Today the Cabinet meets to be presented with a copy of the White Paper on the future of Trident. A couple of hours later the publication of the White Paper will be announced in a statement to the House of Commons. So much for Cabinet government, ministers will have no opportunity to amend the White Paper, which has already been printed.
The media has been widely briefed by Number 10 that there will be about three months consultation and then the recommendations of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to replace Trident will be put to a vote in Parliament. So much for Labour Party democracy, party members will be excluded by Blair and Brown from determining policy on one of the most important decisions of this generation.
I oppose the replacement of Trident as I believe it is a waste of vast resources, (estimated at anything between £26 and £76 billion) on a weapon of mass destruction which is impotent in protecting us against modern day threats and which encourages nuclear proliferation thus making the world less safe.
However, there may be many in the party who support nuclear weapons and Trident rewewal. None of us, either for or against Trident, are to be allowed by Blair and Brown to determine democratically the policy of our party and therefore our government on this issue.
I am calling for the decision on Trident renewal to be put to Labour Party conference. Even the most hawkish promoters of Trident renewal do not think that there is any logistical reason for a decision to be rushed through in the next three months as the Prime Minister is demanding. Instead the timing seems to be simply part of the Blair legacy agenda and part of a deal between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to get an unpopular decision out of the way early.
I believe that there should be a thorough period of discussion, questionning and debate, enabling the Labour Party conference in September 2007 to come to a final decision.
By attempting to bounce this decision through Parliament on the back of Tory votes and preventing the party from taking a decision on a question of such critical importance, both Blair and Brown are risking splitting the party, alienating even more of our supporters and undermining what little faith there is left in democracy within our party.
Let our members decide.
22 Comments:
Hang on...John, are you annoyed about the process the government are going through to renew Trident, or about the renewal itself? Or both? You haven't given any reasons at all for why Trident would be a bad idea for Britain, let alone refuted any of the pro-Trident arguments. I thought we had left unilateral silliness behind somewhere in the bad old days.
Eddie, if you were to cast your eyes further down the page, you will see John's support of the CND position on Trident together with associated comments.
John's position on Trident is immaterial, though. I think there could well be a case for renewing it, but it's up to the leadership to make that case and for the decision to be taken democratically. By pushing ahead at break-neck speed and trying to push this decision through early next year, long before it needs to be made, and by saying he will whip MPs, Blair is creating an unecessary crisis and undermining both party and parliamentary democracy. This is just the latest of his attempts to do something he thinks will give him a "legacy", no matter what the cost to the party or the country. This kind of behaviour isn't sane and it's shameful that the Cabinet are putting up with it.
I thought we had left unilateral silliness behind somewhere in the bad old days.
So did I! ;)
We had enemies with nuclear weapons back then. Now we have enemies with bombs in rucksacks, against which nukes are useless.
Interesting couple of things I heard on the news tonight. apparently we need to decide now about Trident, because it will take at least 17 years to design and build the replacement. Yet, we are told that Iran and North Korea are building a nuclear bomb imminently. How come they are so quick at it and we're so slow?
And both Blair and his pal David, talk of the UK retaining an independent deterrent. Yet it is the US that will supplying the missiles - how independent is that? Will we be forced to use them in defence of the US regardless of our own foreign policies (if we have any left that is)
I'm just not sure about the argument that other states have them, so should we.
I don't know that any of my Latin American friends (a whole continent that is mineral rich and nuclear free) are waking up begging for nuclear weapons or even in fear of nuclear attack from elsewhere.
Even if North Korea or Iran had nuclear weapons (possible) and could fire them as far as us (unlikely), and saw some point in doing so (highly unlikely), what good would it do us to send some back to them.
And if we can never use them, then what's the point in having them?
As I live in Hackney, I expect at least one of my near nieghbours has a gun. Therefore by Blair logic, I should get one (even though I'm not sure any of my neighbours actually has one, let alone wishes me any malice -and even if I did, it would just make me seem violent and therefore a threat to any neighbours that also had one.
£76bn over 30 years - better ways to spend it. Imagine how many lives could be saved.
Can someone direct me to some irrefutable evidence either for or against the claim that Trident can only be used with US permission? I've heard that claim over and over again, and apparently Blair denied it today.
It does come to something when you have to go around online looking for proof of the veracity of a categorical denial of such a question from the Prime Minister, but hey ho.
Re. only being able to use our nukes with US permission - yep, Blair definitely categorically denied this yesterday. I'm sure CND put forward an alternative position - who to believe? Might be something put out soon by CND soon hopefully offering (biased) clarity ...
I would like to take John's post (which I agree with) a step further by calling for a refferedum to the British people about whether or not we should have a nuclear deterrant.
I think the interdependence between the US & UK regards weapon use is implicit rather than explicit. Imagine the UK wanting to, say, hit a part of the Middle East where there are US interests. Or, on the other hand, how easy is it for Bush to persuade the UK that US targets are genuine bad guys?
Far be it for me to praise the LibDems but I think that Menzies Campbell's comment that this is all part of Blair's "legacy" is spot on.
With Trident, NHS reforms, planning reforms and who knows what other draconian ideas, he is determined to ensure his successor (McDonnell or Brown) does not get re-elected.
It's shameful that people like Peter Hain are , who once vociferously opposed Trident, are keeping quiet. I do not believe their views have changed so profoundly. Even if you believed in the deterrent notion, that just doesn't wash in a much-changed world. I'm ashamed to be a part of this Party. or rather, ashamed of most of the Mps andMinisters who will no doubt just do as they are told by Blair.But let's try and be positve .ALL the Mps whosigned the EDM opposing Trident MUST now support John's campaign.If they don't, we really are choosing war-mongering over peace. Get people from CND to join up and support us, too. Blair will be gone in a few months. We don'thave to stick with ANY of the decisions he is so disgracegully steamrollering through on our behalf without any recourse to ordinary members.Don't give up, comrades!
As we've said in our latest post, we're staunch supporters of a British contribution to any future nuclear holocaust.
you can't renew Trident and be green because WHAT ABOUT NUCLEAR WASTE?
For my German A Level I had to do the devil of a question about nuclear accidents and I discovered that there have been many more apart from Chenobyl; and people are of course still suffering from the pollution etc they cause now.
Who exactly is going to attack us anyway? Not the US, not Russia and if states such as North Korea did they would be annihilated by the US anyway....
if we took some steps towards disarmament maybe other countries would do goes the argument
like most political issues it comes down to your view of human nature as political theory courses will teach you
is it positive? -quote Tony Benn and those advocating socialist ideas and theorists such as Locke and Rousseau whose ideas helped shape the American constitution
or negative -theorist such as Hobbes and indeed politicians such as Margaret Thatcher ultimately believed we are all not much more than ignorant savages who need to be ruled by our betters i.e. the political elite, so it's in their interests to keep us all living on fear of a nuclear attack, or terroism etc......
the one thing that's going to bring Blair down is his absolute refusal to allow any real debate (apart from elite controlled sham talking shops just for show ) within his own party about anything of political consequence.
some good points were being made by MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn of course from what I saw of the highlights of the debate in Parliament yesterday; it's a shame they don't publish Parliamentary reports in the press anymore though you all know where to get it if you want it (Hansard/Radio 4, BBC Parliament and various websites) but it's not as easily accessible as the words of Blair of course as they are everywhere.
Instead of renewing Trident they could spend some of the money on decent kit for soldiers in Iraq etc and more body armour for our police. Although I am a pacifist I would maintain that as the army is currently engaged in various war zones the least we can do is properly equip them till we can get them out, hopefully alive.
Even President Kennedy who must have been incredibly busy found time to go into the detail of equipping his armies with proper kit.
"it's a shame they don't publish Parliamentary reports in the press anymore"
Couldn't agree more. Means all political debate is completely dominated by party leaderships, punctuated by the odd noisy non-parliamentary fringe group. There's too much comment in newspapers and not enough room for facts for people to judge for themselves.
"theorists such as Locke and Rousseau whose ideas helped shape the American constitution"
Looking at American politics, it's debateable whether that amounts to a ringing endorsement.
On Trident - apart from needing the money for equipping troops currently in Iraq/Afghanistan, the government -still- haven't adopted the reccomendations from the Deepcut report, and training is still conducted at a dangerous, poorly regulated, poor standard level.
I agreed with Blair that an inquiry into Iraq would send a bad message to the outside world at this time; similairly, now is a bad time to be renewing Trident.
One point I can think of in Blair's favour is that if we abandon Trident, it's a one way trip if we're not going to completely flout the non-proliferation treaty.
i've argued elsewhere that we should draw down our nuclear capabillities gradually and retire to a sphere of influence within Europe, Balkans and Africa.
Replacing Trident will do nothing to make us safer, and the £75bn should be spent on health, education and properly equipping the standing Army for peace keeping like in Sierra Leone and the Balkans.
If we need these WMD (and i doubt it) we should retain our surface to surface/ship-shore/air-surface capabillities for their natural lives and then not renew.
I am in favor of a free vote in the commons, but Tony would still carry it after leading a debate calling his own backbenchers appeasers/traitors/cowards/USA haters/forces of evil/guilty of the next attack.
The Parliament is a cowed sham of a legislature that should grow a set forthwith.
W
I agree with you, your saying is so good and usful for me. Thanks. Are you also like
ugg boots sale
ugg australia
uggs
It’s a meaningful and interesting topic. Thanks.
Bailey ugg boots
at a time when large heat has set off a winter 08/09 to Ewha.Outlines the warm wool winter fashion degree to wool crocheted wool
ugg classic
to join after the body does not stimulate your skin soft, soft comfort UP. Fashion can not without
UGG Bailey Button boots
presence in Winter.and ugg boots have many series.such as:
ugg nightfall
Paragraph star UGG boots, many shops Amoy’s that some people go online to buy or Shopping Service, in a word, they are
very good look, take a look at the stars with their own, become a star is a small case! This the reason why
ugg boots sale are so popular now!Put on cotton boots is also moving up and
quiet,such as the ugg boots uk match with the pants.there is also a good dress with Miu leather. At the same time, necessary are gloves, ear muffs, snow ugg boots, sunglasses, scarf and so on, which you can pick the beautiful pieces of dress, no matter how technology, let us heavily armed first.so
now ugg boots sale in many shoes shop.there are many ugg boots you can choose in the
ugg boots uk shop!
Buy Kamagra
Earn Google
M65 Jacket
Viagra Cialis
Cheap Kamagra
Cheap Viagra
Cheap Cialis
Make Money on Google
M65 Field Jacket
Airline Dog Carrier
Airline Dog Carriers
Viagra Cialis
Earn Google
Airline Dog Carrier
Airline Dog Carriers
Airline Approved Dog Carriers
ED Hardy Wholesale
Copy DVD Software
How to Send Fax
14k Yellow Gold
Redneck Costume
14k Gold Heart
Tandem Baby Stroller
More and more people began to collect jordan shoes. If you are Michael Jordan fans, you must have collection air jordans . If you want to buy the cheap jordan shoes,you can search the internet.Jordan is the hero of every individual mind. Of course, we are also very like the air jordan shoes .So you will like the air jordans,you will found the shoes make you become more and more beautiful.
Post a Comment
<< Home