Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Michael Meacher (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 14 March 2007. It occurred during Debate on Trident.


Trident

One cannot but draw encouragement from the fact that when occupants of both Front Benches come together in agreement there must be a good deal to be said for the opposite argument. So it is today. Like others, I do not believe that the Government have adequately or convincingly answered certain fundamental questions about renewing Trident, in particular its true cost, why a decision has to be taken now, whom it is meant to deter, and how it is genuinely compatible with non-proliferation. Nor has there been a real opportunity to obtain fuller answers, because the process of consultation has been unjustifiably squeezed. There is an unmistakable sense in this latest exercise that both Parliament and the electorate are being bounced into this decision. I still believe that there is a strong case for further and fuller consultation of the electorate before such a momentous decision—which will cost taxpayers some 6 per cent. of GDP—is made. The argument against renewal of Trident is extremely strong—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
458 c352 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Defence Arms control Expenditure National security Nuclear weapons Procurement Navy Military bases Nuclear disarmament Proliferation Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Terrorism USA Nuclear submarines Trident
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk