#bitain

By Elisabeth Braw, CS Monitor, March 11, 2016

LONDON--Britain is one of the world’s few nuclear-armed powers.

But should it be?

That question is under increasing public debate in Britain, especially after Defense Minister Michael Fallon’s announcement that the government will invest £642 million ($910 million) in Britain’s nuclear submarines.

“Our nuclear deterrent provides the ultimate guarantee of our security and our way of life,” Mr. Fallon said in a statement. “That’s why we are getting on with this investment.” The announcement seemed intended to preempt a vote on Trident renewal by the British parliament.

But with the threat of nuclear annihilation overshadowed by more immediate economic and national issues--including tensions between Scotland and Westminster and between London and Brussels--some Britons are asking whether the country’s small but expensive fleet of nuclear submarines is worthwhile any more.

During the British nuclear program’s six-decade existence, the former empire has shrunk to a mid-sized power that sometimes feels at odds even with its allies in the European Union. Trident, however, puts it in the same league as its fellow UN Security Council members, the United States, Russia, China, and France--all nuclear-armed states.

“Since the end of the cold war, the justification for Trident has really been that of a long-term ‘insurance policy’ made on the basis that we cannot predict the shape of the security environment in 15-20 years’ time,” explains Ben Jones, a former defense adviser for the Liberal Democrat party and an academic defense expert. “For many this is not enough to justify the expense, although I suspect that Russia’s recent behavior will have put some agnostics back in the pro-Trident camp.”

Still, any NATO ally is automatically protected by the US nuclear umbrella.

“There’s no need for Britain to have its own nuclear deterrent, just as little as there is a need for Lithuania to have its own nuclear deterrent,” notes Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. “Britain’s nuclear deterrent has more to do with tradition, national prestige, and some people in London believing that Britain must have its own nuclear strike option despite the US security guarantee.”

Indeed, Trident, is in a sense, the military equivalent of Brexit: a way for Britain to publicly beef up its status as a country that stands above its EU and NATO allies. A parliamentary vote on the future of Trident, initially requested by the Ministry of Defense for around Easter, has been postponed and is now unlikely to take place in the current parliamentary session, which ends in late June. The Brexit referendum will be held on June 23.

Britain’s nuclear stockpile is, in fact, rather modest: some 215 warheads carried by the four nuclear submarines that sail around the world’s oceans, compared to the US nuclear arsenal of an estimated 6,970 warheads that can be dropped from planes, mounted on ballistic missiles or carried by submarines.

Russia maintains the world’s largest nuclear stockpile, an estimated 7,300 warheads, and even France and China have more warheads--an estimated 300 and 260 each--than Britain, according to the Federation of American Scientists, which maintains the most trusted database of world nuclear stockpiles.

And the program is not cheap: the government estimates total cost of Trident renewal to be £31 billion.

But renewing Trident would create jobs. As a result, even Jeremy Corbyn, Labour’s pacifist, left-wing leader, supports keeping the nuclear submarines. In January, he suggested that the submarines could sail around the world without nuclear weapons, an idea met with widespread ridicule as the warhead-less nuclear submarines would signal British impotence. Some Labour parliamentarians, meanwhile oppose renewing the submarines.

In Scotland, where the submarines are based, Trident is also a sore subject. While the fleet provides jobs to many around its Faslane base, the nation’s dominant Scottish National Party is utterly opposed to their presence. “We believe that nuclear weapons are immoral, ineffective and expensive. In times of imposed austerity, the £100 billion which would be spent on a Trident replacement over the next 30 years could be far, far more effectively used on improving healthcare, childcare, education and building a better future for our children,” the party argues on its website.

The fact that Fallon announced the new investment--which will be followed by several other disbursements--before Parliament has voted on the matter has left nuclear disarmament activists and Scottish politicians alike incensed.

“Yes, Trident is a status symbol,” acknowledges Arthur West, a Trident opponent in Ayrshire, Scotland. “But it’s a very expensive status symbol.” As Anthony King, a professor of war studies at Warwick University, points out, the money to renew Trident may be better spent on conventional weapons as well as emerging capabilities such as drones and cyber-defense.

Most Britons, however, support keeping the expensive status symbol: a January poll shows 51 percent in favor of full renewal, 29 percent in favor Mr. Corbyn’s non-nuclear subs, and only 20 percent opposed to renewal. Scots trend the other way: 38 percent oppose Trident renewal, 36 percent in favor, and 26 percent for non-nuclear subs. Trident is certain to play a large role when Scots go to the polls on May 16.

By Henry Chu, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 12, 2015

They reign and rule over Britain, but now there’s a plague on both their houses.

Queen Elizabeth II and members of the British Parliament live and work in this country’s two most iconic buildings: Buckingham Palace for her, the Palace of Westminster for them. But moisture, mice and moth-eaten heating and electrical systems, among other ills, are turning both structures into something of a nightmare for their illustrious inhabitants.

Conditions inside the 19th century buildings have become so dire that they threaten to achieve what the Nazi blitz of London could not: force Her Majesty, the noble peers in the House of Lords and the uppity members of the House of Commons to abandon their digs, at least while refurbishment is undertaken.

Surveyors and engineers warn of an urgent need for asbestos removal, better plumbing, pest control, upgraded wiring, improved fire safety and repairs to the crumbling masonry, a large chunk of which came perilously close to nailing Princess Anne’s car after detaching from a Buckingham Palace parapet in 2007.

But spending billions in taxpayer money on nicer accommodation for politicians and the royal family is a tough sell at a time when the government is promising the deepest cuts in welfare and other social spending in at least a generation. Plenty of Brits believe that their elected representatives, as well as their unelected dynasts, have dipped their hands liberally enough into the public purse.

To Dickie Arbiter, that’s a shortsighted view.

“All these are government buildings,” said Arbiter, who spent a dozen years toiling within the elegant confines of Buckingham Palace as Elizabeth’s press secretary before retiring. “Our children and grandchildren and their children won’t thank us if we allow these buildings to fall into a state of disrepair.”

He scoffs at suggestions that his former boss, one of the world’s richest women, ought to fund her own home improvements. The queen does not actually own Buckingham Palace; it’s held “in trust” for use by the reigning monarch.

“There are those cynics who say, ‘Well, the queen lives there, she should pay for it,’ which is a bit like saying, ‘Obama lives at the White House, let him take care of it,’” Arbiter said.

Regardless of who foots the bill (and it won’t be the footman), the price tag would be enormous.

Buckingham Palace is basically a 240-bedroom, 78-bathroom fixer-upper (great location!) that would cost an estimated $230 million to bring up to modern standards. Some redecorating is definitely in order: For all its opulent trappings, the last time the interiors were spruced up was around the time of the queen’s coronation. That was 62 years ago.

The boiler hasn’t been overhauled in about as long. Royal minions have had to set out buckets to catch water dripping from the roof in the gallery where Elizabeth’s priceless art collection is kept.

Across St. James’ Park, a makeover for the Gothic Revival Palace of Westminster--famed for the clock tower mistakenly called Big Ben, which is actually the name of the giant bell inside the belfry--would cost significantly more. According to an independent appraisal released in June, the project could run from $5.4 billion to $8.8 billion.

Mark Tami, a member of Parliament from the Liverpool area, said a “major intervention” is clearly necessary.

“You’re talking about a building which is in the center of London, which is exposed to the elements and pollution,” he said. “There comes a point where just the odd patching here and there won’t suffice.”

The roof leaks, the pipes are corroding and much of the communication cabling is inadequate for the demands of the digital age. It took “quite a time” to install broadband and Wi-Fi, Tami said; connection speeds remain erratic.

Tami sits on a “restoration and renewal” parliamentary committee that is expected to decide early next year whether to embrace one of the renovation plans outlined in the June report.

The least expensive option would require Parliament to move out of the Palace of Westminster for six years. That’s called a “full decant”--an apt description for a place where lawmakers hobnob in their own private bar overlooking the Thames and where some have been known to cast votes on legislation in a “tired and emotional” state (a popular euphemism for “falling-down drunk”).

The most expensive option would allow the 650 members of the House of Commons and assorted scarlet-robed lords and ladies mostly to stay put, with partial closures of the building on a rolling basis over 32 years.

But despite its steep $8.8-billion cost, the plan would only cover retrofitting the palace to minimum standards, including better access for the disabled and improved fire prevention. Lawmakers would also have to endure the racket and disruption that any homeowner who has ever done a renovation is all too familiar with.

Convincing the public of the merits of any of the choices will be a challenge. Although many Britons relish the idea of politicians being driven out of their offices, they would be less keen to know it was part of an overall scheme to provide them with more lavish public housing.

Other suggestions have been floated, including taking Parliament on the road with stops around the country, or ditching the Palace of Westminster altogether for a more modern, more modest facility, to match Britain’s decline from the imperial colossus it was when the palace went up in Victorian times. The green, red and gold interior is littered with reminders of empire, in statues and paintings of events such as the Battle of Waterloo.

Those alternatives are about as likely as the queen abdicating. For all the money that refurbishing the Palace of Westminster and Buckingham Palace would require, the historical and symbolic value of the two buildings--where momentous decisions affecting both Britain and the world have been made--is incalculable for this tradition-loving nation.

Plus, they bring in tourists, who pay $28 to visit the Houses of Parliament and $32 to gawk at Buckingham Palace’s staterooms.

“If they were to propose in America to move the Senate and House out and build them a new building, there would probably be a massive outcry about that,” Tami said.

“Buckingham Palace symbolizes the institution of monarchy. It’s where everyone expects to be entertained by the sovereign,” said Arbiter, whose recent memoir, “On Duty With the Queen,” chronicles his years in service to the crown.

The royal family probably would be less inconvenienced than lawmakers by a move. Elizabeth, who is in good health at 89, already spends weekends and summers at Windsor Castle outside London and Balmoral Castle in Scotland, respectively. She could live comfortably in either place, or at her privately owned country retreat in Sandringham, in eastern England.

Buckingham Palace is where she mostly conducts state business on weekdays--“a bit like living above a shop when you’re on duty in London,” Arbiter said.

The queen has never openly complained about the condition of Buckingham Palace. But no doubt she’d like to see her principal pad since childhood, with its 775 rooms, kept in better shape.