UK will continue co-operating on European security
THE Brexit process has begun and the UK and EU now face two years of negotiations. They will cover trade, immigration and a thousand other issues. And, like any negotiation, both parties have gone in with ideas about what they want to come out with. But Theresa May’s letter which went to Brussels on Wednesday invoking Article 50 made reference to one huge issue that hangs over all the others.
That issue is Britain’s security cooperation with the rest of the EU.
A single line in the Prime Minister’s letter set off this week’s most cautious political storm. In that line of the Article 50 letter Mrs May wrote that if Britain leaves the EU without a trade agreement, “The default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms, a failure to reach agreement would mean our co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened.”
Some EU officials immediately interpreted this as a very thinly veiled threat. Guy Verhofstadt, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator was swiftly asked whether he thought this sentence amounted to “blackmail”.
His silky reply was that, “I tried to be a gentleman towards a lady so I didn’t even use or think about the use of the word blackmail. I think the security of our citizens is far too important to start a trade-off of one and the other.”
VERHOFSTADT is right. But so was May. He was right to state that the security of citizens across Europe is of paramount importance. And he was right to suggest that it should never become a political pawn. But May was right to remind our European allies of the extent to which our security interests are already joined-up.
British intelligence is a difficult subject to talk about in public because so much of what happens is – by necessity – little known about.
But what we do know is that Britain’s security and intelligence capabilities are respected around the world. It is not just that the three arms of British intelligence (MI5, MI6 and GCHQ) are renowned wherever you go. But the fact that these organisations are respected by our allies wherever they are.
Thanks to our alliances this expertise is magnified. And the most important of those alliances is not one which any other member of the EU is a part of. Alone among any European power, Britain is a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network.
This alliance consists of the UK, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Between us this Anglophone alliance has a signals intelligence capability which covers the globe. The relationship between GCHQ and its American counterpart, the NSA, is especially close, meaning that we have access to the greatest signals intelligence resources of any country in the world.
And it is not just that Britain as a result has an advantage in this area. We also have an advantage in our long history of cultivating human intelligence. Where some allies have fallen back on technological innovation, this country has also continued to develop the more traditional human elements of spycraft.
As one of MI6’s former top officials, Nigel Inkster, said, this country has maintained a human intelligence expertise that some of our European allies have lost. That includes expertise in “languages such as Arabic” and an “engagement with Islamic communities”.
Perhaps even more importantly, as Inkster went on to say: “Many European countries have difficulty integrating the work of their intelligence and security agencies with that of the police.
“Political elites and judiciaries are distrustful of intelligence and in many European countries politicians have failed to take effective ownership of their intelligence communities. By comparison the UK model of counter-terrorism combines the two functions effectively.”
This is another reason why the Europeans need us. Some – though not all – of the continent’s intelligence agencies are a notorious mess. Not only because of bureaucratic failures but because they have – like the Belgian authorities – to a great extent taken their eyes off the populations that are growing in their midsts which can harbour people who have ill intent towards us all. As repeated attacks in Germany, France, Belgium and other countries have reiterated these problems are likely to grow.
As the attack in Westminster reminded us, no country is immune from this menace and no intelligence capability – however good – can prevent attacks all of the time. But as the terrorist threat becomes both larger and more diffuse (with single individuals armed with nothing more than a car and knife able to carry out mass murder) intelligence becomes ever more important.
There are numerous times that we know of (such as the aftermath of the Bataclan attack in Paris) when our security services were intricately involved in working with their French counterparts.
SO IN reality there is no likelihood that British intelligence would ever withhold information. And it would be quite wrong – morally as well as strategically – for such an impression to emerge.
But this country and its agencies already do a huge amount with and for our continental allies in a relationship that will need to deepen in the years ahead. So although it would be wrong to threaten them, it is right to remind them of the work we already do together for the safety of all Europeans.
As the EU member states must remember: friends don’t wish their friends harm. But as they should also remember, friends don’t take their friends for granted either.
‘Our capabilities are respected worldwide’