The UK strengthened its borders by leaving the EU

The argument

A central component of membership in the European Union is that citizens of EU countries may travel freely between any EU state. Proponents of leaving argue that this rule led to increased terror attacks on countries like the United Kingdom, because a border that cannot be checked cannot be used to stop anyone: a member state may know who it wishes to exclude and still lack the legal means to do so while free movement is in force. On this account Brexit restores the missing instrument. Leaving allows the UK to control its own borders, and with that control comes the ability to strengthen its fight against terrorism firmly rather than at the margins — screening at the point of entry rather than relying on other member states to have screened first. The second half of the argument answers the obvious objection, which is that leaving means losing the cooperation that counterterrorism depends on. Proponents argue that the cooperation which actually matters is not the EU's. Counterterrorism efforts from EU members pale in comparison to the efforts of the Five Eyes — the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand — and those global connections remain unaltered after Brexit, because they were never a function of EU membership in the first place. Nothing of value was given up. The reason offered for the gap in effectiveness is structural rather than technical. EU counterterrorism efforts are less successful than those of the Five Eyes because not all EU members fully cooperate with every country, so the network operates at the pace of its most reluctant participant. An arrangement in which every partner shares fully is worth more than one in which formal membership does not guarantee it. Both of these factors are the reasons why, on this view, the UK strengthened its borders when it left the EU: it gained a control it did not have, and kept the partnerships that were already doing the work.

Context

After the attacks of 11 September 2001, terrorism increased across the western world. Many British citizens believe the free travel between EU states facilitates an increase in violence. These Brexiters believe that the UK strengthened its borders when it left the EU.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The inability to share information – especially intelligence concerning terrorism – between countries hurts all European countries. Much of the western world is under attack by both terrorist and Kremlin-backed forces. The UK’s decision to leave the EU weakens its borders. Former heads of both MI5 and MI6 (Jonathan Evans and Sir John Sawers, respectively) believe that the UK is less safe after Brexit. Sir John’s primary reasoning behind this conclusion is that Britain will no longer partake “in decisions that frame the sharing of data,” presenting a critical vulnerability that the UK now faces. Brexit weakened the UK’s borders.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The link between free movement and terror attacks is asserted rather than shown. The UK was never part of the Schengen area and kept passport checks on arrivals from EU states throughout its membership, so the border control described as regained was already being exercised. Several of the most serious attacks in Britain were carried out by British citizens, whom no immigration rule would have excluded. [Rejecting P2] Border control and counterterrorism capability are not the same thing. Leaving also meant leaving the instruments British police and security services used most heavily — the European Arrest Warrant, Schengen Information System alerts, Europol and shared fingerprint databases. The counter's citation of former heads of MI5 and MI6 goes to exactly this: losing a seat in the decisions that frame data sharing is a cost the premise does not weigh. [Rejecting P3] The Five Eyes comparison works against the argument. If those relationships were unaltered by Brexit, they were equally available during membership and so cannot count as a gain from leaving. The premise also treats the two arrangements as substitutes when they do different work: Five Eyes is a signals-intelligence partnership, while the European instruments handle extradition, criminal records and border alerts within Europe.