Summary: We need to rethink what we should be doing about Trident, given the recent embarrassing failure. The choice need not be between scrapping Trident and replacing it with a new system at very great expense. The third possibility is to make do with the current system. It only needs to be kept running at a level that makes it a plausible deterrent. This would be dramatically cheaper than building a new submarine system when so many in the UK military feel it is simply not a sensible thing to do.

Calls to scrap Trident altogether or to replace it at great cost ignore the possibility of extending the life of the current Vanguard class Trident submarines.  Their design is based on the US Ohio design but the boats were manufactured in the UK.  Although designed with a 25 year lifetime there is no good reason why the Royal Navy cannot simply make do and mend, replacing any components that cause serious safety concerns.  The US replacement programme has their new submarines entering service 50 years after the Ohio class vessels entered service.  The Trident missiles are not British owned but leased from the US where they are routinely refurbished and repaired.  These missiles will continue to be used by the US replacement submarines.

Unfortunately, the recent failure during a test firing is very concerning. UK submarines have test fired around 10 missiles over the last 20 years. The manufacturers of the missiles, Lockheed Martin, claim very large numbers of firings without incident although the above image, of a Trident II(D5) missile being fired doesn’t look completely right. No doubt government press officers will explain how that might be completely normal. Another Trident malfunction in mid-2015 can be seen at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xLmB81v-BI .

Trident continues to be reasonably popular with the public and politicians.  Refurbishing the British submarines would preserve jobs while allowing the decision about a replacement to be delayed.  Even in the British military there is increasingly doubt that these Trident systems are militarily relevant.  Trident is hardly an independent nuclear deterrent when the missiles are owned and maintained by the US.  It is inconceivable that the UK could use these without US knowledge and approval.  There is little doubt that keeping the existing Trident fleet going would be a significantly cheaper option in the medium term.

Given that there are almost no circumstances under which we might actually use a nuclear weapon it is difficult to see why an entirely new generation of vessels should be procured anyway.  The obsession with Trident replacement is another example of a military keen to be ready to fight the last war.  Along with aircraft carriers and other large warships, all greatly at risk from a single missile strike, they have little relevance in the 21st-century.  Defence money ought to be directed towards both improving cyber warfare capability as well as the development of fast, manoeuvrable unmanned aircraft.  These would be cheaper and more capable than the eye-wateringly expensive fighter aircraft still being ordered enthusiastically by the military.

Defence policy experts P W Singer & A Cole have written a novel, part fiction and part non-fiction entitled “Ghost Fleet: a Novel of the Next World War” which gives a much more realistic and much more scary idea of what real threats we might have to deal with in the future.  Defence policy must start looking much more to the future.  We must think through very carefully what the country actually needs to keep us all safe in a rapidly changing world.

Summary: The last few days have been extraordinary in that we have had speeches by both British party leaders which were remarkable in their general level of irrelevance and incompetence. Can the UK not actually do somewhat better? Are there no better leaders around who could actually move us forward?

Last year was a bit of a car crash politically, worldwide. Who knows what’s going to happen to Comrade Trump. Leaving the rest of the world to one side, in the UK things seem to be just as bad with leaders of the two main parties vying for the “most hopeless leader” accolade. First we have Theresa May who gave an inspirational speech on the steps of number 10 shortly after her accession as Prime Minister. Six months later, six months in which she did virtually nothing to move the country in the directions of those brilliantly articulated aspirations (a good grammar school education plus Oxbridge at least guarantees a degree of grammatical coherence). At the Conservative party conference in October another articulate speech that was about as extreme in its right-wing nastiness as anything a Tory leader has produced in a generation (see: https://leftfootforward.org/2016/10/theresa-mays-speech-marks-the-rise-of-a-nightmarish-new-conservative-politics/). Fortunately nothing has come out of that either. And then more again in her January speech about mental health, full of compelling aspiration yet free from almost any money. Again articulate and engaging but utterly without any substance in that it can deliver nothing without new resources. If you, as someone interested enough to read this far, cannot remember very much about what she said (and I’m sure you’ll be struggling) then that is a bad sign. The extent to which she is devoid of ideas of ideas and certainly unable to deliver anything is detailed here: http://outsidethebubble.net/2017/01/09/the-naked-empress-theresa/

And now we have Jeremy Corbyn managing to “relaunch” his position as leader of the Labour Party. Yesterday was an extraordinary combination of muddles. He started by emphasising the way that immigrants have dragged down wages for the poor, a fact that is simply not true (have a look at: https://www.ft.com/content/0deacb52-178b-11e6-9d98-00386a18e39d). There are extensive studies that show that wage reductions in high migration and very low migration areas are essentially the same. Minimum wage regulations largely guarantee that but Corbyn used that non-fact to justify a reduction in the level of immigration while at the same time saying that he thought the current level of immigration was probably about right. He appears to be quite relaxed about the possibility of Brexit while wanting to keep British access to the single market. Does he really think there is a case for leaving the EU while keeping access to the single market and current level of immigration? What does he actually mean by this? Does he actually think about what he is going to say before he says it?

And then he has the idea of putting a cap on the maximum salary an organisation might pay without any idea how it might work or any appreciation that any half decent accountant can make sure that the CEO gets all sorts of non-salary handouts if that is what the board wish. This idea is then roundly rubbished by many of the experts and advisers that the Labour Party already have. There is indeed a case for looking carefully at how inequality is handled but this cackhanded approach to policy-making is simply appalling. Corbyn apparently has vast loyal support among the party members but a time must come when even the most sycophantic accept that the whole party has wandered up a cul-de-sac in a general state of giggling optimism. Something has to be done or the Labour Party will soon turn to dust. Not so much a relaunch as pulling the plug out of the bottom of the boat.

May and Corbyn are supposed to be the leaders of two biggest British political parties, parties which have an impressive history. The UK is still a great nation apparently. Is it not possible to find leaders who can come up with policies and strategies to implement those policies? Leaders can then explain to the nation what they are so the poor bewildered voter has some chance of understanding them? Leaders who make you think the might actually be a way forward?

Summary: The latest interview with Theresa May made it clear that she does not expect to be able to pick and mix in our new relationship with the EU and essentially hard Brexit is what we are going to get. It is increasingly clear that she actually has no plan at all about negotiating with the EU. She also has produced almost no new initiatives in the six months since she became Prime Minister. Lofty speeches claiming that the Tories will become the party of social justice are exposed as extraordinary examples of disinformation. Despite so much evidence that many parts of the NHS are in crisis no new cash is promised. She actually doesn’t have any ideas at all and these wonderful new clothes that she and Tories are claiming are in fact completely invisible. The Empress is naked!

It is becoming more and more clear that Theresa May has actually produced no significant new initiatives in the six months since she became Prime Minister. Much of what she says is devoid of detail. “Brexit means Brexit”. “We will take back control of our borders”. As soon as she was appointed PM she gave a speech on the steps of Downing Street emphasising the importance of social justice particularly for ordinary working-class families that are just about managing.

On 9 January 2017 she explained how a government would improve mental-health services in the UK. Virtually no new money was mentioned (possibly £15 million for care services or approximately 25p per head for the UK). So little has been happening with this government that even the relatively sycophantic Economist despaired and called her Theresa Maybe (see: http://tinyurl.com/jhd5lxs). On 8 January 2017 Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer (see: http://tinyurl.com/zxsw2k3) worries that the Prime Minister is risking becoming the Queen of Misrule. She still has some support, surprisingly. Matthew d’Ancona on 9 January 2017 in the Guardian (see: http://tinyurl.com/z8wefnp) says that there is lots of happening in the background and cites half-dozen green papers that have been produced, ignoring the fact that green papers are produced by departmental civil servants as discussion documents for future policy and do not represent in any way ministerial or prime ministerial activity.

The most worrying event this weekend was the interview the Prime Minister gave with Sophy Ridge on Sky where her approach seemed to be to go for a hard Brexit and then negotiate our way back in as far as we could. The pound sterling fell sharply against the US dollar. In the last few minutes she is claiming that that’s not what she said at all although sadly you can still listen to it on the web!

Yet still we have no idea at all about her negotiating strategy. Sir Ivan Rogers felt that the government approach was a muddle. That now seems to be a little kind. There really isn’t any plan at all and simply saying “hard Brexit” and then hope we can sort out the mess is extraordinary naïve and will not endear the UK the other members of the EU. We may have many years in some damaging WTO trade rule condition while the economy gradually sinks into the mire.

The Prime Minister claims that by taking back control of our borders we will be able to manage immigration. Yet she was Home Secretary for nearly 6 years with full responsibility for immigration when around half of the net immigration was from outside the EU. What is she going to do when we leave the EU that will be so very different from what she didn’t do earlier? She didn’t have any ideas then apart from echoing the foolish claim that net immigration could be got down to 10,000 per annum. A post on the Tax Justice Network blog by Richard Murphy (see: http://tinyurl.com/z5pnsdn) shows how difficult this is going to be in one extremely narrow area of the NHS requirements, the provision of trained doctors.

All Theresa May’s claims that the Tories are the party of social justice are simply a fraud. The health service is in a terrifying tailspin. Mental-health provision is covered by just over 10% of the NHS budget although it accounts for nearly 25% of the NHS care burden. It is not subject to all the targets and goals of the clinical part of the NHS so it is easy to be cut and cut and cut. Once upon a time the Tories claimed that the NHS “is safe in our hands”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many of today’s announcement of mental health service initiatives will have to be implemented by schools and GPs without any extra funding, of course. Schools are already under incredible pressure and teachers simply cannot find the time and energy to make success of her plans. More funds are needed in so many areas but the only funding that is going to be made available is to big businesses by reductions in corporation tax. The Tories under Theresa May are now exposed as being the party of grotesque social injustices, increasing the inequalities that blight our community.

We Brits are happy to go along with the belief that there is a cunning plan, Baldrick like, that will take us to the promised land. On the evidence so far there isn’t even a cunning plan. The Prime Minister’s new clothes are simply a figment of the media’s imagination. This is why it needs to be said loud and clear. She is showing all the signs of being a very plausible Prime Minister but living in a land of fantasy, stark naked.

Summary: The government are being told by their ambassador to the EU what has been obvious for some time: the route towards Brexit is much more complicated and fraught than most of the public and much of the media realise. Negotiations are notionally with the EU but in fact with 27 separate nation states. Each has its own view on Brexit and the future of the EU. The political landscape across Europe is changing and the UK will be faced with negotiating with a rapidly changing EU. Many key countries face significant internal political upheavals. The probability is that only a hard-Brexit is possible in the time available. The economic damage caused by the threat of Brexit will become even more obvious to UK citizens as time goes on. Clamours for a second referendum will become irresistible.

There is increasing evidence that the whole Brexit Fraud is unravelling. The vote was one when the public were presented with a series of implausible lies that the Brexiteers packaged convincingly to fool the public. Now the British ambassador to the European Union is reporting that the widespread view within Europe is that negotiations for a trade deal could take up to a decade. The bland assurances of the government and the Brexiteers that this can be handled comfortably within a two-year window are patently nonsense. Sir Ivan Rogers report makes the greatest of sense.

The path for the government negotiating Brexit over the next two years or so is fraught with difficulties and uncertainties. We will ignore the fact that the government by all reports simply has no realistic or plausible plan for what it wants to do. There is no shortage of difficulties coming from the other side. The impression given by the Leave campaign is that we deal with a single entity, the European Union, to agree leaving terms. In fact we have to negotiate with each and every one of the 27 other members of the EU. Those negotiations are very complex, covering everything from fisheries, defence, policing, security, financial services, food and agriculture subsidies, scientific research and many other aspects. We do not need 100% agreement of the countries (67% is plenty). However we do need to have the agreement of the European Parliament and in particular the Council with a majority of at least 72% of council members comprising at least 65% of the EU’s population.

Along the way we have parliamentary elections in 2017 for the Czech Republic, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Germany. In 2018 we have Austria Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Romania and Sweden. In 2019, before the end of the two-year negotiating period there are further elections in Belgium, Finland and probably Poland. All the evidence is that the popular mood in the EU is evolving. We can be confident that by the end of the negotiations the political views of MEPs and many European governments will have changed quite significantly. Finally, if the Article 50 notification cannot be given before May 2017 as seems increasingly likely, then just before MEPs are asked for their view on the Brexit arrangements this evolution will be visible following European Parliament elections in May 2019. Each of these elections has the potential to produce significant tremors across Europe. Some may be full blown earthquakes, with a number of European political parties already campaigning on an anti-EU ticket.

The consequence for all this will most likely be that no conclusive agreement can be reached. The choice will then be a hard Brexit or not leaving the EU at all. One recent development is the realisation that leaving the EU is something that does not automatically lead to leaving the European Economic Area. The EEA was set up to provide non-EU countries access to the European single market. At present the non-EU members are Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway. It provides for free movement of goods, capital, services and PEOPLE between member states. Being in the EEA would not allow the UK to block immigration from other EEA states, even if the UK is no longer a member of the EU. It is increasingly clear that leaving the EEA would also require a formal notification (Article 127 of the EEA agreement requiring 12 months notice of quitting the EEA). Leaving the EEA would inevitably be challenged by the Remain side, in the courts and by the Lords, as being something that was not addressed by the referendum.

There are other signs of the Brexit fraud unravelling from the government itself. Number 10 is adamant that everything is going swimmingly. Their approach is very much cast off the ship and we will start the engines later. Any sailor will tell you how foolish such an approach will be. The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, said earlier this week that all thoughtful politicians were clearly in favour of striking a transitional deal with the EU. David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, now appears to be in favour of a transitional deal. Even the hard-core Brexiteers, all wealthy and unlikely to be affected by any Brexit themselves are going rather quiet. Brexit has fallen write down the running order on the main pro-Brexit right-wing newspapers.

What do those who want to Remain in the EU, like the author of this piece, do about all this? Probably sit tight and wait for the unravelling to continue and indeed it will accelerate. Within a couple of years the economic effect of threatening to leave the EU will become more apparent in terms of significantly rising prices probably combined with a small drop in employment. We will also see the substantial cuts to benefits and public services already forced on the government to compensate for the costs of leaving. The great majority of the population will feel a marked tightening of the belt and a realisation that things are going pretty badly for most people. It is unlikely the government could go ahead with a hard-Brexit, resorting to WTO trade rules without a general election or a second referendum.

The Leave campaign are adamant that a second referendum should not be held. They realise the lies they told about the EU-free paradise we were heading towards are already unravelling. They are concerned that if another was held they might well lose it. That risk will increase in the future as the whole fraud of the Brexit case is exposed. However, if there is a significant popular opinion against a hard-Brexit that second referendum might become irresistible.

That would hopefully conclude this whole sorry business. A major distraction for the UK (and for the EU), for no productive benefit, delaying the return to real growth in the standard of living for the vast majority of citizens here. Labour are showing no sign of engaging with this seriously. We all rather wonder what they think.