How wars/conflicts are declared.

sanaxe1 · 28 Jun 2011 at 13:21

Ok so this is inspired by a reddit post. Firstly I know we have all sorts of agreements with countries such as NATO etc so lets make this a hypothetical question were they do not exist.

Would you prefer it if any offensive conflicts like libya or wars like Afghanistan and Iraq could only be declared after a national referendum. And any person that votes yes automatically gets put down as a reserve/volunteer which can be called upon for the war effort. ( They will be assigned to what ever skill they have )

I personally think that this would be a better then just letting the politicians decide as although we have entrusted them to speak for us, we all know that this is not the case be that from other counties putting pressure on the government or Lobbying from large companies which could profit from the wars. I also think it limits the propaganda / agendas of certain types of media.

I also think that when a person knows that they could be called up for the war it makes them think more about what they are voting for as it seems to me like war is desensitized as the wars are half way around the world.This means the average person has no idea about the true cost of wars for example all the civilians killed and soldiers etc. The average person is just going on with there life's as usual. Sure they see it in the news but its a farcry from being told right see all that blood shed you say you agree to down the pub? Well pack your bags your going there.

Tefal · 28 Jun 2011 at 13:25

one big problem with this is it wouldn't be a secrete ballot and would be open to massive abuse because of that.

Strife212 · 28 Jun 2011 at 13:27

It's absurd because most people are not soldiers and you would never manage to get any war declared ever so all the British overseas territories would be seized and we'd be a laughing stock.

Oh, you said offensive wars, well, you'd still never manage to go to war.

sanaxe1 · 28 Jun 2011 at 13:30

Strife212 said:
It's absurd because most people are not soldiers and you would never manage to get any war declared ever so all the British overseas territories would be seized and we'd be a laughing stock.

I'm not saying that they would 100% be called up, only for emergencies. If they have a skill which the military currently needs due to shortages say a engineer they will then be called up.

TFleming · 28 Jun 2011 at 13:42

Absolutely not. You would be allowing huge decisions to be made by people who may have no idea about wars and the economic/political cosequences. It's a little the same with election voting, idiots who vote for parties like the BNP who really have no grasp of any intelligence regarding the economic and political effect of that party being in power (which of course, they never would). Infact I would go as far to say a lot of the public have a minimal understanding of politics and its parties and vote on one policy, like immigration while ignoring the rest, however, that's all part of being a democracy.

Also, this kind of system would entice people into saying no when yes may of been the correct path in the long run. If you are conscripted to go to war, I for one would vote no, as would the majority of people who have important jobs and responsibilities.

Gilly · 28 Jun 2011 at 13:43

Nope. The politicians, however much maligned, have far more of an idea what is going on than Joe Public - who reads the daily mail or associated other rubbish 'newspapers'.

Cosimo · 28 Jun 2011 at 13:46

Lol who in their right frame of mind would let the idiots (the great British public) decide on wars. Christ we'll be going to war over football.

The Dread Pirate · 28 Jun 2011 at 13:51

"Of course you realise... this means war!"

DBT85 · 28 Jun 2011 at 13:54

sanaxe1 said:
Would you prefer it if any offensive conflicts like libya or wars like Afghanistan and Iraq could only be declared after a national referendum. And any person that votes yes automatically gets put down as a reserve/volunteer which can be called upon for the war effort. ( They will be assigned to what ever skill they have )

What a silly idea.

a) Even ignoring the point about people being enlisted if they say yes, the general population is stupid as a whole. Allowing drunk Steve to have a say in whether we should help liberate a country or shoot up some terrorists is just ridiculous as they won't have a clue what is actually going on. "The people" as a whole have no idea why certain things happen because they frankly don't give a crap as its NIMBY most of the time.

b) The British armed forces are some of the most highly trained in the world and as a result are perfectly trained for every role that needs to be filled. Sending drunk Steve out there with them would be utterly utterly dangerous even if his only role was to wash plates in the mess.

It's up there with making all young offenders join the services. They don't want them, they need to know that every single person around them has their back. Drunk Steve's wastrel son isn't going to stand and have Hero Johns back, he's going to run for cover and leave Hero John to save the world alone.

Castiel · 28 Jun 2011 at 13:55

We elect politicians to make these kind of decisions for us, they are generally far more informed and have a wealth of information and qualified advisors that we the Public do not have as to the veracity and necessity of any declaration of War or any offensive action that is deemed necessary.

Having a referendum every time we need to defend our national interests by force would make us both a laughing stock and militarily ineffective.

DBT85 · 28 Jun 2011 at 14:03

Castiel said:
Having a referendum every time we need to defend our national interests by force would make us both a laughing stock and militarily ineffective.

Not to mention ridiculously expensive.

Mason- · 28 Jun 2011 at 14:07

Basically the elderly wouldn't be able to vote because they'd have to vote no unless you want a whole regiment with zimmer frames

alex_tank · 28 Jun 2011 at 14:11

Democracy isn't about every single person having a personal say on every policy, it's about having someone represent you and do so on your behalf. Would people ever vote for more taxes?

Suppose this happened and parliament passed this bill which sounds like it's straight from The Sun. How would Britain ever vote yes for war under any circumstances, especially after a very unpopular war like Iraq.

sanaxe1 · 28 Jun 2011 at 14:16

But isn't that the point? Why should we be involved in these wars? The only time we should is if we are defending ourselves. What benefit has the Iraqi war had on the british people? If there is no benefit for the people yet we still decide to go then obviously someone else is benefiting and the whole they are representing us is defunct. Hence i proposed a referendum. The volunteer thing was to try to counter act rash decisions people make from scare tactics used by media to form public opinion by making them really think about there decision.

mmj_uk · 28 Jun 2011 at 14:22

A better idea would be to enlist the family of politicians who agree to go to war, they might not be so apathetic about voting yes if they stand to lose a family member. Even that is flawed though because they'd make damn sure their family were not in any realistic danger as with the Royals.

alex_tank said:
Democracy isn't about every single person having a personal say on every policy, it's about having someone represent you and do so on your behalf. Would people ever vote for more taxes?

Isn't that just the same as a dictatorship putting forward a new dictator for people to vote on every 4 years? if people would never vote on more taxes but politicians are doing it anyway how is that a representative democracy?

Castiel · 28 Jun 2011 at 14:24

sanaxe1 said:
But isn't that the point? Why should we be involved in these wars? The only time we should is if we are defending ourselves. What benefit has the Iraqi war had on the british people? If there is no benefit for the people yet we still decide to go then obviously someone else is benefiting and the whole they are representing us is defunct. Hence i proposed a referendum. The volunteer thing was to try to counter act rash decisions from scare tactics used by media to form public opinion by making them really think about there decision.

This highlights the reason why referendum are a daft idea. Just because you do not see what benefit the removal of Hussein had on Energy Security to name but one aspect of our national security doesn't mean that there are no benefits.

Better we elect those that do have the relevant knowledge or at least the ability to obtain that information which forms that knowledge than relying on several million Sun and Daily Mail readers for our foreign policy.

alex_tank · 28 Jun 2011 at 14:26

sanaxe1 said:
But isn't that the point? Why should we be involved in these wars? The only time we should is if we are defending ourselves. What benefit has the Iraqi war had on the british people? If there is no benefit for the people yet we still decide to go then obviously someone else is benefiting and the whole they are representing us is defunct. Hence i proposed a referendum. The volunteer thing was to try to counter act rash decisions people make from scare tactics used by media to form public opinion by making them really think about there decision.

It's obviously not going to directly benefit British people in the short term. What benefit is UN peacekeeping or the Lybian NATO airstrikes to Britain? There's no imminent war of national survival and Europe is mostly pretty stable now but the wars fought today are generally to keep regional stability... which however unpopular and ugly arguably benefit Britain in the long run.

DBT85 · 28 Jun 2011 at 14:27

sanaxe1 said:
But isn't that the point? Why should we be involved in these wars? The only time we should is if we are defending ourselves. What benefit has the Iraqi war had on the british people? If there is no benefit for the people yet we still decide to go then obviously someone else is benefiting and the whole they are representing us is defunct. Hence i proposed a referendum. The volunteer thing was to try to counter act rash decisions from scare tactics used by media to form public opinion by making them really think about there decision.

IF Iraq had actually possessed WMD with Saddam in charge would you still think the same?

You cant exactly put out a vote and say "we'll we think he has some WMD so we wanna shot him" and expect people to vote on it. Some people will vote no just because they can, some will vote no because they don't believe the govt, some will vote no because they haven't seen what the govt has seen. More importantly it takes weeks to organise a vote and get the issues known to the public as it is. In a time of war you might have days.

Now, in this case Iraq didn't have anything. Could have easily been the other way around though.

Unless you are willing for every man and woman to have access to exactly the same information as the politicians have access to, and give them a week off work to go through it all in detail and make a decision, it's just not possible.

Not to mention most people have zero useful skills for war. My mum can type and clean and cook, my dad can sit, I can use a computer and monitor TV, my brother can make websites. Our armed services are already equipped and staffed to deal with this. They don't need Joe Public getting in the way, getting offended when we shoot a kid who had a bomb strapped to his chest etc.

The only people fighting for this country should be those that spend years training for it, everyone else should stay well out of the way. The only people that should be deciding on when we go to war are those we democratically elect to do the right thing. Don't think they are doing enough in your interest? Get elected.

No matter what govt. was in power at the time, if Mr General walks in and slaps a document on your desk saying "He's got big ass bombs and he's going to kill millions with them" they would take the country to war. ALL of them would have done it.

Bumhug · 28 Jun 2011 at 14:39

Every vote comes down to what political party you support. If a conservative government decided to go to war against nation X then labour would oppose it and then use the referendum to weaken the government. We would never find out the truth as to whats going on in Nation X all we would get is political spin.

TFleming · 28 Jun 2011 at 17:09

sanaxe1 said:
The volunteer thing was to try to counter act rash decisions people make from scare tactics used by media to form public opinion by making them really think about there decision.

It would do the exact opposite. People would vote no even if they thought yes as they pressumably won't want to go to war seeing as they're not in the armed forces.