The Government survived a major Labour backbench revolt last night to secure the backing of the House of Commons for its plan to replace Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent.
The Government won the main motion by 409 votes to 161 - a majority of 248. Earlier, an amendment tabled by rebel Labour MPs to delay Trident renewal was defeated.
The rebels claimed more than 90 Labour MPs voted for delay, with others abstaining, making it the biggest revolt since the Iraq War.
One of the Labour rebels, Oxford East MP Andrew Smith, said he had "always loathed" nuclear weapons.
He said the estimated £20bn cost of the project would be better spent tackling climate change, improving schools and hospitals and ensuring conventional troops were better equipped.
With David Cameron's Tories voting for Trident replacement, the Government was never in danger of defeat.
advertisement
However, the scale of the rebellion is another blow for the authority of Tony Blair as his premiership enters its final months.
Earlier in the day, two more ministerial aides - Stephen Pound, the parliamentary private secretary (PPS) to Labour Party chairman Hazel Blears, and Chris Ruane, the PPS to Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain - resigned in protest.
FOR THE MOTION: Oxon Tories David Cameron, Tony Baldry, Ed Vaizey and Boris Johnson
AGAINST THE MOTION: Andrew smith (Lab), Evan Harris (Lib Dem)
Mr Blair defended the decision to retain Trident and said it was essential a decision to begin work on the design of a new submarine fleet was taken now.
"I think that is essential for our security in an uncertain world," he told MPs at Prime Minister's Questions.
"We can't put this decision off. We have to take it now."
In an olive branch to opponents, Mr Blair said future Parliaments would be able to revisit the issue as the orders for the submarines would be placed in the next decade.
Witney MP Mr Cameron also emphasised his party's support for maintaining Trident.
"Replacing Britain's independent nuclear deterrent is in the national interest," he said.
"In a dangerous and uncertain world, unilateral nuclear disarmament has never been and will never be the right answer."
Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West, said a premature decision to renew Trident would be "wholly counter-productive" to the major global effort required to prevent nuclear proliferation and the possession of nuclear weapons by states like Iran.
Andrew needs to think about the threat of a military invasion of the UK from the USA in ten to fifteen years time, when oil will be in even shorter supply than it is now - so I agree with David Cameron on this one.
Andrew needs to think about the threat of a military invasion of the UK from the USA in ten to fifteen years time, when oil will be in even shorter supply than it is now - so I agree with David Cameron on this one.
Once you have attained nuclear capability it is very difficult to walk away and say "no more". Of course there will be many who believe we should let down our guard, the same guard that has ensured the security of the UK from millitary attack since 1945. Would you ask a boxer to remove his gloves in the third round of a twelve round bout? I think not! And if the gloves he is wearing are wearing a bit thin and not fit for purpose would you take the oportunity to replace them? Of course you would!
If you are of the opinion that the boxer can carry on with worn out gloves or none at all then he will need to be prepared to take a serious bruising
Once you have attained nuclear capability it is very difficult to walk away and say "no more". Of course there will be many who believe we should let down our guard, the same guard that has ensured the security of the UK from millitary attack since 1945. Would you ask a boxer to remove his gloves in the third round of a twelve round bout? I think not! And if the gloves he is wearing are wearing a bit thin and not fit for purpose would you take the oportunity to replace them? Of course you would!
If you are of the opinion that the boxer can carry on with worn out gloves or none at all then he will need to be prepared to take a serious bruising
Except that while the analogy of a boxing match may have fitted the West v. East scenario of the cold war years, it doesn't fit the current situation at all.
If we are a boxer then we are standing in a ring with no visible opponent while our real enemy is hiding somewhere in the crowd with a concealed pistol.
Boxing gloves, old or new, are no use whatsoever.
Except that while the analogy of a boxing match may have fitted the West v. East scenario of the cold war years, it doesn't fit the current situation at all.
If we are a boxer then we are standing in a ring with no visible opponent while our real enemy is hiding somewhere in the crowd with a concealed pistol.
That may be so Neil however the whole point of Trident was as a detterant to stop others entering the ring.... and with this in mind then the Nuclear Deterrant has been succesful....
If the guard was to be let down then who knows what the consequences could be of course it could be nothing but is this a risk we want to take?
That may be so Neil however the whole point of Trident was as a detterant to stop others entering the ring.... and with this in mind then the Nuclear Deterrant has been succesful....
If the guard was to be let down then who knows what the consequences could be of course it could be nothing but is this a risk we want to take?
Posted by: samuel gorman, United States on 7:36pm Thu 22 Mar 07
[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote:
Andrew needs to think about the threat of a military invasion of the UK from the USA in ten to fifteen years time, when oil will be in even shorter supply than it is now - so I agree with David Cameron on this one.[/quote] The idea of the USA invading such a strong ally in fifteen years is ridiculous. Disagreements on US actions in the Middle East do not provide enough incentive to put these states in a situation from which a war could arise. Likewise, the position of the USA as a whole on even the current war against a state deemed "threatening" is less than favorable. As such, a war with the UK seems even more unlikely with the global community among democractic nations as interwoven as it is today, a relationship moer likely to increase or maintain rather than deteriorate completely. Even if the USA refuses to pursue alternate fuel sources, the aquisition of technology from more forward thinking nations is monumentally more feasible. Furthermore, although oil prices are constantly climbing, a relistic estimate for an oil shortage so severe as to cause a world-wide break-down of civilization as we know it is considerably further away than fifteen years.
A US invasion of the UK over oil shortage is a very limited and anarchic prediction.
John wrote:
Andrew needs to think about the threat of a military invasion of the UK from the USA in ten to fifteen years time, when oil will be in even shorter supply than it is now - so I agree with David Cameron on this one.
The idea of the USA invading such a strong ally in fifteen years is ridiculous. Disagreements on US actions in the Middle East do not provide enough incentive to put these states in a situation from which a war could arise. Likewise, the position of the USA as a whole on even the current war against a state deemed "threatening" is less than favorable. As such, a war with the UK seems even more unlikely with the global community among democractic nations as interwoven as it is today, a relationship moer likely to increase or maintain rather than deteriorate completely. Even if the USA refuses to pursue alternate fuel sources, the aquisition of technology from more forward thinking nations is monumentally more feasible. Furthermore, although oil prices are constantly climbing, a relistic estimate for an oil shortage so severe as to cause a world-wide break-down of civilization as we know it is considerably further away than fifteen years.
A US invasion of the UK over oil shortage is a very limited and anarchic prediction.
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
