The meaning of security in Europe is changing. The continent faces a revanchist neighbor to the east, a cauldron of instability to the south (with repercussions spilling across the border), and homegrown terrorists inspired by the likes of the Islamic State (ISIS).
Countries are responding by tightening the lid on defense and security policy. Intelligence-sharing is a hot topic, both between and within European nations. Indeed, Europe – now more than ever – needs to work together to take on the many challenges it faces. Yet the European Union (EU) seems to be falling apart.
On June 23, Britain shocked the world by voting to remove itself from the EU. Now, the country faces a lengthy disentanglement process, with new Prime Minister Theresa May leading the charge. But Britain’s abandonment of the EU does not mean it is also abandoning European security. In fact, quite the opposite is the case.
Executive Director of Open Rights Group Jim Killock tells The Cipher Brief that with the British exit from the EU (Brexit), “the UK will be looking for new ways to project international power.” One of those ways, he notes, is in a renewed commitment to NATO. British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, at an event in Washington last month, stressed that Britain will be committed to NATO and its bilateral relationships – particularly with the U.S. – post-Brexit.
This is because it is in Britain’s best interest to ensure “the special relationship [between the U.S. and the UK] thrives,” says Lisa Aronsson, a visiting fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center and Cipher Brief expert. To keep that relationship alive, Britain must not only retain its own defense and intelligence prowess, but also remain critical to European defense. The U.S. relies on the UK to “lead Europe with a familiar strategic culture that enables the U.S. to comfortably attempt a re-balancing to Asia, or to focus on other global priorities,” notes Aronsson.
Theresa May surely recognizes the importance of remaining relevant in Europe’s defense. Fallon pointed out that May’s first act as Prime Minister was to lead a vote in the Parliament on the renewal of the country’s Trident nuclear weapons system. (Members of Parliament voted in favor of four replacement submarines to carry Trident missiles.)
In another notable move, May did not replace Fallon as Defense Secretary, showing her “preference for consistency in defense policy,” remarks Aronsson.
May’s track record as Home Secretary (2010-2016) gives further clues to the value she places on Britain’s defense and intel capabilities. The Extremism Bill and the Investigatory Powers Bill – proposed under then-Home Secretary May as measures to counter extremist speech and increase state surveillance – were highly controversial, yet provide insight into May’s fairly hawkish thinking on security.
Killock explains, “Theresa May has – since 2010 – attempted to expand the ability of the police to mass monitor Internet activities […] This includes location data and call histories, creating a social graph and trail of physical associations of individuals that is unparalleled in the democratic world.”
The Investigatory Powers Bill was shelved by the Liberal Democrats but is now back on the table, awaiting approval in Parliament.
Whether or not the bill passes, May will continue to be tough on terrorists and other criminals, supportive of the intelligence community’s methods of attaining information to defeat these entities, and focused on a substantive British defense presence in Europe – both to ensure the security of the UK and its neighbors and to maintain Britain’s special relationship with the United States.
Kaitlin Lavinder is a reporter at The Cipher Brief.
