4 Dec 2006

Dirty, dangerous, expensive - say no to Trident!

NEWS RELEASE
>From the office of the South-East England’s Green MEP Caroline Lucas


December 4th,
2006


‘REPLACING TRIDENT WILL BREAK LAW, THREATEN SECURITY AND COST BILLIONS’ -
MEP

PLANS to replace Trident with a ‘scaled down’ nuclear arsenal will still
place the UK in breach of international law, cost billions – and threaten
British security, Green Party Euro-MP Caroline Lucas has warned.

“Blair’s proposal to replace Trident but cut the number of warheads from 200
to 160 will still break international law, threaten security and cost
billions,” said Dr Lucas, co-founder and co-president of the European
Parliament’s cross-party Peace Initiatives Intergroup and a member of the
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament’s decision-making national council.

“It indicates the strength of opposition he faces – both in parliament and
with the public – but it will make little practical difference,” she added.

“Having three nuclear submarines instead of four will leave us with a
capacity 1280 times that which devastated Hiroshima instead of 1600, and it
will still put the UK in breach of international law, exacerbate the risk of
the global spread of nuclear weapons – and offer no useful protection
against the top two security threats we face: international terrorism and
climate change.

“There is simply no legal, moral, military or economic case for the
Government to replace Trident. If the Government has billions to spend on
protecting security, it shouldn’t gamble it on chasing Cold War shadows but
listen to its own advisors and instead use the cash to tackle the real
security threats we face today: terrorism and climate change.”

Tony Blair is today expected to announce that the government will replace
Britain's nuclear weapons arsenal – but reduce its size by 20 per cent.
Publishing the long-awaited white paper on nuclear defence, the prime
minister will say that Trident submarines will carry closer to 160 warheads
than the current 200.

A legal opinion from Matrix Chambers – Cherie Booth’s legal firm – reasoned
any replacement of Trident would put the UK in breach of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires nuclear states to disarm and not
build new nuclear weapons, and at odds with an International Court of
Justice ruling in 1996 which judged the use of nuclear weapons to be
contrary to the United Nations Charter.

Dr Lucas, who represents the South-East England region which houses the
Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire – Britain’s nuclear weapons
factory – has also signed a petition hosted by Tony Blair’s own website
calling for Trident to be scrapped.

A demonstration of anti-nuclear campaigners and Green Party members will
take place outside the House of Commons at 4.30pm today (Monday), when Tony
Blair is expected to be explaining his position to MPs inside.

ENDS
Notes to Editors:

1. More details on the Matrix Chambers legal opinion (published last month
and commissioned by Greenpeace) can be found at:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?&ucidparam=20061123170805&CFI
D=4713382&CFTOKEN=17459695

2. The petition calling on the Government not to renew trident can be
accessed at the 10 Downing Street website:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/trident/


For more information please contact Ben on 01273 671946, 07973 823358 or
ben@greenmeps.org.uk

www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk



Ben Duncan
Media Officer to Caroline Lucas MEP
benduncan@greenmeps.org.uk
01273 671946 (office)
07973 823358 (mobile)

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just a factual point: Matrix Chambers is not "Cherie Booth’s legal firm"
All barristers are self-employed - they are members of a particular chambers which provides the barrister with support services. Therefore, it's not Cherie's legal firm, but instead she is a member of Matrix, just like Phillipe Sands is. All that means is the same group of people collect Cherie's fees, manage her diary, sort her post etc, nothing more.

Anonymous said...

Just to meet pedanticity with pedanticity, surely it can still be "Cherie Booth's legal firm" if it doesn't belong to her. eg if I said "Derek Wall's party is the Green Party", it doesn't mean he owns it all!

Anonymous said...

It may not mean it, but it certainly implies ownership, or at least some power to direct the organisation's activities. Neither of which Cherie has. Indeed, it's not really a "legal firm" either - Matrix Chambers did not produce the opinion, a self-employed barrister who happens to get his clerking done by Matrix did. Like most media do, phrases like "Cherie Booth's legal firm" perpetuates the idea that there's something odd about a barrister who's a member of Matrix chambers acting against the government, like it's Cherie deciding that the organisation should do these things, and then that seems like she's acting against her husband. In all likelihood, she probably didn't even know about the trident work, much less have anything to do with it.

Anonymous said...

"Derek Wall's party is the Green Party", it doesn't mean he owns it all!
-------------------
No, but he is one of the principle speakers of it.

Imperialism Is the Arsonist: Marxism’s Contribution to Ecological Literatures and Struggles

Derek Wall ’s article entitled  Imperialism Is the Arsonist: Marxism’s Contribution to Ecological Literatures and Struggles , argues that Ma...