That is why the renewal of Trident, the means by which Britain's political class can commit war crimes through nuclear weapons should they desire, is also an ideal candidate for a referendum and should be decide through directly democratic methods. It is not something which can be taken lightly, or indeed something we can allow only those who may or may not have vested interests in seeing it renewed to decide upon.
Critics of the position I am taking on this could argue that by voting in the general election you have provided your support for the governing party, or supporters of the renewal of Trident on either side of the divide, to make that choice for you. They would argue that we live in a representative democracy and have chosen these people to represent our views. That if we do not like a policy they pass we can always vote them out of power next time around. Unfortunately this is a gross over-simplification at best. At worst it can be a justification of the Plutocracy in which we are currently subjected to.
Trident is an issue of national importance, however, with the exception of the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP, no one during the election wanted to make the renewal of Trident a central issue. This included the media who wished to focus their attention on the two issues that formed their ideal narrative, the aforementioned EU membership and the economy. Deliberately making the arguments against the renewal of Trident, outside of the voters of the three main anti-nuclear parties, go largely unnoticed. Thus, many voters in the general election could have supported a pro-renewal party despite having little or no knowledge of the parties stance on nuclear weapons.
It is of the utmost importance that issues of this magnitude, with serious implications on the countries finances and moral positioning, should be decided by the people. With clear and precise presentation of the facts laid bare before the nation to decide upon.
An article I was reading earlier on the Guardian website alluded to the importance of this issue as a peoples decision and the need to engage people directly in democratic decision processes making more frequently. The Guardian quoted Jeremy Corbyn as saying "my whole election programme was based on the need for ordinary people to be able to participate much more in politics so that leaders don't go away and write policy, that executive groups don't go off and decide what the policy is, that ordinary people do. There is brilliance in everybody who has got some ideas. That is the whole basis. That is why I think our party membership has got so much bigger, because people are enthused by the idea that they can participate."
Whilst this would be a positive move from the leader of the Labour Party, who realises that a matter of this importance requires more than the self-serving career politicians that infest parliament to decide upon, it does not meet the requirements of the nation. He is arguing for the party membership to decide upon the Labour Parties continued support for the renewal of Trident, which in his current position could be argued is the limit of his ability to have an effect what is to come.
There remains the fact that he, the opposition parties, and anyone who believes in maintaining a suggestion of democracy room to breathe in Britain, before the life is completely choked from it by the Conservative Party, could do more. Collectively they must pressure the Government, along with the people, to put it to a national referendum in order to allow the people to decide, for themselves, whether they care more about the potential to end lives, expensively, for the gain of the few at the top than alleviating issues blighting those that the bottom.
Regardless of how the upcoming vote in parliament goes and how many of them support its renewal.
No comments:
Post a Comment