Party leader says renewal of nuclear deterrent would go ahead if party wins election but there would be a review

Jeremy Corbyn has declined to say he is in favour of keeping Trident, despite a commitment to renewing the nuclear deterrent in the Labour manifesto.

In an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Neil, Corbyn said he respected the party’s decision to commit to the weapons system, but there would be a defence review to “look at the role of nuclear weapons” if Labour wins power.

“I voted against the renewal, everybody knows that, because I wanted to go in a different direction. That decision has been taken, I respect that decision,” he said.

“It’s there in the programme, it’s there in the manifesto, it will be carried out ... It’s the position we are adopting as a party and we will take into government.”

But his comments about the defence review cast doubt on whether a Labour government would proceed with the replacement of four nuclear warhead-carrying Vanguard submarines at a cost of about £41bn.

“I want to achieve a nuclear-free world through multilateral disarmament, through the nuclear non-proliferation treaty,” he told Neil.

Labour’s position on Trident has caused some tension within the party during the election campaign, over whether the commitment to renewing the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent would be reviewed if Corbyn were prime minister.

Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary – who is “sceptical” about Trident – was asked in an LBC radio interview to guarantee that backing for the missile system would definitely remain Labour policy after the review.

She replied: “Well no, of course not, if you are going to have a review, you have to have a review.”

However, her remarks were firmly disputed by Nia Griffith, the shadow defence secretary, who told BBC2’s Newsnight last week that the review was “not about actually questioning whether we would have a Trident nuclear deterrent, because we settled that last year.”

On the Manchester attack, Corbyn strongly disputed criticism from Theresa May and other senior Conservatives that he was blaming the bombing on the UK’s foreign policy.



“The attack on Manchester was shocking, appalling indefensible wrong in every possible way,” Corbyn said. “The parallel I was drawing this morning was a number of people ever since the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have drawn attention to the links with foreign policy, including Boris Johnson in 2005, two former heads of MI5, and of course the foreign affairs select committee.

“The point I was making was we have to make our streets secure, our population secure. Any sensible government has got to look at what’s happened in Libya, a huge ungoverned space and apparently a source of support for extremism.”

Pressed again on whether he was saying the Manchester attack was a consequence of UK military interventions, he said: “Manchester was a consequence of one person going into a music event and killing a very large number of people. There can be no defensive whatsoever of that. I do not in any way change that view. That is just a vile, horrible event ... I made the point that if we are to have a secure future we have got to look at ungoverned spaces around the world and the consequences of our wars and interventions. It is not just me as I said. It’s MI5, the foreign affairs committee.”

When asked about divisions within Labour, including 180 of his MPs who supported a motion of no-confidence in him, Corbyn pointed to the party’s manifesto which all his parliamentarians have agreed.

“This manifesto has been agreed by everyone in our party,” he said. “This manifesto has enormous levels of public support. This manifesto has been campaigned for day in day out on the streets of this country, and do you know what, people like the contents of it because it offers them hope. It offers them opportunity.

“It offers our young people an opportunity to get the education they want, to get the skilled jobs that they want and it offers hope in the sense of community cohesion. And I invite everyone to have a look at the policies and decide what they are.”

Earlier, Neil challenged the Labour leader about his previous description of Nato as a “very dangerous Frankenstein of an organisation” and argument that it should have been “wound up”.

Corbyn said he wanted to “work within Nato to achieve stability ... and to promote a human rights democracy and under a Labour government that’s exactly what we’d be doing”.

Asked whether he thought it was a “Frankenstein”, and whether he had changed his views, Corbyn said: “No. What I’ve done – no, no ... Nato exists. It was a product initially of the Atlantic Charter in 1942, it then became ...”

Neil interrupted to say: “We know the history, Mr Corbyn. I’m trying to work out if you would be a committed supporter of Nato as every previous prime minister of this country has been?”

Corbyn replied that he would want the UK to be a “committed member of that alliance in order to promote peace, justice, human rights and democracy and I believe that we can make a positive contribution on that”.

The Labour leader was also questioned repeatedly about his past association with the IRA, though he denied he had ever supported the group and distanced himself again from supportive comments made by key allies John McDonnell and Diane Abbott.

“I never met the IRA. I obviously did meet people from Sinn Féin as indeed I met people from other organisations, and I always made the point that there had to be a dialogue and a peace process,” he said.

Challenged by Neil with comments from former IRA leader Sean O’Callaghan and negotiator Seamus Mallon that Corbyn had only ever supported “victory for the IRA”, Corbyn denied he had wanted a continuation of the violence.

“People were killed by loyalist bombs as well. All deaths are appalling, all deaths are wrong. There isn’t a military solution to a conflict between traditions and communities. There has to be a better way and a better process of doing it.”