This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/18/labour-tories-britain-trident-eu-nation
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| In Britain, global debates sound more like squabbles | In Britain, global debates sound more like squabbles |
| (7 months later) | |
| In his memoirs, Tony Blair admits that he and Gordon Brown were less certain about the renewal of Trident than might be assumed. “Spend the money on more helicopters, airlift and anti-terror equipment?” he writes. “Not a daft notion.” In the end, Blair recalls, he and his chancellor let the practicalities of political theatre settle the matter: “As I said to [Gordon]: imagine standing up in the House of Commons and saying I’ve decided to scrap it. We’re not going to say that, are we?” | In his memoirs, Tony Blair admits that he and Gordon Brown were less certain about the renewal of Trident than might be assumed. “Spend the money on more helicopters, airlift and anti-terror equipment?” he writes. “Not a daft notion.” In the end, Blair recalls, he and his chancellor let the practicalities of political theatre settle the matter: “As I said to [Gordon]: imagine standing up in the House of Commons and saying I’ve decided to scrap it. We’re not going to say that, are we?” |
| No, indeed. They weren’t going to say that. An integral part of the New Labour settlement was a very public decision not to tamper with Britain’s geostrategic position: we would remain closely allied to the US; an EU member state (on course to join the euro, if Blair had his way); and an independent nuclear power. These, Blair believed, were lapidary assumptions, which a mainstream party challenged at its peril. | No, indeed. They weren’t going to say that. An integral part of the New Labour settlement was a very public decision not to tamper with Britain’s geostrategic position: we would remain closely allied to the US; an EU member state (on course to join the euro, if Blair had his way); and an independent nuclear power. These, Blair believed, were lapidary assumptions, which a mainstream party challenged at its peril. |
| Yet, nine years since MPs backed plans to renew Trident by a heavy margin, these assumptions have slipped their moorings. Labour is conducting a defence review headed by an opponent of Trident; the party’s leader is fiercely opposed to nuclear weapons and has done nothing to correct the impression that, as prime minister, he would never press the button. Whatever Emily Thornberry’s inquiry decides, the two-decade bipartisan agreement on Britain’s independent deterrent has already collapsed: a major victory for CND and the peace movement, and one that has not gone unnoticed beyond these shores. | Yet, nine years since MPs backed plans to renew Trident by a heavy margin, these assumptions have slipped their moorings. Labour is conducting a defence review headed by an opponent of Trident; the party’s leader is fiercely opposed to nuclear weapons and has done nothing to correct the impression that, as prime minister, he would never press the button. Whatever Emily Thornberry’s inquiry decides, the two-decade bipartisan agreement on Britain’s independent deterrent has already collapsed: a major victory for CND and the peace movement, and one that has not gone unnoticed beyond these shores. |
| The geostrategic implications of what is at stake ought to induce a sort of collective vertigo | The geostrategic implications of what is at stake ought to induce a sort of collective vertigo |
| No less significant to Britain’s place in the world is the prospect of its exit from the EU. During any negotiating process, it is wise to reserve judgment until the final communique is signed off. But there is undoubtedly a sudden spring in the step of the British deal-makers, suggesting that an agreement may indeed be reached next month, and its clauses will include enough substance to keep the spectre of “Brexit” at bay. | No less significant to Britain’s place in the world is the prospect of its exit from the EU. During any negotiating process, it is wise to reserve judgment until the final communique is signed off. But there is undoubtedly a sudden spring in the step of the British deal-makers, suggesting that an agreement may indeed be reached next month, and its clauses will include enough substance to keep the spectre of “Brexit” at bay. |
| In particular, there is renewed confidence about an agreement on migration, including the possibility of an “emergency brake” – a procedural device enabling the UK government to halt EU immigration if Britain’s public services lack the necessary capacity. This would represent a constitutional milestone in the history of free movement within Europe. | In particular, there is renewed confidence about an agreement on migration, including the possibility of an “emergency brake” – a procedural device enabling the UK government to halt EU immigration if Britain’s public services lack the necessary capacity. This would represent a constitutional milestone in the history of free movement within Europe. |
| Let’s wait and see what the deal says, and what price – financial or otherwise – our 27 partners exact for the concessions that they do make. But what is clear enough is that the negotiations have entered the final act and that David Cameron is (to use his favourite cricket metaphor) “pitch-rolling” for the referendum promised in 2013. | Let’s wait and see what the deal says, and what price – financial or otherwise – our 27 partners exact for the concessions that they do make. But what is clear enough is that the negotiations have entered the final act and that David Cameron is (to use his favourite cricket metaphor) “pitch-rolling” for the referendum promised in 2013. |
| So it is at least conceivable that, a little more than three years hence, a newly elected Labour prime minister will be dismantling Britain’s nuclear deterrent while managing the remaining, manifold consequences of its exit from EU. To adapt Dr Johnson: this possibility should focus the mind. | So it is at least conceivable that, a little more than three years hence, a newly elected Labour prime minister will be dismantling Britain’s nuclear deterrent while managing the remaining, manifold consequences of its exit from EU. To adapt Dr Johnson: this possibility should focus the mind. |
| Yet precisely what is missing from these two parallel arguments – over Trident and the EU – is a sense of scale. The geostrategic implications of what is at stake ought to induce a sort of collective vertigo: what sort of country do we want to be? Do we want to withdraw from the largest single market in the world and the top table of the continent? Do we wish to leave the nuclear club unilaterally and, in Aneurin Bevan’s words, “send a British foreign secretary naked into the conference chamber”? How we answer these and related questions defines much more than our collective self-image. It decides how we are seen in a globalised planet, and whether we merit a second glance. | Yet precisely what is missing from these two parallel arguments – over Trident and the EU – is a sense of scale. The geostrategic implications of what is at stake ought to induce a sort of collective vertigo: what sort of country do we want to be? Do we want to withdraw from the largest single market in the world and the top table of the continent? Do we wish to leave the nuclear club unilaterally and, in Aneurin Bevan’s words, “send a British foreign secretary naked into the conference chamber”? How we answer these and related questions defines much more than our collective self-image. It decides how we are seen in a globalised planet, and whether we merit a second glance. |
| You wouldn’t think it, though. Both issues have been summarily relegated to matters of party division and tribal disagreement. Hence: the prospective renewal of Trident has become more symbolic than real, a test of Labour’s continued commitment to the centre-ground and to electability. | You wouldn’t think it, though. Both issues have been summarily relegated to matters of party division and tribal disagreement. Hence: the prospective renewal of Trident has become more symbolic than real, a test of Labour’s continued commitment to the centre-ground and to electability. |
| In the four months of Corbyn’s leadership, it has also given shape to the divisions within his own shadow cabinet: Maria Eagle, who is pro-Trident, was replaced in the defence portfolio by Thornberry; while Michael Dugher was sacked from the culture brief for declaring that failure to support the weapons programme’s renewal would lead to “electoral disaster”. | In the four months of Corbyn’s leadership, it has also given shape to the divisions within his own shadow cabinet: Maria Eagle, who is pro-Trident, was replaced in the defence portfolio by Thornberry; while Michael Dugher was sacked from the culture brief for declaring that failure to support the weapons programme’s renewal would lead to “electoral disaster”. |
| To add to the internal complexity, Ken Livingstone’s sidelining from the defence review showed he is not quite the Thatcheresque “backseat driver” he assumed. It also acted as a reminder that the unions have a powerful vested interest in Trident’s renewal. Paul Kenny, the general secretary of the GMB union, said last week that it was not going to “surrender responsibility to defending members’ jobs”. | To add to the internal complexity, Ken Livingstone’s sidelining from the defence review showed he is not quite the Thatcheresque “backseat driver” he assumed. It also acted as a reminder that the unions have a powerful vested interest in Trident’s renewal. Paul Kenny, the general secretary of the GMB union, said last week that it was not going to “surrender responsibility to defending members’ jobs”. |
| In sum, Corbyn is faced with a dilemma that not only divides Labour’s parliamentary wing but pits some of the most powerful unions against the anti-Trident faction. This internal debate is being conducted primarily with reference to electability and the protection of jobs. At some stage, one hopes, the argument will get round to an audit of Britain’s strategic interests. But don’t hold your breath. | In sum, Corbyn is faced with a dilemma that not only divides Labour’s parliamentary wing but pits some of the most powerful unions against the anti-Trident faction. This internal debate is being conducted primarily with reference to electability and the protection of jobs. At some stage, one hopes, the argument will get round to an audit of Britain’s strategic interests. But don’t hold your breath. |
| On the Tory side of the house the dispute over EU membership is beginning to resemble a game of paintball played by executives on an awayday. From behind a tree emerges Chris Grayling, leader of the Commons, to declare – kersplat! – that staying in the EU under the current terms would be “disastrous”. Next – pow! – Nick Herbert, a former minister who led the campaign to keep Britain out of the euro 15 years ago, surprises his erstwhile “out” colleagues hiding in the shrubbery by agreeing to head the Tory campaign to stay in the EU. Then – kerpow! – the chancellor himself fires a warning that there will be no second vote – an apparent shot at Boris Johnson who has toyed with the idea of a double referendum. Conservative discipline is a dam about to burst and David Cameron knows it. Why do you think he is pressing so hard for a deal next month? | On the Tory side of the house the dispute over EU membership is beginning to resemble a game of paintball played by executives on an awayday. From behind a tree emerges Chris Grayling, leader of the Commons, to declare – kersplat! – that staying in the EU under the current terms would be “disastrous”. Next – pow! – Nick Herbert, a former minister who led the campaign to keep Britain out of the euro 15 years ago, surprises his erstwhile “out” colleagues hiding in the shrubbery by agreeing to head the Tory campaign to stay in the EU. Then – kerpow! – the chancellor himself fires a warning that there will be no second vote – an apparent shot at Boris Johnson who has toyed with the idea of a double referendum. Conservative discipline is a dam about to burst and David Cameron knows it. Why do you think he is pressing so hard for a deal next month? |
| It is an unexpected confluence. Britain’s EU membership is no less symbolic for the Tory party than Trident renewal is for Labour, and both issues are suddenly live. But the debates have so far been skewed, misshapen, the wrong size. They look like mere party disagreements when, in fact, they are national in every sense of the word. Whether or not we realise this in time is an open question. | It is an unexpected confluence. Britain’s EU membership is no less symbolic for the Tory party than Trident renewal is for Labour, and both issues are suddenly live. But the debates have so far been skewed, misshapen, the wrong size. They look like mere party disagreements when, in fact, they are national in every sense of the word. Whether or not we realise this in time is an open question. |
Previous version
1
Next version