text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Trident Replacement - Case not yet proven - rejected
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  
  
  The majority of MPs voted against changing the motion supporting the Government's nuclear weapons policy to one which read.[1]
  
  ** This House 
  * ''notes'' the Government's decision, as set out in the White Paper The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent (Cm 6994),[2] to take the steps necessary to maintain the UK minimum strategic nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the existing system and to take further steps towards meeting the United Kingdom's disarmament responsibilities under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty,[3] 
  * ''but believes'' that the case is not yet proven and remains unconvinced of the need for an early decision.
  
  The Government's original motion, still intact, was subsequently voted for by a majority of MPs.[4]
  
  Seven MPs voted inconsistently between the two motions.[5]
  
  * [1] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-03-14c.298.0#g328.1 John Trickett MP], House of Commons, 14 March 2007
  * [2] [http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/doctrine/sdr06/WhitePaper.pdf The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent], December 2006
  * [3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Second_pillar:_disarmament Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Second Pillar], Wikipedia
  * [4] [http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2007-03-14&number=77 Trident Replacement - Maintain nuclear deterrent beyond existing system], House of Commons, 14 March 2007
  * [5] [http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2007-03-14&number=77&number2=78 Comparison of Trident Replacement votes], House of Commons, 14 March 2007
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  