This article in today's Sunday Times is yet another example of this governments breathtaking arrogance in ignoring and sidelining parliaments proper role in the decision making process for such important matters.
We were promised a proper debate about the replacement (or otherwise) for the Trident weapons system. This debate should take place in the open and parliament should have the final say on whether or not we want a replacement and if so what form that should take, when it should be developed by and what budget should be allocated to it.
What a sham when we now discover that work has already commenced on developing a new system at AWE Aldermaston. All work on a replacement system (as opposed to maintenance of the existing system) should come to an immediate halt pending a proper parliamentary decision.
Tag Politics
2 comments:
The Economist has a good article on the Trident replacement and why the government want to avoid debate.
Basically it boils down to the nuclear issue which really splits the Labour Party (having twice in its history advocated unilateral disarmament with many members still supporting it). Perhaps an appeal to petty nationalism may work to pursuade some, but by no means all...
It will also throw into light the slipperiness of Blair, given his membership of CND in the past (ie when it was politically expedient).
The Economist has a good article on the Trident replacement and why the government want to avoid debate.
Basically it boils down to the nuclear issue which really splits the Labour Party (having twice in its history advocated unilateral disarmament with many members still supporting it). Perhaps an appeal to petty nationalism may work to pursuade some, but by no means all...
It will also throw into light the slipperiness of Blair, given his membership of CND in the past (ie when it was politically expedient).
Post a Comment