A Trident nuclear submarine. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The government is trying to slip Trident replacement through the backdoor

The Mutual Defence Agreement is a US-UK nuclear deal that lays the foundation for replacing our Trident nuclear weapons system – it must be exposed and challenged.

In the last months of its political life, the Coalition Government is stepping up nuclear cooperation with the United States, under the guise of a routine treaty renewal. But far from being just another piece of foreign policy housekeeping, the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) in July of this year, is actually a further step towards replacing Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons system – but without the open, democratic debate which such a momentous decision warrants. Majority public opinion is against the replacement of Trident, and with concerns about transparency and accountability in government increasing exponentially, it seems ill-advised for our political leaders to try and pull a fast one on nuclear weapons behind the scenes.

The treaty in question dates back to 1958 when the US and UK signed the "Agreement between the UK and the USA for cooperation in the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes". Generally referred to as the MDA, the treaty established an agreement between both countries to exchange classified information to develop their respective nuclear weapons systems. It is this treaty which ensures that Trident is both technically and politically dependent on the US. Originally, the MDA prohibited the transfer of nuclear weapons, but an amendment in 1959 allowed for the transfer of nuclear materials and equipment between both countries. This amendment is extended through a renewal of the treaty every ten years, most recently in 2004. Changes to the historic amendment this year are a cause for significant concern.

The treaty already ensures that the two countries’ nuclear programmes are inextricably linked. The UK warhead is a copy of the US one, with some components directly bought from the US. With the UK’s nuclear warheads expected to be non-operational by the late 2030s, a decision on their replacement will be intrinsically linked to the work taking place as part of the MDA. The UK leases from the US the Trident II D5 missiles it uses and British submarines must regularly visit the US base in Kings Bay, Georgia, for the maintenance and replacement of these missiles. The UK government recently paid the US £250m to participate in a missile life extension programme and participates in numerous exchange visits with staff from the US nuclear weapons laboratories. Britain also participates with the US in ‘sub-critical’ nuclear tests (tests which fall just short of releasing a nuclear explosion).

With the new amendments to the treaty, Britain will become even more dependent on US expertise for its own nuclear weapons programme and existing collaboration on warhead design will be extended to the nuclear reactors which would power a Trident replacement submarine.

The renewal has to be ratified on both sides of the Atlantic and Obama has already given the go-ahead from the US side. But much as successive UK governments may wish to view ratification as an automatic process to be slid through without question, there is a Westminster scrutiny process which a number of parliamentarians are availing themselves of. The government is required by law to lay any treaty that it has signed before Parliament for 21 days. The text should be sent to relevant select committees and any requests for debates should be considered favourably.

In 2004, government managed to avoid debate. The treaty was laid before Parliament just before the Summer Recess with an announcement that it had been signed a week earlier. This was in spite of the fact that MPs had been asking questions for months about the government’s intention to renew the MDA. This was an obvious – and successful – attempt to avoid any democratic scrutiny.

This time the government isn’t getting away with it quite so easily. Thanks to repeated questioning and an Early Day Motion from Jeremy Corbyn and other concerned MPs, the treaty is currently on the table for its 21 days and a Westminster Hall debate is taking place this week on the 6 November at 1.30pm. MPs may not be able to overturn the government’s ratification of the renewal, but the very fact of open discussion is important in itself. Correctly understood, this renewal is part of the attempt to impose Trident replacement on the British people through a number of seemingly unrelated steps. It must be understood and exposed as such.

Kate Hudson is general secretary of the CND 

Dan Kitwood/Getty
Show Hide image

I believe only Yvette Cooper has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy Corbyn

All the recent polling suggests Andy Burnham is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy Corbyn, says Diana Johnson MP.

Tom Blenkinsop MP on the New Statesman website today says he is giving his second preference to Andy Burnham as he thinks that Andy has the best chance of beating Jeremy.

This is on the basis that if Yvette goes out first all her second preferences will swing behind Andy, whereas if Andy goes out first then his second preferences, due to the broad alliance he has created behind his campaign, will all or largely switch to the other male candidate, Jeremy.

Let's take a deep breath and try and think through what will be the effect of preferential voting in the Labour leadership.

First of all, it is very difficult to know how second preferences will switch. From my telephone canvassing there is some rather interesting voting going on, but I don't accept that Tom’s analysis is correct. I have certainly picked up growing support for Yvette in recent weeks.

In fact you can argue the reverse of Tom’s analysis is true – Andy has moved further away from the centre and, as a result, his pitch to those like Tom who are supporting Liz first is now narrower. As a result, Yvette is more likely to pick up those second preferences.

Stats from the Yvette For Labour team show Yvette picking up the majority of second preferences from all candidates – from the Progress wing supporting Liz to the softer left fans of Jeremy – and Andy's supporters too. Their figures show many undecideds opting for Yvette as their first preference, as well as others choosing to switch their first preference to Yvette from one of the other candidates. It's for this reason I still believe only Yvette has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy and then to go on to win in 2020.

It's interesting that Andy has not been willing to make it clear that second preferences should go to Yvette or Liz. Yvette has been very clear that she would encourage second preferences to be for Andy or Liz.

Having watched Andy on Sky's Murnaghan show this morning, he categorically states that Labour will not get beyond first base with the electorate at a general election if we are not economically credible and that fundamentally Jeremy's economic plans do not add up. So, I am unsure why Andy is so unwilling to be clear on second preferences.

All the recent polling suggests Andy is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy. He trails fourth in London – where a huge proportion of our electorate is based.

So I would urge Tom to reflect more widely on who is best placed to provide the strongest opposition to the Tories, appeal to the widest group of voters and reach out to the communities we need to win back. I believe that this has to be Yvette.

The Newsnight focus group a few days ago showed that Yvette is best placed to win back those former Labour voters we will need in 2020.

Labour will pay a massive price if we ignore this.

Diana Johnson is the Labour MP for Hull North.