Opponents of Trident have a problem with democracy

On the subject of defence, we saw yet another non-story on the cost of Trident from the Guardian this week, with the supposedly shocking news that the Ministry of Defence was spending money on the renewal of Trident. This was the revelation that the MOD has spent approximately £2billion on facilities for building and maintaining the UK's nuclear weapons, before the Trident 'Main Gate' decision has been announced.

According to the Green MP Caroline Lucas, this "makes a complete mockery of the democratic process." No it does not.

The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of renewing the UK's nuclear deterrent in 2007. The renewal of Trident was in the manifestos of the Conservatives and Labour. It was also part of the Coalition Programme for Government and the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

The 'Initial Gate' decision to go ahead with the renewal of Trident has been made and announced - and it was made clear then that this involved spending money on the project.

What more does she want?

The MOD has to start spending now for the renewal of Trident to be viable. If it did not, the same critics would turn round in a few years and complain that the costs of renewal had escalated and Trident was no longer feasible.

The fuss and opposition is not about costs or democracy. These are just excuses for opponents' ideological opposition to the principle of UK nuclear weapons. They should be open and say so. The trickle of stories about costs are designed to create the impression that Trident costs too much and to undermine public faith in the deterrent.

It is opponents of Trident who are 'making a mockery of the democratic process'. No matter how many votes are taken on this decision, they never accept the result.