Home Categories About
argument top image
Should the UK have remained in the EU? Should the UK have remained in the EU?
Yes, the UK should have remained in the EU Yes, the UK should have remained in the EU
No, the UK should have left the EU No, the UK should have left the EU
We need more international cooperation, not less We need more international cooperation, not less
Interdependence removes the scope for war Interdependence removes the scope for war
We don't need tensions between The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland We don't need tensions between The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland
The UK should have left the EU for economic reasons The UK should have left the EU for economic reasons
The UK strengthened its borders by leaving the EU The UK strengthened its borders by leaving the EU
The UK does not need to worry about Ireland when it comes to Brexit The UK does not need to worry about Ireland when it comes to Brexit
Debate Mini Map

Should the UK have remained in the EU?
Back to question

No, the UK should have left the EU

< (2 of 2)

The UK strengthened its borders by leaving the EU

Membership in the EU allows seemingly unchecked travel between all of the countries within the union. This free travel leads to increased terrorist activity. The UK strengthened its borders by leaving the EU and not allowing foreign agents to terrorize its citizens.
Major General Julian Thompson Major General Timothy Cross
< (2 of 3) Next argument >

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.

The Argument

A central component of membership in the European Union is that citizens of EU countries may travel freely between any EU state.[1] This rule led to increased terror attacks on countries like the United Kingdom. Brexit allows the UK to control its borders and strengthen its fight against terrorism firmly.[2] Additionally, 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. These global connections remain unaltered after Brexit.[3] The main reason why the EU counterterrorism efforts are less successful than those of the Five Eyes is that not all EU members fully cooperate with every country. Both of these factors are the reasons why the UK strengthened its borders when it left the EU.

Counter arguments

The inability to share information – especially intelligence concerning terrorism – between countries hurts all European countries.[4] Much of the western world is under attack by both terrorist and Kremlin-backed forces.[5] 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.[6] Brexit weakened the UK’s borders.

Proponents

Premises

Rejecting the premises

References

  1. https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history_en
  2. https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-would-brexit-affect-counterterrorism
  3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-security-will-we-be-more-or-less-safe-a7058551.html
  4. https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-would-brexit-affect-counterterrorism
  5. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-security-will-we-be-more-or-less-safe-a7058551.html
  6. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-security-will-we-be-more-or-less-safe-a7058551.html
This page was last edited on Wednesday, 30 Sep 2020 at 00:14 UTC

Explore related arguments