A European joint venture was defeated less by affection for Washington than by fear of throwing a working nuclear programme into the long grass. No prevailed with 327 votes against 270, a clear decision but hardly a blank cheque for the existing arrangement.
The winning side’s strongest case was practical and institutional. The floor’s most-respected No argument put it bluntly: “America makes the best weapons, Europe makes the best bureaucracy,” while another called the partnership “a working partnership, not a crush”; others stressed sunk costs, submarine design and the lead times needed to preserve continuous at-sea deterrence.
Yes voters were arguing about something more fundamental than procurement. Its most-respected voice said, “We just can’t trust them,” while another warned that “Betting Britain’s ultimate security on who happens to win the White House is madness”; the case was that sovereignty cannot rest on American elections, particularly when the current programme is built around US technology.
That is where the two sides talked past each other. Yes treated political reliability as the central engineering constraint; No treated engineering, schedules and the durability of the 1958 partnership as the central political facts. Even among No voters, the status quo was not universally embraced: some wanted a longer-term European role, others an independent arsenal, and one dryly asked, “Why can’t we do both?”
The verdict therefore settles the immediate choice while leaving the strategic anxiety intact. This was a vote for continuity under suspicion, not continuity without conditions.
34 Opinions
America makes the best weapons, Europe makes the best bureaucracy. I know which one I'd feel safer protecting us.
With the current US administrations clear links to Russia Europe's biggest threat, openly threatening allies, bullying allies economically, threading land grabs and fundamentally no longer a reliable Nato ally, This won't change with future administrations as the damage is done. We just can't trust them to thebe a reliable ally with our Nuclear Deterrent. We must look to our European allies to help fund and support the deterrent as the US moves away from Europe going forward.
No, the track record of European joint ventures is woeful and the only other nuclear power in Europe is France.
Replacing one deal with another, even worse? No, thank you. Ideally, we would work paralel on independent solution.
A close relationship with the USA has been an anchor to keep them in NATO however that relationship is currently being solely tested. The UK missile subs are designed around the Trident II making a swap difficult and cost.y. If UK intends to retain 1st strike nuclear capability it makes sense that to consider a delivery mechanism that is not solely dependent on the whim of an increasingly erratic USA.
An inane idea. Ideally we would do it on our own like we used to, as US is not a benign friend. They sell us helicopters without software, tanks that don’t work etc and expect us to pay top $ everytime. US defence industry is highly corrupt; but cooperation with the Europeans is a political & financial nightmare, particularly the French. Malign EU is of major concern as they will elbow their way in to secure some kind of veto over its use in its desperation for Sovereignty.
This is gesture politics. Nuclear programmes are long term decisions, more important than Trump.
Ideally, we should be able to do this by ourselves. But if we can't we should be partnering with our ally with the strongest defence industry in the world.
This project is already underway. I would not rule out partnering with France in a future project (and I think we should talk more) but the lead times required would make a change now wholly unrealistic if we are to attempt to stay on schedule The USA is acting irrationally at present, but it will not always do so.
Prime Ministers and Presidents come and go, our Alliance is with the American people and the security partnership has remained strong since the 1958 Act saved Britains nuclear deterrent after our failure to develop nuclear propulsion, ballistic missiles, and a viable nuclear deterrent as a permanent security council member. It ain’t broke and doesn’t need fixing.