Posted on 07/20/2006 3:13:53 PM PDT by Jack2006
MPs will be given the chance to veto replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system, says Commons Leader Jack Straw.
Tony Blair has previously promised a full debate on the issue but stopped short of pledging a vote.
But Mr Straw said it was "important" MPs had a say and said they would get a substantive yes or no vote - meaning they could in theory reject the plan.
It would be "inconceivable" ministers could press ahead with renewing Trident if MPs rejected it, Mr Straw argued.
Questioned by reporters, Mr Straw declined to say when the vote would take place.
But he said he was confident there was majority backing on the Labour benches for renewing Trident.
The Conservatives are also likely to back such a move - meaning the government would win any vote.
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox tried to reassure US defence chiefs of his commitment to replacing Trident in a visit to Washington earlier this year.
A timetable for renewing the missile system is to be drawn up by the end of the year.
Earlier in the Commons, Mr Straw told MPs: "The position of this was set up by the prime minister two weeks ago when he did point out that we were the first government to give the House a vote over decisions to go to war.
"Of course we should involve the House fully in a decision as important as the renewal of our nuclear deterrent and in practical terms it is inevitable that there will therefore be a chance for the House to express its view on this important matter in a vote."
Mr Straw's announcement was welcomed by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) - but it called for a full public debate on the issue before MPs vote on it - as promised last year by then defence secretary John Reid.
CND chairman Kate Hudson said there had been great demand for a full vote across Labour and other parties.
"We would now like to see the commitment to the publication of a Green Paper outlining all options, including non-replacement, prior that vote taking place," she said.
Technically the Prime Minister can do anything as long as the Queen rubber stamps it.
Blair would not let the Trident issue go to a vote if he wasn't sure of a victory.
>>Technically the Prime Minister can do anything as long as the Queen rubber stamps it.
Blair would not let the Trident issue go to a vote if he wasn't sure of a victory.<<
Really? Thanks for the education. In a way, that makes the Prime Minister more powerful than a President.
Is it possible that he's letting it go to a vote because not so doing would necessitate his calling in the moving vans?
Technically the Monarch is the source of all power, but in reality the Government rules. That was what all the chopping of heads was about!
I'm not sure if it is the same in Canada, Australia and New Zealand as the Queen of the UK is also the Queen of those countries as well, but I presume it is to a certain extent.
It is also why those countries (along with the US) are so close to each other.
Nukes are a waste of time in a British context. We can't use Trident without american permission, and it's inconceivable we'd ever use it without american involvement, so it's basically an extension of the American Nuclear armament paid for by the British taxpayer. We'd be better off ditching our nuclear detterent and re-investing it in conventional forces that will actually be used and are sorely neglected at the moment.
Our conventional forces are the finest in the world, and it's only right they should be equiped to match....
No, it's because when you are sure of victory in a democratic vote, why put it through yourself?
bttt
"Nukes are a waste of time in a British context. We can't use Trident without american permission, and it's inconceivable we'd ever use it without american involvement, so it's basically an extension of the American Nuclear armament paid for by the British taxpayer. We'd be better off ditching our nuclear detterent and re-investing it in conventional forces that will actually be used and are sorely neglected at the moment."
Yuh. It's pretty hard to pin down what exactly having Trident achieves that wouldn't be getting achieved exactly the same if we didn't have it. In that sense, given limited military resources, it's not hard to make an argument that the money could be spent more effectively. Not sure anyone's much interested in making that argument though.
I disagree. There was a lot of debate during the Cold War that if the USSR had openly stated that they would invade Europe but would not attack the USA, whether the USA would risk annihilation to defend Europe.
If it came to the crunch would America really risk certain death of themselves and their families for the French and British?
In cases like that you have to have a deterrent of your own just in case.
In the most recent installment of Questions Time that I saw (a week or two ago) a Labour MP asked Blair,in a tone that I saw as being "unfriendly,if Parliament was going to be given the opportunity to vote on replacing Trident.
Of course,his was just one voice.
Not really. If someone nuked England and not the US, you would retaliate and the US might not. The fact that UK can retaliate means it will not be hit. If the UK relies on US nukes, there is some uncertainty of US retaliation that invites an attack on the UK.
For example, iran nukes uk and says if the us intevenes, NYC is next but promises if the US stays out, it is safe. This puts the US in an uncomfortable position. You having nukes is the best deterent against being nuked.
"Is it possible that he's letting it go to a vote because not so doing would necessitate his calling in the moving vans?"
If he's got enough votes to win (which he does), then there wouldn't be nearly enough support for any challenge to him as a result of not holding a vote.
He's only got a year and a bit left anyway, at best guess. The ongoing police investigations into donations to the Labour Party are more likely to make it shorter than anything else.
please read posts 11 and 13.
The Cold War is over. Russia doesn't have the capacity to successfully invade Sweden, never mind the rest of Europe.
Who would invade us if Britain lost it's nukes?
"For example, iran nukes uk and says if the us intevenes, NYC is next but promises if the US stays out, it is safe. This puts the US in an uncomfortable position. You having nukes is the best deterent against being nuked."
But, as pointed out, Trident is not an independent detterent (as the French nukes are, for instance). Your hypothetical example works just as well with Iran threatening to nuke NYC, but promises if the US does not allow the launch of Trident it is safe. Same difference.
That was an example - don't be so literal.
There is no nation on planet earth who could invade America but they still have weapons to deter those countries like Iran and North Korea.
What if Iran threatened the UK? We do not have anywhere near the military size to do any conventional damage but we could bomb them back to the stone age. This counts by people who see raw as a God.
Nations like Iran may be mad but they are not stupid!
But if support was weak (or worse) within Labour,couldn't he be tossed overboard by his own Party?
I do recall Cameron having said that if it came to a vote,Blair could count on support from the Tories during Question Time a week or two ago.
Why is Trident not independent?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.