In a telling echo of the vote for the Iraq war, the prime minister's rushed enthusiasm for nuclear rearmament contains more holes than an Atlantic driftnet. The parliamentary majority for the invasion of Iraq was achieved without a Labour majority. Now it seems that the decision to renew the Trident missile fleet will also require the support of opposition MPs. Despite a brace of resignations, despite the large numbers of Labour MPs - as many as 70 - signing my amendment to delay a decision, Tony Blair seems determined to push through a vote tomorrow night. This legislation will not just cost billions of pounds, it will also send a signal to nations across the globe that if they wish to feel secure in an unpredictable world, they should beg, steal, borrow or purchase weapons of mass destruction.
The defence secretary told me last week that the technical timeframe insists that a decision must be taken now, lest these islands be left defenceless. It is my view, and the view of scientists, defence analysts, lawyers, faith leaders and more Labour MPs than many realise, that the greater the debate in the Labour party, in the House of Commons and in the country, the better placed parliament is to take an informed decision - a decision that is consistent with international law and best for the country and global security.
Many readers will recall the struggle after the war to obtain the view of the attorney general about its legality. The same situation arises here. Was the cabinet given advice by Lord Goldsmith when they resolved to renew Trident? Will MPs receive clear legal advice before voting tomorrow? I have written to the attorney general to seek clarification on the legal compatibility of Trident renewal with our obligations to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In its final report, the defence select committee recalled that Britain is committed by the treaty to an "unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons". But this commitment is clearly at odds with the committee conclusion that "the UK's decision to retain and renew its nuclear deterrent might be seized upon by would-be proliferators to justify their own efforts to acquire nuclear weapons".
It is widely acknowledged that the most likely beneficiary of any contract to replace the Trident submarines would be BAE Systems. This is the same company that is said to be facing a series of corruption probes. MPs will certainly wish to be made aware of any legal issues that arise on procurement matters in the context of a near-monopoly supplier that is under investigation on such serious matters.
It has been said of the Iraqi war that the US president and the British prime minister were decided some time before the vote in parliament that they would go to war. Is history repeating itself? The exchange of letters between George Bush and Tony Blair in the first week of December 2006 appears to indicate that the UK government had decided already that the submarines would be built and that we are equally committed to the missile system. No reference is made in these letters to decisions being subject to parliamentary approval. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the parliamentary vote has been pre-empted by Downing Street and the White House.
There are far too many unresolved questions to support this hasty, under-debated legislation to renew Trident. Critically, I and my colleagues at the very least demand that we should see the attorney general's advice to cabinet published before we are asked to pass through the lobbies. We owe the public that at least.
Jon Trickett, the Labour MP for Hemsworth.