In May it was revealed that Prime Minister Tony Blair had decided to go ahead with plans to replace the UK's nuclear-powered Trident missile submarines by a new generation of nuclear weapons. This decision was taken although Trident's life could be extended for another 20 years. Britain's nuclear bomb factory at Aldermaston has been given a 2-billion-pound budget for the next three years. (For reference: running costs of the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment have averaged 300 million pounds a year at current prices since 2000.) In the week of October 31, Defence Secretary John Reid initiated meetings with members of the Parliamentary Labour Party Group in order to discuss the plan before taking a decision.

The move of the British government follows an earlier decision by the French government to replace its current M-45 nuclear missile with the new M-51 model by 2010 with the intention of enhancing its nuclear 'force de frappe'.

Whilst these decisions fall within the exclusive competence of national governments, they would have considerable consequences for the European Union as a whole.

Such an act of enhanced nuclear armament would clearly discredit E3/EU efforts to convince Iran and other countries to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons and the EU position in favour of the enhancement of Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zones in various parts of the world. It would also devalue the position of most EU Member States who want to see an end to the nuclear weapons race and undermine the EU's longstanding support for international rule of law, including the 8 July 1996 ruling of the International Court on the illegality of nuclear weapons.

How does the EU presidency respond to views that see the British and French governments' move in breach of article VI of the NPT treaty, which obliges each of the Parties to the Treaty to undertake 'to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control'?

How can the EU presidency justify its intentions in view of the serious threats of a complete breakdown of the worldwide nuclear weapons control regime, and the real dangers of a nuclear arms race, in view of the failure of the NPT review conference and the UN Reform Summit this year?