Skip to content

How soft security matters in the referendum debate

People fear the extreme and demand their governments be tough on security, but in truth our safety comes largely through control of the mundane. The EU excels at this.

Published:
14565355476_4ee519a23c_z_0.jpg
14565355476_4ee519a23c_z_0.jpg

Liz/Flickr. (CC 2.0 by-nc)

Both the Remain and Leave campaigns in this referendum make appeals to security. The Leave side say Britain’s security is endangered by membership in the bloc, arguing that it increases the likelihood of terror attacks in the UK, makes an economic crash more likely, and hinders prosperity for British nationals via the higher level of immigration. The Remain campaign, echoing the prime minister David Cameron’s mantra of ‘safer, prosperous and more secure’ Britain, claims exactly the opposite.

Theresa May, usually tough on immigration rules and numbers otherwise, weighed in to support ‘Bremain’ with further claims on criminal justice measures, national security, and fighting terrorism. By contrast, on the Leave side Michael Gove said, “I think overall our national security is strengthened if we are able to make the decisions that we need and the alliances that we believe in outside the current structures of the of the European Union”. EU judges, he argued, dictate “what our spies can do and whether we can be kept safe … our security and sovereignty stand together. I believe that there are better opportunities to keep people safe if we are outside the European Union”.