After the Paris, Brussels and Berlin terrorist attacks, the EU member states realised to establish a strong unified intelligence and security network. However, things were not alike, which we sensed. There were different priorities, resources and level of expertise within every state. Intelligence sharing among as many as 28 member states is not an easy task as it seems that policy makers and secret services face numerous legal, technical and political obstacles. Large states such as France, Germany, and the UK have established significant counterterrorism institutions and human resources to maintain sophisticated intelligence networks. However, in spite of all these arrangements, terrorists are cruising across Europe with arms and expertise. The limited cooperation on security issues amongst all 28 states is, thus, a reminder that even after six decades of integration, the EU remains a weak project. Intelligence cooperation and adverse relationship between the EU and UK will not cease after the Brexit as the UK contributes a lot in the field of intelligence and law enforcement. The UK has been a leading protagonist in shaping the nature of security cooperation under the auspices of the EU, as reflected in EU agencies and policy area. The chief of EU’s foreign policy struggled to start initiatives and set up defence-related research to re organise the EU defence cooperation after Brexit. The UK’s decision to leave the EU provides an opportunity to use the provisions of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty to move forward on one hand, and the UK exit from the project will be a serious loss of capabilities for the EU, making closer cooperation among member states on the other. On January 17, 2017, British Prime Minister Teresa May’s speech enraged the entire European Union. She was critical of the EU attitude towards Britain. “The UK cannot possibly remain within the EU single market as staying in it would mean “not leaving the EU at all”, she said. Her London speech and her subsequent visit to World Economic Forum in Davos raised several important questions including the UK intelligence and security cooperation with the EU. The development of intelligence cooperation on law enforcement level amongst the EU has been a test case for the member and states credibility and willingness to deliver their secret assets to a common pool of strategic resources regardless of information security concerns and communication barriers. There are several opinions that illustrate a clear picture of shallow in the field of security on law enforcement level within the European Union member states. Some understand that as the EU law is supreme, therefore, law making process in the UK has to weaken, some view the present intelligence cooperation as an insincere and a reluctant engagement, while some understand that the exchange of professional and high-quality intelligence information with low-quality information of Eastern European states is no more a successful business. However, cooperation on countering terrorism has received shallow support amidst controversies and unwanted statements from some member states. This way of resentment and indignation further prompted social and political clefts in the project infrastructure when some member state expressed deep concern over the reluctant intelligence cooperation. In February 2015, the EU council member states agreed on the fight against terrorism upon three pillars; security of the citizens, preventing radicalization and safeguarding value, and better cooperation among all member states. The issue of free movement across the EU has become a matter of great concern when terrorists availed this opportunity, reaching France and Germany and killed hundreds of innocent civilians. During the last six years, there were some legal developments in the United Kingdom dealing with terrorism and radicalization. In October 2010, the government published the National Security Strategy, which identifies terrorism, and in July 2011, the contest strategy was also published due to the increase in terrorist incidents, and some developments in Asia and Africa. In 2012, Protection of Freedom Act 2012 repealed section 44 — search and stop powers. Terrorism prevention and investigation act, communication data bill, justice and security bill and the use of science and technology to counter terrorism were passed amidst the exponentially growing terror threat in the country. Despite all these legal efforts in countering terrorism on Britain’s soil, some segments of society criticised the government efforts and termed it against minorities. The future of the UK police operations has, once more, moved to the centre of the political battleground. The Cameron government weakened it by interfering in its infrastructure, but, to some extent, introduced some reforms. The police need further reforms as the force has been divided on ethnic bases, which cannot operate wholeheartedly. This divide and the attitude of some stakeholders made the police reluctant to face the exponentially growing nature of terror-related crimes. Deteriorating relationship between police forces, and politicians, increasingly characterised by mutual suspicion. Politicians want more space in the policing infrastructure. During the last 150 years of the establishment of the UK police force (1829) and the establishment of the police complaints board in 1977, no independent oversight was existed in dealing with complaints in the country. Although royal commission on the police that reported in 1962 come about as a result of the widely publicised dismissal of several officers in corruption and fraud cases: “The police a disciplined body, and proper leadership requires that the administration of justice should be in the hands of the chief constable. Any whittling down of this responsibility would weaken the chief constable’s command of the force and this again would lead to a loss of moral and confidence”. There are so many key weaknesses in the police reform act notwithstanding the improvement that the government made, the system dealing with complaints is deeply complicated, bureaucratic and slow. This system does not meet the expectation of communities. There are so many challenges faced by complainants against the police misconduct, notwithstanding the principles of the Taylor reforms in 2008, which empowers local management to deal with the issue. The UK police face numerous challenges due to the recent budget cuts, which include reviewing the role of neighbourhood policing. The exponentially growing graph of crime, extremism and radicalization has put the police forces on the ordeal. In a modern state, policing is a diverse job, which requires a disciplined approach and public confidence. Many police forces adopt different approaches like conduct policy, and disciplinary procedure. We live in an age of risk mixed insecurities, anxieties about civilities and anti-social behaviour. We hope, policing and intelligence forces will respond to all these torments and threats with a professional security approach in maintaining security and law and order. The chapter on social media added to the law enforcement operation in the UK, though strengthen the resolve of the police, but it also need a new approach to counter criminal culture emerged from Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other online sources. Police and its private partners may find them unable to investigate all the above mentioned emerging threatening environment of fear and harassment, but intelligence-led policing can be more effective. The writer is author of Fixing the EU Intelligence Crisis, can be reached at zai.musakhan222@gmail.com