Sir John Sawers, an ex-MI6 chief, insisted to Andrew Marr earlier that No10 did not put him up writing today’s article in the Sunday Times saying that Britain needs the EU to ensure its security. I can quite believe it. No10 abandoned this line of argument after the Belgian Airport atrocity, and the subsequent debate which exposed how EU-wide security does not work. We saw, then, that geographical proximity is terrifyingly unrelated to the quality of intelligence collaboration. The French and Belgians were unable to exchange information about terror suspects, in spite of having a common border and common language. If you rely on institutions that don’t work, you put lives at risk. Perhaps that’s why, after the Paris attacks, a French intelligence chief said that his country had become a ‘victim of solidarity with the European Union’.
Both Sir John and Jonathan Evans (his now-ennobled ex-counterpart at MI5 with whom he jointly authored today’s article) will know how little their agencies relied on EU institutions.
Intelligence works via bilateral arrangements – as Sir Richard Dearlove, another ex-MI6 chief, explained in his article for Prospect magazine. The main exception to this is the Five Eyes, the name given to our intimate intelligence-sharing relationship with New Zealand, the US, Canada and Australia.
And this is a metaphor for international affairs more broadly. Britain’s natural network is global, not parochial. Geographical proximity doesn’t give us more in common with countries: the beauty of Europe lies in its glorious diversity. It is because of that diversity that the EU struggles to pull off collective security, or collective anything.
It’s hard to have a proper debate about the EU and the secret services, as those who currently work in the field cannot speak openly. Former service chiefs, like Sir Richard and Sir John, disagree. And anyone who voices scepticism (as I did on the Marr sofa this morning) can be accused of having no authority or expertise.
The general idea is that the strength of an argument can be gauged by the personal authority of the advocate. And Sawers retired more recently than Dearlove – so Sir John’s argument wins. This – the appeal to expertise rather than argument – is a technique the Remain camp have relied upon quite a lot. Hence the lining up of the great and the good, to inform the unwashed masses that all the thinking has been done for them, and that the answer is to Remain.
The alternative approach is to consider arguments on their merits alone. And ask questions like: just where are these EU-wide institutions that are supposed to preserve our security? What are the EU-related intelligence arrangements that we enjoy now, and would not enjoy if we left the EU? How many can Sir John name? This is where his case rather falls down.
On Marr today, he spoke about sharing airport passenger information – but any two countries can do that, as those who have filled in an ESTA form ahead of travel to the US can attest. Sir John said that before the European Arrest Warrant, it took ten years for Britain to put villains like Rachid Ramda in the catapult. But it’s down to ten months even for non-EU members now, versus three months for EU members – let’s not pretend this is a massive difference.
Sir John said the EU is good for data-sharing. Really? Not so good that they have yet agreed upon a way of spelling Arabic names, which makes tracking the bad guys rather difficult. And yes, they do have a database of 90,000 fingerprints, but no ability to search it. Individual national spy agencies may have their points: the UK rates French intelligence, but we worry about the Italians and despair at the Belgians.
Also, our membership of the European Arrest Warrant system is rather controversial having brought with it the powers of countries like Greece to incarcerate innocent Brits like Andrew Symeou, falsely accused of a murder in a Greek nightclub. Then there’s the controversial ability of countries like Poland to invoke this rather major power for minor offences like piglet rustling, stealing a wheelbarrow (and, in one instance, a small teddy bear). So, again, let’s not pretend that the European Arrest Warrant (to speed up extraditions) is a major tool in counter-terrorism.
In his Sunday Times interview (video here), it took 45 seconds for Sir John to run out of intelligence arguments and start to talk about the EU’s effects on cohesion of the continent. He’s on firmer ground there, and I suspect this might be closer to what he really thinks. That EU membership makes very little difference to the operational ability of the secret services, but he does fear for the wider implications of Brexit: that it weakens the EU, that other nations drop out and risks ensue. When Sir John was running MI6, he argued that Scotland leaving the UK ranked amongst our top security threats. That voting for separation would damage Britain’s stature and represent strategic shrinkage; we’d be a global laughing stock, that our allies would be less inclined to work with a country that proved unable to keep itself together.
At the time, I was quite struck by his argument. In this bad, crazy world of ours, the head of MI6 thought the Scottish independence was amongst the top threats yes please UK security. He probably applies the same argument to Brexit. Would we be diminished in the eyes of the world if it looked as if the nation had succumbed to Trump-esque isolationism? Yes, the Brexiteers say they want out to pursue global horizons – but that’s not how it seems to the rest of the world. And would’t that damage Britain’s stature, and our soft power?
It’s an interesting, subtle and credible argument: in which case, why not make it? Does everything need to be reduced into a scare story about terrorism, based on arguments stretched to (and, often, beyond) breaking point?
So, will Brexit make a material difference to the way our spies keep us safe? Not, I’d say, on the evidence offered up so far. Would the act of Brexit undermine the EU and create instability in a continent with enough problems already? A far more plausible argument. But the Brexit debate has, so far, has been woefully bereft of plausible arguments.
Comments