Stephen Lloyd (Liberal Democrat) replied:
I (and my Party) would vote against the replacement of Trident.
We would push for multilateral disarmament at the 2010 Non - Proliferation Treaty Review Conference
We would push for multilateral disarmament at the 2010 Non - Proliferation Treaty Review Conference
David Brinson (Labour) Replided:
I believe, as I always have done, that a world free of nuclear weapons is both desirable and achievable. While I am reluctant to take positions that are in disagreement with my own Party, I have always strongly opposed the renewal of Trident, on both moral and practical grounds, and will continue to do so. Therefore, the answer to your first question is that yes, I would vote against the replacement of Trident.
I am not going to commit myself unequivocally to a treaty that is yet to be written, but I cannot foresee any circumstances where I would not support the UK signing an international convention to declare Nuclear Weapons illegal.
In fact, I believe that there are already significant arguments in law that suggest the possession of any WMD is a breach of international law. How such a treaty would be implemented remains a question- it would require a level of co-operation from all nuclear states that has not yet been forthcoming, but I would certainly support any moves that declared all WMD illegal in principle, as a starting point for practical action towards multilateral disarmament.
I hope that counts as a "yes" answer, with some explanation.
Nigel Waterson
I am in favour of replacing Trident.
Stephen Shing (Independent)
In general, I would like to see the world stop all further developments (production and research) on nuclear weapons. If elected, I would vote appropriately with this viewpoint in Parliament. The problem at hand is that one Country must take the lead globally in achieving this objective and until that happens, every nation capable and with the desire to, will continue to development Nuclear Weapons.
I agree with the views of your Eastbourne for Peace and Liberty Chair who said: "with no state threatening the UK , the onus is on those who prioritise money for nuclear weapons above other commitments to make the case for such huge levels of spending. Spending money on nuclear weapons means we cannot use it for other more socially useful spending or on helping to solve the problems of poverty and climate change".
I agree with the views of your Eastbourne for Peace and Liberty Chair who said: "with no state threatening the UK , the onus is on those who prioritise money for nuclear weapons above other commitments to make the case for such huge levels of spending. Spending money on nuclear weapons means we cannot use it for other more socially useful spending or on helping to solve the problems of poverty and climate change".
Yours sincerely
Dorothy Forsyth
Chair Eastbourne for Peace and Liberty
Chair Eastbourne for Peace and Liberty