Why have we failed to use our global clout?

It’s time to remind the EU what it stands to lose by alienating a nation with Britain’s influence

One of the more unforgiveable features of Theresa May’s handling of the Brexit negotiations has been her failure to use the significant contribution Britain’s defence and security services make to protecting the EU as a major bargaining chip.

The Government might be criticised – rightly, in my view – for not spending more on defence, but Britain is still a tier one military power, whose global standing is about to be enhanced by state-of-the-art equipment such as the two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers and the new generation of F-35B stealth warplanes.

In addition, Britain remains committed to maintaining its nuclear deterrent, a vital asset when it comes to defending Europe from rogue states like Russia and Iran. Of the other European powers, only France comes close to matching Britain’s military strength and ability to conduct effective combat operations.

Then there is the peerless expertise provided by our intelligence and security services which, thanks to our vital role in the Five Eyes intelligencesharing network with the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, makes us the envy of the EU. It is this relationship, together with the close intelligence-sharing partnership GCHQ enjoys with America’s NSA spy agency, that puts Britain at the forefront of efforts to detect and disrupt the activities of terrorists and rogue states in Europe and beyond.

Yet the Government appears to have been squeamish about reminding the EU about any of this during the negotiations that led up to Mrs May’s failed Withdrawal Agreement.

Indeed, to judge by the unseemly row between a number of highprofile members of Britain’s security establishment and ministers over the plans that were set out in the agreement for closer cooperation between Britain and the EU on defence and intelligence issues, the Government appears to have played a strong hand very badly indeed.

The row broke out over the line, buried deep within the text of the 599-page Withdrawal Agreement, that Britain would pursue “a new, deep and special agreement” with the EU after Brexit.

This prompted such luminaries as Sir Richard Dearlove, the former chief of MI6, and Major-general Julian Thompson, who commanded British forces during the Falklands war, to warn that the deal negotiated by Mrs May constitutes a serious threat to national security.

They fear any new arrangements on EU-UK cooperation in the realms of defence and intelligence would jeopardise existing relationships that have served us – and the rest of Europe – so well since the end of the Second World War, such as membership of Nato, our close bilateral ties with the US and the Five Eyes alliance.

Ben Wallace, the security minister, responded in this newspaper by claiming that the likes of Sir Richard are out of touch and misunderstood the aim of the agreement, which was to “maintain the data-sharing and partnerships so key to modernday security” with our European neighbours. That may well be the case, but such arrangements exist already and many of them are conducted on a bilateral basis.

For the truth of the matter is that, while there can be no harm in attempting to develop better ties with our European partners, the arrangements we already have in place are immeasurably better in terms of guaranteeing our national security than anything the EU can offer by way of a viable alternative. So we should be looking to strengthen the institutions that have served us well in the past, such as Nato, rather than looking to build new ones with a deeply flawed organisation like the EU.

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the formation of the Nato alliance, a moment when its leaders need to do some serious thinking about the challenges that lie ahead. An organisation forged against the backdrop of the Cold War needs to redefine its role in terms of tackling the challenges of the modern age, whether it concerns the threat posed by state actors such as Russia and China, or more technically challenging issues such as cyber-warfare.

At a time when the Trump administration’s attitude towards Nato is decidedly lukewarm, not least because so many members are failing to pay their way in terms of defence spending, there is an opportunity for Britain to demonstrate the same leadership qualities it showed following the Salisbury attack. On that occasion the Government persuaded allies across the globe – including those in the EU – to follow its lead in expelling Russian diplomats in retaliation for the Kremlin’s involvement in the plot.

If the Government’s post-brexit vision of “Global Britain” is to have any real meaning, helping to give the Nato alliance a new sense of purpose would serve Britain’s long-term interests far better than allowing our future security requirements to be dictated by the EU.

And now that the Prime Minister’s deal has been voted down, there is no harm in reminding the EU what it has to lose by alienating a nation of the UK’S influence and clout, either.