CCTV cameras are pictured in front of the Houses of Parliament in Westminster (AFP via Getty Images)

Brexit was not the only historic thing that happened this week in the UK. Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that Britain would allow technology from "high-risk vendors" such as Chinese state-directed vendor Huawei to be used in the UK's wireless 5G network, against the recommendations of the US government and defense community.

With an eye towards Brexit and what it means for Britain's future, new Hudson Senior Fellow Tim Morrison joined the BBC throughout the week to explore the implications of Britain's Huawei decision, 5G's vulnerabilities, and the national security concerns inherent in our wireless infrastructure.

Listen to Tim's BBC interviews, or catch some of the highlights below.

Britain's Techxit on US 5G Standards

Hudson's Tim Morrison joined BBC this week to discuss the implications of PM Johnson's decision to allow technology from "high-risk vendors" to be used in Britain's 5G network.

National security implications:

We’re talking about allowing the Chinese Communist Party into the telecommunications system, into the healthcare data, into the personal financial records of every Briton, and frankly, into the heart of the most successful security alliance, the Five Eyes, the world has ever known.

In 5G there is no “fringe,” there is only core. If Huawei is allowed into any part of your network, it is allowed into every part of your network. The risk to the United States, the risk to Canada, the risk to Australia, and other security partners, is if it’s in your network it could wind up in our network.

The Chinese have a national security law: As a requirement, every Chinese person and every Chinese company answer under the direction of the Chinese Communist Party. We have seen examples of where Huawei has had it’s “hand caught in the cookie jar,” where they have been caught pilfering data from networks. They do this around the world. 

US-UK trade agreements:

We’ve even seen traditional free trade advocates express concerns about what it means to sign a free trade deal under these circumstances. We have to wonder whether our British allies are more interested in Chinese investment or American investment. That’s the importance of the statement that the Prime Minister has made [this week].

Members of Parliament should ask:

The first question the British people should put to their elected leaders is the 35% cap. So which 35% of Britain doesn’t get full protection? Which 35% of Britain doesn’t deserve to have its financial records protected?...As a Member of Parliament, the question I’d ask is, "why does my constituency not deserve the same level of protection, the same level of 5G service received by the people of the United States, the people of Australia, the people of New Zealand, and the people of Japan?" 

What President Trump is likely thinking:

The President will likely ask whether the Prime Minister had all the information. Did all the national security information get to the Prime Minister? Or was this presented to the Prime Minister as, “We need to protect the ability to get a free trade agreement with China”? Or “We need to protect our access to foreign direct investment from China”? Or was this presented as, “Vodafone and British telecom are telling us, this is what they want, they want the cheapest equipment subsidized by the Chinese government"?

Quotes have been edited for length and clarity

Go Deeper: Hudson on 5G's National Security Risks

Hudson Institute
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 400
Washington, DC 20004