In a landmark case that has sent ripples through European security circles, the man responsible for last year’s deadly rampage at a Berlin Christmas market has been sentenced to life in prison. The attacker, a failed asylum seeker from Tunisia, drove a stolen lorry into a crowded market, killing 12 and injuring dozens more. The verdict, delivered in a Berlin court, has drawn attention to the contrasting approaches to counter-terrorism between Germany and the United Kingdom, with British officials quietly touting their own model as a template for success.
Let us be clear: this was not a victory for German intelligence. It was, rather, a testament to the dogged work of German prosecutors and the slow wheels of justice. The attacker, who had been flagged by multiple European intelligence agencies, slipped through the cracks of a system that prioritises integration over surveillance. The UK, by contrast, has long taken a harder line. Our counter-terror strategy, built on a foundation of ‘Prevent’, ‘Pursue’, and ‘Protect’, has been honed over decades of dealing with both domestic and international threats. It is not without its critics. Civil liberties groups howl about ‘chilling effects’ and ‘snooper’s charters’. But the bottom line is this: since the 7/7 bombings, the UK has foiled over 30 serious plots. Germany, with a population 25% larger, cannot boast a similar record.
Market volatility in investor sentiment reflects this disparity. The FTSE 100 may not directly react to terrorism verdicts, but the underlying currency flows do. Capital flight from the eurozone has been a persistent theme since the financial crisis, and the perception of security is a non-trivial factor in that equation. The pound, despite its own post-Brexit wobbles, has remained resilient against the euro. Investors value stability. And stability, in the modern world, means effective policing and border control.
Of course, the German verdict is a step in the right direction. Life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole for 15 years, sends a message. But the damage was done long before the lorry hit the stalls of the Christmas market. The attacker had been in Germany for over a year, his application for asylum rejected. He was known to police for petty crime. He had been deported once, only to return. The system failed. And the cost was paid in human life.
Now, the German government must reckon with the fallout. Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, a man with his own share of political baggage, has ordered a review of deportation procedures. But reviews are cheap. Action is expensive. And in the world of fiscal conservatism, we know that expense must be justified by outcomes. The UK’s Prevent programme, for all its controversy, has been shown to reduce radicalisation. It costs money. But so does dealing with the aftermath of an attack.
The praise for the UK model is not simply self-congratulation. It is a recognition that our approach, while far from perfect, achieves results. Our intelligence services operate with a latitude that would make Germany’s federal police blush. Our courts have been willing to extend detention without charge. Our borders are tighter. These are not comfortable facts. They are uncomfortable truths that a liberal democracy must face.
In the end, the attacker’s life sentence is a small comfort to the families of the victims. They will never see their loved ones again. But for the rest of us, it is a reminder of the cost of complacency. And for the markets, it is a signal that security spending, however distasteful, is a necessary investment. The UK model, for all its flaws, is a safer bet. The markets agree.
