Although the British intelligence services are adept at identifying and disrupting attack plots from organized groups and fixated individuals, British protective security capabilities are weaker than those of the United States.
A letter just went out to all 650 British Members of Parliament advising them to take extra security precautions, based on the concern that Brexit fanatics of one view or another might take out their frustrations on politicians. Even so, MPs aren’t getting much additional security beyond free taxis back to their London residences.
Why the cheap approach? Because Britain lacks the means to provide security details to other than the most endangered politicians.
In part, this is cultural. Most members of the public enjoy relatively harmless but rambunctious interactions with their politicians. Yet, when it comes to moments like Brexit of immense public emotion, the need for more security meets the reality of absent excess capability. As Brexit reaches its culmination, one way or the other, only the most visibly threatened officials are receiving temporary security details. This stands in contrast to the U.S. Capitol Police, which provides robust security to members of Congress in and around the Capitol, and, where necessary, while members are traveling.
Even then, security for top politicians is far different to that in the U.S. The Metropolitan Police’s Protection Command provides personal security for the most senior members of the Royal Family, a few ambassadors, visiting dignitaries, and some cabinet officials. Those persons include Prime Minister Theresa May, the Foreign Secretary, the Defense Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Northern Ireland Secretary, and the Home Secretary. But while that might sound impressive, the prime minister and the Queen have small protective details compared to U.S. counterparts — far smaller than the president and vice president, and smaller even the U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Yes, British security details are supported by protective intelligence capabilities. But they have far less in terms of resources than their U.S. equivalents, the Secret Service Intelligence Division and the Capitol Police Protective Services Bureau.
So, put simply, until Britain decides to invest more in politicians security, taxis will remain the primary protection.
