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?




Tip offs: 0709 284 0531
team@Order-order.com

Quote of the Day

Jacob Rees-Mogg on Theresa May

“There comes a point at which the policy and the individual become so intimately connected that it would be very hard to carry on supporting the person who is promoting this policy.”

Sponsors

Guidogram: Sign up

Subscribe to the most succinct 7 days a week daily email read by thousands of Westminster insiders.