Former MI6 Boss Backs Brexit - Ease of Deportation & Border Control

Article SOURCE Former MI6 Boss Backs Brexit - Ease of Deportation & Border Control Daily Mail Quitting EU would make Britain SAFER, says former MI6 chief: Sir Richard Dearlove suggests Brexit would make it easier to deport terrorists and control our borders By James Slack and Tamara Cohen for the Daily Mail Published: 10:53 EST, 24 March 2016 | Updated: 12:38 EST, 24 March 2016     Former head of MI6 demolished the security case for staying in the EU     Sir Richard Dearlove said Brexit would make it easier to deport terrorists     Added British intelligence services 'give much more' than they get in return     Washington was a more important counter-terror ally than the EU, he said By James Slack and Tamara Cohen for the Daily Mail Published: 10:53 EST, 24 March 2016 | Updated: 12:38 EST, 24 March 2016 The former head of MI6 yesterday demolished the security case for staying in the EU – saying Britain could be safer out. Sir Richard Dearlove said Brexit would make it easier to deport terrorists and control our borders. He added that Europe could not turn its back on Britain if it left the EU because our intelligence services 'give much more' than they get in return. In any event, Washington was a more important counter-terror ally, he said. The former spy chief also dismissed suggestions that Brexit would harm our relationship with the US and likened the EU's various intelligence bodies to the 'leakiest ships of state' and colanders riddled with holes. David Cameron and other senior ministers have relied heavily on claims that Britain is more secure inside the Brussels club because of measures like the European arrest warrant. But, in a devastating intervention, Sir Richard said: 'Few would notice its passing.' His assessment was backed by a government minister and London Mayor Boris Johnson – who warned EU judges were making it harder to throw out fanatics. Sir Richard, who was chief of the Secret Intelligence Service from 1999 to 2004, wrote in the current affairs magazine Prospect: '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.' He adds: 'Britain is Europe's leader in intelligence and security matters and gives much more than it gets in return. 'It is difficult to imagine any of the other EU members ending the relationships they already enjoy with the UK.' He says liaison between allies is partly driven by 'moral considerations' – so that if Germany learns of a terrorist plot against London, it would not withhold the intelligence from MI5 simply because the UK is not in the EU. Sir Richard concludes: 'Would Brexit damage our defence and intelligence relationship with the United States, which outweighs anything European by many factors of 10? I conclude confidently that no, it would not. 'There would be disapproval of Brexit in Washington, and some disappointment too, but the practical consideration of living in a dangerous world and depending on true friends would win out. In short, Europe would be the potential losers in national security. But if Brexit happened, the UK would almost certainly show the magnanimity not to make its European partners pay the cost.' Theresa May yesterday said EU membership – and access to its intelligence – was 'of benefit' in thwarting terror plots. The Home Secretary told MPs: 'I think there are a number of mechanisms that we are part of within the EU that do enhance our security.' But Boris Johnson and farming minister George Eustice both warned that EU membership was harming national security. The London Mayor told MPs: 'I've seen various people quoted as saying that remaining in the EU is essential for security. 'I think it's important to put a countervailing point which is that there are some ways now that the European Court of Justice is militating against our ability to control our borders in the way we want to and indeed to maintain proper surveillance. 'If you look at the case of Abu Hamza's niece, who tried to smuggle SIM cards to him in prison, we couldn't deport her not because of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights but because of the European Court in Luxembourg, which is now able to adjudicate on the entire corpus of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.' Mr Eustice said the Schengen zone of passport-free travel on the continent meant terrorists could move more freely within the EU.' Yesterday Belgium's ambassador to the UK, Guy Trouveroy, also conceded that free movement increased the risk of terrorist attacks. He said: 'There is no hiding... It is an issue.' But No.10 pointed to comments by David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terror laws, and former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, who both insisted Britain would be safer inside the EU. Mr Anderson told the BBC that the UK, which is not in the Schengen zone, is 'much easier to defend' because of our sea border despite the huge cost and inconvenience to travellers. Last night former Home Secretary Lord Howard called the EU a 'failing project' that is 'failing to keep its people safe'. The former Tory leader said Schengen was akin to 'hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe'. Attempts by some Out campaigners to link the EU's free movement rules to the atrocity were criticised by Mr Cameron, who said it was 'not appropriate' to score political points. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3506991/UK-safer-Europe-says-former-MI6-chief-Sir-Richard-Dearlove-suggests-Brexit-make-easier-deport-terrorists.html -------/\/\/ ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT It's the perfect time to push the issue that Dave Cameron's trying to dismiss: "Mr Cameron ... said it was 'not appropriate' to score political points." Even though the ex-MI6 guy, Richard Dearlove, is associated with what they call the 'sexed up' intelligence report ahead of the Iraq invasion 2003, what he says re Brexit makes perfect sense. That David Cameron is a slimy weasel. Sir Malcom Rifkind doesn't sound much better: "Two years later, Rifkind advocated British military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, with or without a mandate from the United Nations." [source] Rifkind was also involved in lobbying for the destruction of Libya, by 'neutralisation' of Gaddafi's conventional forces. So Europe probably has him to thank for the tidal wave of non-Europeans pouring into Europe, together with the terrorists among them. Why is he so bent on remaining in the EU, when Dearlove has made it plain that Brexit's the go and the security gains outweigh the non-existent costs? Rifkind was appointed Chairman of Armor Group (US-owned), one of the largest security groups in Iraq -- here. So this is the British-American revolving door? There's something unseemly about such an appointment, as it gives the impression that former politician war-hawks get rewarded by the sector that they previously enriched by lobbying for war while in office. Perhaps Rifkind has an American bias, now that he works for an American firm? Americans are described as likely to be 'disappointed' should Britain exit the EU, so the EU thing must serve them and their interests. Bet the Americans are behind the invasion of Europe -- as in, they're most likely funding and arranging the mass movement, whether directly, through third parties, or in partnership. Read somewhere that the US and Britain want a weakened German EU partner.  But that doesn't explain the destruction of Sweden. Maybe they just want a weak European native population?