Trident challenge for Theresa May as support for renewal falls

[Denzil_DC]

THERESA May today faces growing pressure over Britain’s nuclear deterrent as a new poll suggests waning public support for Trident.

In the first days of Mrs May’s tenure as Prime Minister, Conservative MPs are expected to overwhelmingly support the renewal of Trident in a Commons vote.

A new UK-wide poll for The Herald shows that just 45 per cent of British people are in favour of renewing the project.

Just over a quarter, 27.5 per cent, oppose the move, and almost the same number, 27.9 per cent, say that they don't know.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14614614.Trident_challenge_for_Theresa_May_as_support_for_renewal_falls/

[Ken Burch]

1. If Labour came out officially against renewal, that could flip the electorate on the issue.

Might as well...it was only the Cold War that justified Trident's existence, and if the UK gets rid of it, huge amounts of funds become available for things like economic revival of the North of England(which would continue this week's collapse in UKIP support)and an economic conversion to peaceful production for the factories in Barrow and Furness.

[T_i_B]

4. Peaceful production?

We are due to leave the EU, which is going to be devastating for UK civilian manufacturing.

Also, Barrow-In-Furness is in an awkward location and as such is much better suited to producing submarines than anything else.

Let's be honest, holding another vote on the subject is all about f**king over the Labour party by exposing one of its biggest open wounds. Politicking at its most cynical.

[Denzil_DC]

5. It's impossible to think of any civilian manufacturing sector

that couldn't make better use the sorts of funds we're discussing and employ far more people in return for the investment.

Times is hard. They're going to get harder. Tough for Barrow. It's had its investment over the years and let all its eggs be put in one basket. Similar applies on the Clyde, except people have been increasingly waking up in the areas around the Clyde Submarine Base to the fact that the supposed benefits to the area are all but invisible, so we're a bit less dependent than they are down there.

Even if that wasn't the case, committing the country to vast and constantly climbing expenditure for a project that will reach fruition so many years in the future on the basis that it employs a few dozen thousand people is ridiculous. Tell it to the miners and steelworkers. Tell it to people who live in areas that haven't seen any serious industrial investment at all over the years.

Meanwhile, we can't even manage to patrol the Channel to fend off those swarms of floating migrants we keep hearing about, we'd have a hard time protecting our fisheries if somebody decides to start re-running the Iceland Cod Wars, and if two countries in different parts of the world decided to test us militarily at the same time (say in Gibraltar and the Falklands - yes unlikely, but so, in spades, is any circumstance in which we'd actually threaten to use Trident or its successor, let alone use it), we'd probably be stuffed.

[RogueTrooper]

9. It might be an obvious attempt to seperate the Labour leadership

from official Labour Party policy and cause a punch-up between the various wing of the Labour Party but that does not mean the bait will not be taken.

[T_i_B]

10. I believe abstention may be the order of the day

Which won't please either Corbyn's allies or pro nuclear Blairites but might keep Labour from tearing itself apart for a few days.

[RogueTrooper]

11. Indeed

Looks like that is the route they are going to take. I would not be surprised if there are members of the PLP on both sides of this debate who will break the line and vote their conscience.

[Dworkin]

2. Could be useful

Hi,

In these unstable times, I'm wavering towards the hawkish. If a dyed in the wool liberal like me is ambivalent, then who knows?

D.

[Denzil_DC]

3. Useful?!

What on earth do you envisage its utility being?

[Nihil]

6. Rather than jumping down your throat ...

... can I just ask you to clarify exactly *what* upi are deeming "useful ... in these unstable times"?

Do you actually mean the Trident missile or do you mean the fact that a challenge may arise?

Thanks.

[LeftishBrit]

8. I honestly don't see how...

This isn't the 1980s. I was always against Trident, and always felt that it increased our danger, rather than decreasing it. But I could see how it might have been regarded as a deterrent in the Cold War. But our current threats come from ISIS and other terrorist groups, and I don't see how Trident could deter them. Indeed I think that by far the biggest nuclear danger nowadays comes not from other nations, but from terrorists getting hold of nukes and the means of using them - and the more nukes there are, the greater the risk.

[Denzil_DC]

7. MoD: Trident submarines cannot be moved from Scotland to Plymouth

Britain's nuclear-armed submarines cannot be moved from Scotland to the Devonport naval base in Plymouth because they do not have safety clearances to dock there.

The disclosure has huge implications for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) if Scotland votes for independence and a new government demands the withdrawal of the nuclear fleet.

The MoD has revealed that the safety arrangements for Devonport do not permit the presence of submarines carrying Trident nuclear warheads. The MoD's safety experts are not considering changing that.

The problem is that the dockyard is in a densely populated area and, if there were an accident, thousands of people would be at risk. The worst accident scenario envisaged by the MoD would kill up to 11,000 people in Plymouth and would not meet the official criteria for what is acceptable, according to a new report.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/04/mod-nuclear-submarines-scotland-plymouth

Press Release: Open Letter to the Prime Minister on Trident Replacement Debate

Oxford Research Group has today sent a letter to the new Prime Minister, signed by former military commanders, senior academic, diplomatic and political figures and other leading NGOs, calling on her to delay any decision on replacing the UK’s nuclear weapons system until after parliament’s summer recess. This is necessary so that government, parliament and the country can consider the economic, political and strategic impact that the EU referendum vote will have on the planned new Successor nuclear weapons programme, which would probably be the government’s most expensive investment project.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

BREXIT VOTE REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO ASSESS THE UK’S NEW STRATEGIC POSITION BEFORE GOING AHEAD WITH TRIDENT REPLACEMENT

A group including former military commanders, former Defence Secretary Lord Des Browne and former UK Permanent Representative at the United Nations Sir Jeremy Greenstock, have today sent an open letter to the Prime Minister urging her to delay any decision on replacing the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system. Rather than making a final decision following parliament’s debate and vote on the nuclear question on Monday 18th July, the letter proposes that the Prime Minister leave the decision open to review until after the summer recess.

The letter argues that following the vote to leave the European Union, time must be spent assessing the UK’s changed economic, political and strategic position in order to make a responsible decision on what would probably be the most expensive government investment project. The falling value of sterling, a possible UK economic recession, the heightened potential for Scottish independence leading to the removal of nuclear submarines from Scotland, and the rising costs of the planned Successor nuclear weapons programme, strongly suggest that government and parliament must carefully review the costs and risks of the UK building a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines.

http://oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/press_releases/press_release_senior_military_and_political_figures_academics_and_leadin