Don’t believe the hype about post-Brexit security threats – on either side

But these fears are overblown. As Dearlove should know, intelligence ties with the U.S. and others are compartmentalized from wider diplomatic and political tensions. Just look at the furor over the future of the “special relationship” under the presidency of Donald Trump. Intelligence officials on both sides of the Atlantic realize that intelligence liaison is of mutual interest to both sides. Britain can offer the U.S. unique geography because of its proximity to Europe, expertise and new insights. U.S. agencies can provide tech and money. Cutting exchanges would be damaging for both sides and suggesting otherwise is misleading.

Britain has also always collaborated closely with European allies as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), while GCHQ, the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS or MI6) and Security Service (MI5) have enjoyed intimate, and increasingly stronger, ties with European counterparts.

GCHQ’s director, Jeremy Fleming, told NATO delegates in June 2018: “We’re leaving the EU but not Europe … We have excellent relationships with intelligence and security agencies right across the continent.”

Even a no-deal Brexit wouldn’t threaten Britain’s existing bilateral arrangements with individual European allies. Much intelligence sharing takes place at a national level away from the EU anyway. But it’s clear that some intelligence and law enforcement sharing would be restricted post-Brexit. That would have knock-on effects for counter-terrorism, serious organized crime and trafficking.

John Sawers, another former MI6 chief, has warned that Brexit means no longer shaping rules for sharing data. The U.K. would also lose its automatic access to information systems used in the EU to track the movement of “dangerous people”.

In the short term, the negotiated withdrawal agreement continues the U.K.’s access to the European Arrest Warrant. British law enforcement will continue to have access to the European-wide Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA). The U.K.’s membership of Europol – the EU-wide law enforcement agency – is open for negotiation, even if officials had earlier warned that it would have to leave. Loss of access to Europol would certainly limit Britain’s influence.

But what next? The government’s proposals for its future security relationship with the EU are the opening gambit in a long drawn-out negotiation process. This is not the endgame, just the start. While May’s vision for a post-Brexit security agreement doesn’t – as Brexiteers such as Dearlove and others suggest – spell the end of traditional ties with transatlantic partners, nor end bilateral exchanges with European allies, it does place significant blocks in the way of low-level EU-wide information sharing that remains important to national security. Where it will end up is anyone’s guess.

Dan Lomas is Program Leader, MA Intelligence and Security Studies, University of Salford. This article is published courtesy of The Conversation.