Labour divisions on Trident almost impossible to resolve – Burnham
-
Labour Trident tensions resurface over hiding capability of submarines
Labour divisions on Trident almost impossible to resolve, Andy Burnham says - Politics live
Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen
Updated
The ‘nuclear button’ - or, to be precise, the weapons engineer officer’s tactical trigger, that would be used to launch a nuclear weapon on a Trident submarine. Journalists were shown it on a recent press visit to the Faslane naval base. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA - Intelligence committee criticises May for treating privacy as 'an add-on' in 'snooper's charter'
- Javid says relaxing Sunday trading laws will lead to a 'significant boost in jobs'
- Emily Thornberry's Today interview - Summary
- Labour MP Madeleine Moon says other Nato nations worried by Labour's defence policy
On the subject of Trident, Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, has announced the government is committing £201m to spend on designing the new submarines that will replace the Vanguard boats that carry the Trident missiles.Labour MP Clive Lewis floats idea of sharing nuclear deterrent with the French
Here is an MoD picture of what the new submarines might look like.
What the successor to the Vanguard submarines might look like Photograph: Ministry of Defence The Labour MP Clive Lewis, a shadow energy minister and a prominent Jeremy Corbyn supporter, told BBC News a few minutes ago that there were compromise options available to Labour on Trident. It was not just a choice between renewal and unilateral disarmament, he said.The Labour MP Madeleine Moon, a member of the Commons defence committee (and author of the most expressive political tweet of 2016 - see 8.57am) told BBC News earlier that she did not think that Labour’s Trident review was “honest” because Emily Thornberry, the shadow defence secetary, was not open-minded about nuclear weapons.
It was important to remember that the issue facing the Commons was not whether to get rid of Trident, but what to do about replacing it, he said.
And he suggested that Britain could share a nuclear deterrent with the French. This is what he said when he was asked what the compromise options available to Labour might be.
The Lib Dem option refers to keeping a submarine-based Trident system, but not ordering another four boats. This would mean not having a submarine on patrol at all times, or “stepping down the nuclear ladder”, as the Lib Dems described it.
I think the Liberal Democrat review saw some of those options. I think if Emily Thornberry’s review also looks at those, it could be perhaps, for example, going in with the French. It could perhaps be having our own system which is land-based. It could be cruise missile based. There are a number of options that are already out there.
Clive Lewis Photograph: BBC News
In her interview earlier (see 9.46am) Thornberry rejected this. She said that the choice about Trident was not a binary, yes/no one, and that “other options” were available.
Labour’s policy is very clear; we actually support the renewal of the deterrent. That’s our position. What worries me is you can’t have an open and honest debate if what you are saying is ‘I would never use the deterrent, I don’t support the deterrent, but I’m doing the review.’ Now, that is not an open and honest discussion. It’s perfectly valid to have a position where you don’t support Trident, that’s valid, but to say that your position is that you’re willing to discuss it when clearly you’re not, is not honest. That upsets me a great deal.
Madeleine Moon Photograph: BBC News
Intelligence committee criticises May for treating privacy as 'an add-on' in 'snooper's charter'Here are the key points from the intelligence and security committee’s report on the investigatory powers bill (the new version of legislation originally dubbed the snooper’s charter).
Dominic Grieve, the committees’ new chairman, is a former attorney general and one of the more robust libertarians in the Conservative party. That shows in this result, which has much more emphasis on privacy than previous reports from the committee (which used to be chaired by Sir Malcolm Rifkind.)
- The ISC criticises Theresa May, the home secretary, for treating privacy as an “add-on” issue in the bill, not a central concern.
We had expected to find universal privacy protections applied consistently throughout, or at least an overarching statement at the forefront of the legislation. Instead, the draft Bill adopts a rather piecemeal approach, which lacks clarity and undermines the importance of the safeguards associated with these powers. We have therefore recommended that the new legislation contains an entirely new part dedicated to overarching privacy protections, which should form the backbone of the draft legislation around which the exceptional powers are then built. This will ensure that privacy is an integral part of the legislation rather than an add-on.- It says the bill does not clarify the law on surveillance satisfactorily.
Taken as a whole, the draft Bill fails to deliver the clarity that is so badly needed in this area. The issues under consideration are undoubtedly complex, however it has been evident that even those working on the legislation have not always been clear as to what the provisions are intended to achieve. The draft bill appears to have suffered from a lack of sufficient time and preparation.- It says the intelligence agencies should not be able to get “bulk equipment interference warrants” (wide-ranging warrants allowing computer hacking). The targeted equipment interference warrants that are available should be satisfactory, it says.
- It says intelligence agencies wanting access to personal datasets (databases containing information about potentially millions of people) should have to get a warrant for each dataset they want to access. Class bulk personal dataset warrants (allowing access to them all) should not be available.
- It says that the bill should ensure that all computer hacking operations (“equipment interference”) are covered by the same laws, not different laws as under the bill.
Javid says relaxing Sunday trading laws will lead to a 'significant boost in jobs'Sajid Javid, the business secretary, has confirmed that the government will press ahead with legislation to allow councils to extend Sunday trading in their areas. In a written ministerial statement, he said that a consultation showed that a “majority of respondents from local authorities, business representative organisations and large and medium businesses” were in favour.
This could lead to a “significant boost in jobs”, he said.
He also announced measures that marginally strengthen the rights that workers have to opt-out of Sunday working.
These measures will help our local high street retailers not just to survive but to thrive. Online sales did not even exist when the current legislation was first brought in, but they now account for a significant share of the retail market and continue to grow strongly; 15% in 2015.
This change could lead to a significant boost in jobs. It has been estimated that a two hour extension to Sunday trading in the West End and Knightsbridge alone would lead to the creation of between 1,070 and 2,160 jobs.
Sajid Javid Photograph: Mark Thomas/REX/Shutterstock Emily Thornberry's Today interview - Summary
Here are the main points from the Today programme interview with Emily Thornberry, the shadow defence secretary.
- Thornberry hinted that Labour would advise its MPs to abstain when the government holds a vote on Trident renewal. The debate is expected within the next few weeks. But Thornberry said a “main gate” vote (giving final approval to Trident renewal) was not necessary, and that they government would only be holding the vote to embarrass Labour. In those circumstances, and given that the Commons voted on Trident in 2007, abstaining would be justified, she implied.
I think it is important to note that the Tories are talking about this as being a main gate decision, a decision at which there is a no point of return in relation to Trident. And that is untrue. Their own review says that they will not be having a main gate vote. So, if they do ask for a vote, it will be a vote on principle. We had a vote on principle in 2007. There will be many people who are in favour of Trident who will be asking the question, “What on earth have the Tories been doing since 2007 that we now need to have another vote in principle?” If they are not playing games with us, why don’t they get on with that?- She suggested that she would not be willing to authorise the use of nuclear weapons herself. This is what she said when Nick Robinson asked if she would be willing to press the nuclear button.
If nuclear weapons need to be threatened, then they have failed. Everybody says that. The whole point about nuclear weapons is that you don’t use them. And in order for them to work at all, you have to be able to say with confidence, “I have a big stick, my stick is larger than your stick”, and both sides need to be confident that that threat is a real one.- She suggested that she thought it would be possible for Labour’s defence review to produce a Trident policy the party could get behind. This is contrary to what Andy Burnham was saying on the programme earlier. (See 8.42am.) The evidence would point to “certain conclusions”, she said.
It’s a hard job that I’ve been given ... But if people proceed with goodwill, and if we are prepared to go into this and look at the evidence, the evidence will draw us to certain conclusions. We need to have all the options on the table. And we need to have a proper debate within the party.- She claimed that the debate about Trident renewal was not “binary”. In other words, it was not just a case of deciding whether to order new Trident submarines with nuclear weapons, or to give up the nuclear deterrent, she said.
I had been challenged and told that it was either Trident or nothing, that it was a binary option. And our view is that it is not necessarily a binary option. We do need to look at all the possibilities.- She said technological developments could in future make Trident ineffective as a deterrent. This is what she said when Robinson asked her to explain the comment she made to the PLP last night about how Trident could one day become as obsolete as the Spitfire.
When Robinson told her that Lord West, the former head of the navy and former Labour security minister, had rung the programme to say this argument was “nonsense”, Thornberry replied:
There are questions to be asked about Trident. There are forthcoming generations of drones that can work underseas. At the moment they have two problems; one is communications, and the other is battery life. But I was explaining to the PLP that I had actually met one of the young turks who at the moment is developing these drones, and they are very hopeful that in the next 10 years or so that actually the seas will no longer be opaque.
The idea of the Trident replacement is that it can hide in the sea. If technology is moving faster than that, then it may well be that Trident will not be able to hide. And if that’s right, then if we are to bet everything on mutually assured destruction, we have to be assured that it is going to work. And if it can’t hide any more, that is a problem. And it is right for the opposition, before voting for a commitment which would cost, according to Crispin Blunt [the Tory chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee] £168bn, we have to make sure that it works.
Alan and I have had this discussion. And he knows as well that the Chinese and the Russians and the Americans are pouring billions into this technology in order to be able to find submarines. They would not be pouring that money in if they did not think there was a realistic chance of being able to get somewhere.- She insisted that there were “other options” besides Trident renewal. But she would not spell out what they were.
- She said Labour wanted people to contribute to its defence review.
I think that we shouldn’t be afraid of having a debate within the Labour party and actually I think this is a debate whose time has come. I think that it’s a debate that the country needs to have. And we have a website in which we are inviting people to contribute and we want there to be a big discussion before such a major decision is made.- She played down the significance of reports saying she got a terrible reception at the PLP meeting last night when she spoke about Trident.
It has been well rehearsed; four, five, perhaps possibly six people at the PLP last night kicked off. But I don’t think they necessarily represent the whole of the parliamentary Labour party.
Emily Thornberry Photograph: Richard Saker for the Observer The Today programme interview with Emily Thornberry, the shadow defence secretary, is over.Labour MP Madeleine Moon says other Nato nations worried by Labour's defence policy
Here are some tweets about the highlights.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário