Friday, March 16, 2007

MP Dave Anderson has put nuclear talks at risk – Lib Dems

Liberal Democrats in Gateshead have expressed their disappointment that Blaydon MP Dave Anderson voted with Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron in the House of Commons to replace the Trident nuclear submarines.

The vote on Wednesday 14th March saw Labour split between those who wanted a decision on building new Trident submarines put back until after international talks aimed at cutting nuclear weapons in 2010 and those who wanted an immediate decision on replacing the submarines.

The government’s decision to press ahead with a decision was supported by the Conservatives but 94 Labour MPs voted against.

“I am disappointed that Mr Anderson voted with Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron whilst so many of his colleagues took a principled stand against the government,” said Councillor Jonathan Wallace, who represents Whickham South and Sunniside in Blaydon constituency.

“There are crucial international talks coming up in 2010 that could lead to cuts in nuclear weapons throughout the world and stop countries developing their own weapons.

“But taking a decision now to replace the Trident submarines will send all the wrong signals to other countries.

“If Britain is prepared to spend billions on a new nuclear weapon system now, it will encourage countries such as Iran to press forward with development of their own weapon systems.

“Liberal Democrats voted against the government because we believe the decision to replace now could undermine the international talks.

Lib Dem Councillor Peter Maughan said, “Once those talks have taken place we can see whether there is sufficient progress during the next decade towards nuclear disarmament to decide if Britain needs to continue as a nuclear armed country.

“By voting now for replacement, Mr Anderson and his colleagues have put the talks at risk.”

Councillor Wallace was one of the key figures in the Liberal Democrats who worked at the recent party conference to persuade members to vote for a policy of taking the decision on renewing Trident in the next decade.


George Dutton said...

If you want Trident? this is what you will get in the end...

The Yorozuya Bridge...

Copy and paste in two parts then put into address bar.

George Dutton said...

"illegal under international law."

So is Torturing to death people.I CANNOT see any difference between sending people by Rendition Flights or DEPORTATION to another country to torture and in some cases death any DIFFERENT to Torturing to death people here in Britain.I CANNOT see the difference because there is NO difference. Blair not only faces charges of mass murder in Iraq when he goes/is taken to the The Hague he has broken every international law on HUMAN RIGHTS on ever front. He and everyone in his party NEW Labour.

George Dutton said...

Britain would not buy/have Trident but for the FACT that you have to have nuclear weapons to gain a seat on the UN Security Council as it is run by the USA what`s the point in that?.That is the only reason the UK wants them.Many in government have said they will NEVER use them no matter what kind of attack the UK comes under.Of course the Trident subs can be used for other purposes?.I wonder if the present Trident has any warheads on it why should it if they are not going to be used? it would also cancel out any accidents that Trident may have no worries if it did not have any warheads on it apart from the atomic subs themselves which would be a nightmare.It is the perception that the UK has them that is all important.Think about it why did the UK allow the USA to have so much say in if we could fire them or not (on the present Trident) the only reason I can come up with is they will never use them.Well only a madperson would maybe that is another reason for having no warheads after having Thatcher as PM.
Does anyone think that despots will care if we wipe out there entire country/countries?. At the end of the second world war Hitler only had one objective left that was to wipe out the German nation because they had let him down they had failed not him.That is the nature of a despot.So where is the deterrent in having Trident?.It does go beyond the boundaries of sanity to even think about buying Trident let alone use it.Who knows the truth when we have governments that are so dishonest with we the people.There again it may all just be me not wanting to accept an awful truth that there are warheads on Trident and they would use them.

George Dutton said...

New Labour could not come clean about Trident after they had had a bath, and the Blood of Iraqis is something they can NEVER wash off.No good even if they did not vote for the war the very FACT they are still in NEW Labour says guilty by duplicity/association.

George Dutton said...

Hmmm...if what Blair says is true??? about having to have Trident then it follows that we have to start building fallout shelters after all a nuclear attact on the UK is a real possibility according to Blair.Strange I don`t see him building any fallout shelters for us the people? anyone would think he doesn`t really care about the people of the UK at all?.I wonder if he has one for his family?. What are the Lib Dems going to do? we the people need fallout shelters when are you going to start building them. More to the point I would like to ask Dave Anderson MP that question.

George Dutton said...

"The majority of Scots have expressed their opinion about Trident.
They are opposed to it and believe they make Scotland less safe."

As things stand Scotland/North of England would be the first target of any attack due to it`s Strategic Position in having nuclear weapons HQ based there adding Son of star wars to Protect the USA will make it a certainty that this will be so.Even if Son of star wars works? the fallout that Scotland/North of England would Very Probably have to Sustain in Protecting the USA would wipe out many in Scotland/North of England.There is of course another Scenario that people DON`T think about and that is that an attack on Scotland/North of England may be just the first salvo in any confirtation to show that whoever the Aggressor is Means Business and then a Negotiated Peace settlement could take place?.Far fetched? maybe not as much as you may think after all if it happened everyone would be still wanting to pull back from the brink of TOTAL World Destruction so it is VERY Brave of the Scots/Geordies to offer themselves up to be "the sacrifice" put`s a whole new meaning on Scotland the Brave.There is no dividend in anyway for the people of Scotland/North of England having WMD of ANY kind.No one would attack Scotland/North of England if it didn`t have any WMD why should they no reason a small country with only 5 million people it wouldn`t even get a mention in any warplans by the big nations.The VERY BEST Protection Scotland/North of England can have is NO PROTECTION.