,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This requires a bit of a factcheck - as I fear the former MI6 head gets a bit wrong, but it is a common mistake and so deserves some treatment. (Thread)
The fears stem from two issues: the first is that buried in the withdrawal agreement is the offer of a special relationship in defence. 
This is actually erroneous. That bit is not in the binding Withdrawal Agreement, but in the political declaration on the future which is not legally binding.
What’s even more important, though, is that it is fundamentally vague and can be filled in various formats. Which brings us to the second claim.
That second claim is that the close relationship would then threaten UK NATO membership, the close relationship with the US and Five Eyes.
The vague promise of a close relationship in defence with the EU does nothing of the sorts. It first of all needs to be made concrete in future negotiations.
In those negotiations nothing will happen without the UK agreeing. And the UK won’t agree to anything crossing those red lines. A close relationship in defence is possible without crossing any of the red lines.
I am not the only one who thinks this. Here’s Lord Ricket, the UK’s first national security advisor
And here’s the former Permanent Secretary of the FCO Sir Simon Fraser
Pointing out M (well, in reality C) got something wrong is about as much in common as I‘ll ever have with James Bond.
