March 14th, 2007

No Independent Deterrent MeansNo Independent Foreign Policy

As the Tories traipse loyally into the “Aye” lobby with Blair it is worth reflecting on what they are really voting for – a foreign and defence policy subordinate to the U.S. national interest. Now it may be the case that U.S. and U.K. interests generally coincide, but this is a strategic decision which binds Britain to the U.S. for the next thirty years.
If it has been possible for the French to have an independent Force de Frappe and Force Océanique Stratégique since the sixties surely the British can manage after half-a-century to have control of their own weapons system. Since no U.S. president would ever sacrifice a U.S. city to save London, it is verging on treachery to vote to allow the U.S. the ultimate veto on the Defence of the Realm.

For the £30 to £60 billion the replacement system will allegedly cost, surely the Royal Navy could be equipped with a British made and truly independent deterrent. Or is British technology as inferior to French technologie as the British political establishment’s deference to U.S. interests is inferior to the French sense of exceptional national interest?




PM Speaks for the Nation When Bashing Balls | Quentin Letts
Time for an Alliance | Dan Hannan
Farage’s Plan | ConservativeHome
Guardian Open News is a Failure | Heather Brooke
Balls Calls for Deeper Cuts | Speccie
Lessons from the Thirties | CPS
PMQs Idiots | Harry Cole
Jon Cruddas is Not the Messier | Dan Hodges
We Should Honour Victims | Bob Blackman
Bad Al Campbell Spinning for Portland | PR Week
HuffPo’s House Jihadi | Washington Free Beacon
Osborne Gets His Soundbite | Nick Robinson
Moonbat versus Chomsky | Charles Crawford

Previously Seen


Peter Botting



Lord Lamont told ITV News…

“I think the PM is just human and Ed Balls is a pretty irritating person”



AC1 says:

Gangsters keep their promises, unlike party manifestos.



Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives








RSS


AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads