Over the last 15 years, growing national security controversies mostly revolved around the failure of cooperation among the European Union (EU) member states, which resulted in mistrust and the emergence of major extremist organisations that threatened the national security of the region. Cooperation among EU intelligence agencies failed to cultivate a strong relationship with policymakers and a close interaction with the civil society. Their sharp criticism against each other points to an important question about the border security and immigration crisis in the region.However, amidst this controversial engagement, German intelligence spied on France and created the clouds ofsurveillance on US and Britain.On November 6, 2013, the BBC reported that the head of German parliament’s intelligence committee called for enquiries into alleged spying committed by the British embassy in Berlin. The German home minister asked the UK ambassador to explain his country’s embassy’s activities. This controversial way of intelligence sharing and cooperation hasembroiled the EU member states in the biggest crisis of integration as several states havethreatened to drag back their blankets. The Greek, Portuguese, Italian and Spainish financial crises further increased their pain. The political goal of creating a unified EU also failed as France and Germany started dictating their partner states. Thus, the proposals of forming a common EU intelligence agency caused controversies,and raised the question that if secret agencies within the parameters of EU do not share intelligence on important matters, how would they cooperate within one agency? In 2015, there had been a steady chain of publications and debates about intelligence sharing and security sector reforms in Europe, in which experts suggesteda major change to the present security and intelligence system that could not meet the requirements of counter terrorism operations. In several Eastern European states, the old infrastructure of security and intelligence mechanism continues toinhibit the new security system in other member states.A majority of the newly independent states (Romania, Finland, Poland, Bosnia, Serbia and Bulgaria) introduced weak intelligence and security reforms that could not attract other states. After the Paris attacks, on December 18, 2015, the EU summit leader promised to improve intelligence sharing mechanism and coordination, but failed to persuade some states to extend their cooperation on the US’ war on terrorism.However, some states showed reservations and agreed to share intelligence only with those they trust because several European agencies feared that their secret information may well be in danger when so many partners are involved. The security system of the Belgian governmentfaces numerous challenges to operate within the parameters of EU.Though the Netherlands’ intelligence is competent it needs even more improvements,while the French are working along modern lines to improve operational and counter terrorism capabilities of its intelligence agencies, which failed to intercept terrorists entering the country. The Belgian foreign minister recently warned that more intelligence on home-growing extremism is a must after the EU secret agencies came under heavy criticism immediately after they failed to share intelligence with France aboutthe Paris attackers. French interior minister complained that no information about possible attacks was provided by EU secret agencies. French intelligence again failed to monitor the activities of its home-growing extremists. It is clear that the country’s leaders are shying away from hard truths on the failure of their modern surveillance system. The issue of border checking is also in crisis as watch lists are maintained poorly, and the lack of up-to-date information further exacerbated in the problem. Guns and other firearms are still easily available in all EU states, which facilitate terrorists to carry out attacks on public places. In the UK,the presence of thousands of criminal gangs, dozens of terrorist networks, and the availability of armsraisesserious questions.The way the government controls its population is violation of the right to privacy. On February 11, 2016, the visiting professor of law in Queen Mary University London, Eric King criticised the UK government’s new Investigatory Powers Bill and raw intelligence sharingmechanism: “Government’s position is that the routine sharing of raw, unanalysed intercepted materials is governed by “detailed internal guidance…and by a culture of compliance”. But details behind the sharing taking place between friendly agencies are not visible in either statute, code of practice, public statement or policy”.After the Paris attacks, there was a renewed push for a pan-European intelligence organisation, butthe Netherlands introduced its own security measures, and Britain and France renewed preventive measures to counter domestic extremist groups, while a common goal was missing. The Dutch state developed a strong surveillance programme, which came under criticism from civil society and human rights organisations. The country intelligence reforms bill was submitted to parliament in September 2015, which granted security agencies far-reaching surveillance powers. Netherlands Institute of Human Rights warned that the bill violates privacy. However, the Netherlands’ intelligence taps satellite data, but after the Snowden revelations, the government started spying on civilians.The country decided to share intelligence and data with other EU member states about jihadists fighting in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. In 2015, the Dutch Home Office was severely criticised after its revelations before parliament that more than 1.8 telecommunications intercepts had been collected by the NSA and gathered by the Dutch intelligence. In Sweden, intelligence operation is being led by National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA), which is engaged in mass collection of data, but the country has not been able to counter radicalisation on its soil. German intelligence agencies are looking at the US and UK through a hostile glass after the taping of Angela Merkel’s personal telephone by NSA and UK’s illegal surveillance operation in the country. In November 2015, in the EU meeting in Brussels, the issue of intelligence sharing was criticised by some states. “We have not overcome yet the hurdle of the exchange among intelligence services”, Luxembourg’s home minister told reporters. The crisis of mistrust in EU remains deep as Britain decided to leave the union if its reforms demands are not met. Their approach to counter terrorism is incoherent, contradictory and sceptical. The danger arising from the dismemberment of the union is real. The writer is author of The Prospect of Nuclear Jihad in Pakistan can be reached at zai.musakhan222@gmail.com