The horrible attack at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in the United Kingdom on Monday (May 22) in which 19 people were killed and several injured will only made the politics of the country more chaotic.
Just a couple of weeks ahead of the general elections that Prime Minister Theresa May called to 'silence' the Opposition and settle the Brexit issue, the terror attack is bound to rake up the question: How much secure will be the UK post Brexit?
Also read: Manchester: At least 19 killed, over 50 injured in blast at Ariana Grande concert
A Lords report warned against UK's weakening post Brexit
In December 2016, a report by the Lords said Britain will be less safe after leaving the European Union (EU), particularly if key security arrangements and law-enforcement databases are continued with or replaced appropriately, the Independent had reported.
The report said the current security mechanisms in place are "mission critical" for the UK's law-enforcement agencies. It also expressed fears that any effort to replace the current arrangements could ensure less security for the UK and its people.
Also read: Manchester attack the gravest since the London attacks of July 2005: A list
UK's Policing Minister Brandon Lewis had said then that though the country was planning to leave the EU, the government would carry on its responsibility of ensuring the safety of the people by prioritising law enforcement and cooperation with allies, both in Europe and abroad.
But then the latest terror attack did not make the minister's words look serious enough.
The UK authorities are gathering the pieces as fast as they can in the wake of the Manchester attack to show their 'unfazed' face but the fact remains that the current political leadership of the island nation has only set off a time bomb in the form of Brexit ticking.
A terror attack will be of course appalling, isn't it PM May?
PM May said the blast was being treated as an "appalling terror attack" but that is too simple and hollow a statement. A terror attack is certainly an appalling one but what is even more appalling is the way the UK government acted only to prove its populist worth at the expense of the national security.
Brexit would not only mean that the UK's security will turn vulnerable but also weaken the EU which has banked on the former for improving its security mechanism. There are voices in the UK that feel that the country has given much more in security affairs to the continent than it has received in return.
There is a nationalistic tone in these stances that dismiss the idea of collective security and eventually benefits the evil-doers. Why doesn't the UK instead think about helping the EU more in strengthening the overall security scenario and not just selfishly serve itself?
EU's security apparatus has improved of late; why divorce it?
Director of Europol, the EU-wide enforcement agency, Rob Wainwright said last year ahead of the Brexit polling that the EU's defence mechanism was only getting stronger.
Apart from the Prüm Convention to identify foreign criminals through sharing of the DNA, fingerprint and vehicle information, measures like the Schengen Information Service to alert cross-border movement of terrorists and European Arrest Warrant which facilitates extradition between EU countries [the UK benefited twice from this in the past to bring back terrorists] are key pillars to the UK's own security. It is time to work more on those lines, isn't it, instead of calling for a divorce?
The government of the UK, in the name of serving the people's will through Brexit, has only done them an immense disservice. Even if it is a democracy, the government had no business to give the country's inner cracks a chance to widen and take an irresponsible step towards jeopardising the nation's security.
