{"id":27221,"date":"2016-06-21T11:00:37","date_gmt":"2016-06-21T01:00:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=27221"},"modified":"2016-06-20T20:37:21","modified_gmt":"2016-06-20T10:37:21","slug":"brexit-security-sleeper-issue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/brexit-security-sleeper-issue\/","title":{"rendered":"Brexit and security\u2014a sleeper issue"},"content":{"rendered":"
The UK is tied into a complex EU security, defence and law enforcement apparatus that might look easy to relinquish, but could be a potential nightmare to re-negotiate. A variety of<\/span> veteran security and defence experts have weighed in<\/span><\/a> for both the Remain and Brexit campaigns; others have concluded that neither option would really have a drastic<\/span> impact on the UK\u2019s overall security<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Brexiteers have consistently highlighted EU legislation as an<\/span> unhelpful constraint<\/span><\/a> (PDF) on Britain\u2019s security, control and, ultimately, sovereignty. This raises concerns for rising nationalism and populism, fuelled by a \u201clittle islander\u201d mentality and a desire for increased sovereign control. All of which may serve to undermine the UK in a more globalised world where \u201ctogetherness\u201d and trans-nationalism are stronger than isolation.<\/span><\/p>\n While counter-terrorism legislation for European countries is primarily a national responsibility, the EU plays a supportive role in responding to trans-national threats. However, EU agencies and mechanisms such as Europol, Pr\u00fcm convention, European Arrest Warrant and the Schengen Information System have<\/span> been criticised<\/span><\/a>\u00a0(PDF) for clunky and bureaucratic processes. Despite this, they function relatively efficiently and have been<\/span> useful tools for security forces<\/span><\/a>\u00a0(PDF). The UK\u2019s expertise in intelligence and security sharing has further strengthened these structures. Should the UK withdraw from these arrangements, the EU\u2019s security infrastructure would be significantly weakened, thereby contributing to regional vulnerabilities.<\/span><\/p>\n The terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels exposed serious practical problems with EU security and intelligence cooperation. Irregular and incoherent cooperation combined with conflicts of interest between member states may undermine a comprehensive defence and security strategy. Information leakage is<\/span> also a concern<\/span><\/a>; sharing data between 28 member states means the risk of breaches is high.<\/span><\/p>\n On the other hand, Britain\u2019s integration into the EU\u2019s security apparatus should be considered as part of a strategy to maintain regional peace and stability and to strengthen resilience. Lord Carlile, the UK\u2019s former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation,<\/span> argues<\/span><\/a> that existing structures have improved cross-European cooperation significantly in areas of policing, jurisdiction and intelligence, thereby improving regional resilience considerably. Other high-profile security experts<\/span> agree<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Reservations on increased intelligence sharing among member states should be addressed and dealt with through<\/span> new procedures<\/span><\/a> to improve information security and mitigate the risk of information falling into the wrong hands. Developing existing EU structures is a more constructive way of fixing problems and mitigating the UK\u2019s concerns while also enhancing regional security.<\/span><\/p>\n When it comes to defence and diplomacy, Britain\u2019s membership of the EU hasn\u2019t affected its position as one of the strongest negotiating countries in the region. Nor has it affected diplomatic sovereignty or autonomy to make decisions regarding defence and security policy. British military participation in the Iraq coalition in 2003 wasn\u2019t restricted despite broader EU opposition.<\/span><\/p>\n While Britain\u2019s close strategic relationships with NATO, Five Eyes and US<\/span> may not necessarily be compromised<\/span><\/a> in the event of a Brexit vote, the view that NATO will prop up UK defence and security is problematic. With the<\/span> US focusing more on relationship building in Asia and the Pacific<\/span><\/a>, NATO may not be as involved in day-to-day European security operations as it has previously. EU agencies and offices might find that they shoulder more responsibility to provide an effective European security network. Britain should be involved to influence and derive benefit from this network.<\/span><\/p>\n A post-EU Britain would bear the burden of creating a new stand-alone security apparatus. Scoping out new bilateral agreements with various EU members would be costly, timely and, potentially, unreliable. The Lancaster Treaties signed in 2010 between Britain and France are one example of the type of arrangement that hasn\u2019t substantially improved information sharing between France and the UK.<\/span><\/p>\n International security challenges require a coordinated response. NATO\u2019s intervention can only go so far; political engagement is necessary to achieve successful solutions. Reaching agreements and instituting change might be more difficult and even less efficient for the UK outside of the EU. Historically, the Union has been integral to Britain\u2019s international diplomacy, most recently in<\/span> securing an agreement<\/span><\/a> with President Rouhani in Iran.<\/span><\/p>\n The nature of the security threats currently facing the UK and Europe are wide-ranging and varied\u2014 some of which, like transnational terrorism, have been a consistent problem for a sustained period of time. Other geopolitical developments\u2014the resurgence of Russia, the rise of China, large-scale migration to Europe, and civil war in the Middle East\u2014will test Europe\u2019s political and economic resilience. Along with the US\u2019s \u2018rebalance to Asia\u2019, the EU faces myriad challenges.<\/span><\/p>\n The UK\u2019s involvement in Europe\u2019s security is pivotal. Retreating from the Union would fragment and weaken Europe\u2019s defence and resilience capabilities. It also risks a firm response from Europe towards the UK, damaging trusted relationships built over the last 40 years, which would be detrimental for future security and intelligence cooperation. A weakened Europe and an isolated Britain is a dangerous prospect\u2014one not in Britain\u2019s interests. <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The UK is tied into a complex EU security, defence and law enforcement apparatus that might look easy to relinquish, but could be a potential nightmare to re-negotiate. A variety of veteran security and defence …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":523,"featured_media":27222,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1631,1114,1025,141],"class_list":["post-27221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-brexit","tag-defence","tag-european-union","tag-united-kingdom"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n