outside it) , then it wouldn't be very secure would it?

Yes of course it could be done, and would be done...but isn't it at least worth considering that the people who actually DO the job know rather more than Joe Bloggs about it? and the majority of those who currently do the job seem to think it's better the way it is.

There have been past MI5 controllers etc who disagree. and their argument can also be found online, but then technology, DNA, profiling etc and methods of communicating such intelligence have also probably moved on since they were in charge so maybe someone in charge in 2004 knows a little less about modern methods than someone in the same job in 2016?

Either way, this issue won't, I think, influence anyone who wants to leave the EU if other relevant issues have failed to persuade them.

I was born British, have lived in Great Britain all of my life like all of those from whom I received my genes. Those genes were passed down to me from very strong minded Kent & Sussex farming stock.
As I go back over the generations I have found many brave men who have stood their ground/died to protect this country against those from Europe who wanted to take it from us.
So far ‘Stay in’ have told us we would be poorer if we leave, now they say we would be safer if we stay. Scare tactics are not what we need at this point; true fact & figures are.
How much do we pay into the union each year?
How much do we get back?
Can they guarantee that we will not be asked for more to prop up the euro?

The amount paid per week is shown in this BBC reality check.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36110822

I agree there is too much scaremongering from the Brexit camp about numbers of migrants, Turkey joining, increased contributions.

As for the amount that would be saved the Brexiters seem to spend it several times on the NHS, defence, border controls etc.

Re the NHS etc, both sides...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/will-brexit-save-taxpayers-money-nhs-eu-referendum-vote-leave-a7049501.html

Between 1938 and 1941 the armed forces of the Third Reich rolled up the countries of Europe like a tired old carpet. It is not generally realised that in 1939 the western democracies had at their disposal far more armed force than Germany much of it right up to date. Defeat happened because of lack of will and lack of cohesion until far too late in the day. The same thing had happened in ww1.

A hard lesson was learned so that today the democracies of Europe are for the most part united in a military structure, NATO (which includes Norway) and a political framework the EU. Each complements the other. Anybody who thinks that NATO could exist without the complementary political alliance is way out to lunch. fwiw the idea of a political "European Army" is also a non starter.

UK spending on NATO is > 2% of GDP and is set to increase as once more evil is on the march in the east. It is no time for the antics of brexit. Spending on the EU is nowhere near this. A mix of economic resolution and show of steel has already stopped Putin in his tracks.He has not gone away.

The Inst for Fiscal Studies has today refuted Boris & Gove's claim that leaving the EU would mean £ 8 bn to spend on anything-we-like like a win on Ernie. Quite apart from the rebate and EU spending which are being double counted the IFS points out that the economic shock of a brexit would totally offset any financial gain from not shelling out to the EU.

It might also be worth considering that (as Boris is always pointing out) the UK is, for the moment, a strong trillion pound economy. In that context the £ 8bn painted on the battlebus is pissing in the wind. Even if the £8bn existed.

Some of my family including my Huguenot great grandmother were born in Kent. She had five sons four of whom were kia 1914-1919. Her rellies included people from the Baltics, Germany and France who all "did their bit" in both world wars. Look at any war memorial and you will see names from Poland, Czechoslovakia, India, S.A., Ireland, USA, France .....

This idea that England has always stood alone behind its trusty longbow is wrong England has always fought its wars as part of alliances - our forebears did not suffer fools such as Gove and Farage. It is also insulting to the many foreign lives laid lost in service of the British Crown.

Amid all the excitement of the referendum the brexiters stress that parliament must be sovereign. Indeed. Should the vote be for brexit then there will be the small problem that over 400 of the 650 MPs are pro EU. The referendum will decide leave/remain but implementation is a matter for parliament.

Whoever is PM it is wildly unlikely that they would agree to anything like the wild ideas of M Gove but would insist on a Norway + access to the single market as a minimum. That would greatly reduce any "bomb" under the economy. However such access would only come at the price of ongoing free movement ( with no "emergency brake" ), shared fishing and shelling out pretty well the same as now with nul benefits other than the single market. Of course post brexit the UK would have not vote or seat.

So we would be full circle and nothing to show for it. Nuts.

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

recommended reading in the context of Boris Johnson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_on_Horseback

I think most of us have mixed blood....as us Family historians know.and we owe a lot to immigrants over the generations.
I am British,English,Irish,Welsh ,Cornish,.and who knows what before that.

It is strange this is all being discussed on the anniversary of DDay 1944.which I remember as I was 9 years old and we were all so grateful to the Allied forces in the Normandy Landings.many of whom gave their lives for our freedom.

We could have been German but for all of them!
The Polish people have always been hard workers as are many immigrants.

I agree with Rollo(can you believe it?) that it is probably better to remain.
We all know that politicians are full of promises,but sometimes circumstances change things beyond our control and it could be a huge mistake at this time.

I just hope we can get some better deals as I know other countries sometimes flout the rules,or ignore them,having lived partly in Spain,but we tend to abide by them.
The poorer countries came off better when they took the euro and had their infrastructure improved no end.

I was in Spain in 1992 when the Barcelona Olympics were on.Seville had Expo they got the Ave fast train and the roads were soon made into dual carriageways from top to bottom.
S Ireland benefitted very well too.
So would hope that we get a bit more help as they really want us in.
I wouldn't want us to have the euro,but maybe it's better the devil we know!!

I have never claimed that the EU is all things perfect the list of stuff that urgently needs fixing is very long. Is the UK perfect? Far from it. It is just as Brenda says the balance of advantage is very much with remain. If the UK took a more pro active role within the EU it could get a lot done - Thatcher fro instance bullied and harassed the rest of the EU into a true single market for goods. Gradual progress is being made on services which is great for the UK and is providing tangible benefits such as the end of EU hone roaming charges. Brexit would put a stop to all that.

That EU is less "democratic" than it might be if the US model is taken as "democratic" is on purpose. The major EU states have never had any intention of allowing the EU to become a supra national state. The whole EU budget is only € 120bn less than that of a major agglomeration such as London or Berlin. EU elected bodies are very much subservient to national parliaments. Real decision making lies with the council of ministers all elected cabinet members of their national governments. Take control ? It never went away.

The €uro was the dream of an arch fascist Francois Mitterand who got Germany to agree as the price of German reunification. The down side is that Berlin dug its heels in and refused for the €uro to be a true reserve currency rather than just a currency union. That is why it does not and cannot work. Very slowly the €uro is being dragged into shape but true progress will only be made when/if Germany accepts reality and a true union. Meanwhile absurd demands are being made on the PIGSs. The UK is fortunate to be "out" - a judgement made by Gordon Brown when most business people wanted in.

Membership of a reformed Euro could be very much in UK interests but would require a revolution in thinking from Paris and Berlin. British time would be better spent on that then disinventing the wheel.

My own guess based on undisclosed sources is that remain will narrowly win. Leave has run out of steam and will not be able to maintain its current slender lead in the polls sorely on the basis of bluster and the immigration issue. Political boredom sets in within days not weeks.