In a speech yesterday Minister for the Armed Forces Nick Harvey both showed how ministers can stake out clearly different ground from the Conservatives and also gave a hint of major debates over nuclear weapons yet to come.
In his speech to the Franco-British Council Defence Co-operation Conference Nick Harvey said,
As you will know, the two parties in the UK coalition Government have a different approach to the renewal of the current Trident system, but we are jointly pledged to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent…
As a Liberal Democrat Minister in this UK Coalition Government, I have the freedom to explore and argue the case for an alternative successor to the planned replacement of Trident.
This is not Government policy, but I and my party colleagues would certainly be willing to explore the options for the UK and France to plan our successor programmes in closer co-ordination including, in the longer-term, the case for deeper co-operation on operational nuclear deterrence.
The background to this is the growing cooperation on nuclear matters which Harvey outlined:
Under [the Teutates arrangement], the UK and France will share facilities to maintain the safety of our independent nuclear deterrents.
Instead of building duplicate national facilities, we have agreed jointly to construct and operate a new Hydrodynamics Facility at Valduc in France and a new Technology Development Centre at Aldermaston in the UK. And we have moved quickly on this work – the facilities will be operational by 2015, with the first UK experiment time-tabled for 2017.
In combining our scientific and engineering talent and in sharing expensive equipment, we can sustain the expertise and capabilities required as responsible nuclear powers and potentially save considerable sums of money. And it will enable us to maintain the safety of our existing nuclear stockpile without breaching the conditions of the international treaties.
Let me stress that this does not threaten the independence of each country’s operational nuclear deterrent. This co-operation does not involve the sharing of any nuclear deterrent capability such as submarine patrols. But it does mark a willingness to co-operate in depth in an area that has traditionally been taboo.
Nick Harvey’s comments are designed to open up a range of possibilities, from future cooperation on submarine design through to much closer cooperation on operational matters.
Where on that spectrum the Liberal Democrats want the party’s position to be, and what views it wants its ministers to be promoting may, on past form, to be the cause of lively debate in the party. But it will be an important debate to have, especially as it is one area which not only is of great importance to the country but also is likely to be one where the two coalition parties disagree at the next general election.l
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Peter Martin
Chris Cory
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
6 Comments
“We are jointly pledged to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent”. Deterrent against who? Didn’t someone boast not long ago that the Lib Dems had managed to kick the renewal of the “deterrent” into the long grass?
Back in the real world, all 3 armed services struggle to fulfil the commitments imposed on them by government in the face of swingeing cuts.
@Old Codger Chris
This was a common misconception about the LDs before and after the GE. The LD party wanted non-renewal of Trident specifically but remained and still remain committed to the idea of a nuclear deterrent. Just a cheaper one, seeing as hitting Moscow is no longer an important aspect of a nuclear deterrent.
and every review that has ever been conducted has found that CASD is the only sensible way for Britain to operate a [strategic] nuclear deterrent. even the coalition report said as much:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Factsheet10-Trident-Value-for-Money-Review.pdf
Nuclear weapons to protect us against who?
The biggest threat to our national security comes from global warming, with terrorism a long way second.
Nuclear weapons are useless for that. If we have money going spare to be spent on something, then almost anything else would be better than “nuclear deterrence”.
I think if a motion is presented to Lib Dem conference on this it will be soundly defeated. It is about time we debated what to do about not replacing Trident at a Lib Dem conference.
@DunKhan
You’re right of course. The 2010 manifesto committed the party not to replace Trident on a like-for-like basis. The Party’s defence policy set out in a single sentence. More to do with avoiding internal party strife than crafting a policy methinks.
I repeat – Deterrent against who? Also there are serious questions about whether US supplied Trident is “independent”. Does “independent” mean launching our weapons of death without US permission?
To quote from a recent news story – a former Field Marshall, 3 generals and 6 admirals have publicly stated that the UK can no longer mount amphibious operations without putting troops’ lives at considerable risk.
Oh dear oh dear. Well perhaps it means we can have a traditional nuclear weapons debate in September.
Just a cheaper one, seeing as hitting Moscow is no longer an important aspect of a nuclear deterrent.
That’s okay then, we will still be able to zap Berlin, Rome and Madrid.
And there was silly old me thinking that Nick Harvey was one of our better ministers.
Tony Greaves