Military Coup Poll

[carlton43]

This is an odd poll and so unrealistic a set of circumstances that one must doubt the results shown. I would be in the NO column on all of those questions. But I can envisage situations where I would support a coup and I imagine most of us might under extreme circumstances.

[The Bishop]

Some of those figures are disturbingly high, actually.

Shows how some on the right aren't really that committed to genuine democracy - but we knew that anyway......

[carlton43]

Oct 17, 2015 11:39:23 GMT The Bishop said:

Some of those figures are disturbingly high, actually.

Shows how some on the right aren't really that committed to genuine democracy - but we knew that anyway......

But in the realms of unreality unreal answers will be given bish. I don't believe those are the real reactions that would obtain. I also don't think all those voting for a coup would all be on the right either.

[Pete Whitehead]

Oct 17, 2015 11:39:23 GMT The Bishop said:

Some of those figures are disturbingly high, actually.

Shows how some on the right aren't really that committed to genuine democracy - but we knew that anyway......

Yes it would be mostly those on the right who would support the Armed forces in a coup especially for most of those scenarios listed. But I doubt you would find a greater commitment to democratic principles by those on the left if the questions were phrased slightly differently eg. supporting an 'insurrection' to use the words of your shadow chancellor, or to use say trade union power to bring down an elected government

[The Bishop]

I completely accept all those points (carlton and Pete) Still, this is the sort of thing one can expect when there is a concerted attempt by *some* on the political right and their media backers to deny legitimacy to a political figure and their positions. In the event that Corbyn was to lead Labour into the next GE and win it (I happen to think both of those eventualities are unlikely, but nonetheless) he will have much right to govern as any previous PM. Oppose him all you want, as vigorously as you want, with all the invective you want, but if we lose sight of that fundamental principle we are really in the s**t.

[Devil Wincarnate]

Oct 17, 2015 11:56:53 GMT The Bishop said:

I completely accept all those points (carlton and Pete) Still, this is the sort of thing one can expect when there is a concerted attempt by *some* on the political right and their media backers to deny legitimacy to a political figure and their positions. In the event that Corbyn was to lead Labour into the next GE and win it (I happen to think both of those eventualities are unlikely, but nonetheless) he will have much right to govern as any previous PM. Oppose him all you want, as vigorously as you want, with all the invective you want, but if we lose sight of that fundamental principle we are really in the s**t.

Entirely agree.  Same with the morons who seem to think that them not getting their way at the last election means that the Tories are an illegitimate government.  It's that tendency on both left and right that wants democracy to be a rubber stamp for their views, not a genuine demonstration of the will of the people.

[peterl]

I could certainly see circumstances where a military coup would be warranted, so I would answer yes.

Government legislated to abolish armed forces: Yes. We need a military more than we need politicians. Cuts to the military may also justify it if they went far enough.
Government abolished the monarchy: Yes. The government has no authority to do this, it would be treason and the military would have every right to remove them from office to protect the monarchy.
Nuclear disarmament: No. There are convincing arguments in favour of nuclear disarmament.
Government withdrew from NATO: No.
X becomes Prime Minister: No. As of itself, any given person becoming PM would not justify it, but what they try to do in office could.

At the end of the day, the primary duty of the armed forces is to defend our country. If the government turn themselves into the enemy by opposing the military or the monarchy or by establishing a tyranny, the armed forces have the right and duty to protect our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[carlton43]

Oct 17, 2015 13:12:55 GMT peterl said:

I could certainly see circumstances where a military coup would be warranted, so I would answer yes.

Government legislated to abolish armed forces: Yes. We need a military more than we need politicians. Cuts to the military may also justify it if they went far enough.
Government abolished the monarchy: Yes. The government has no authority to do this, it would be treason and the military would have every right to remove them from office to protect the monarchy.
Nuclear disarmament: No. There are convincing arguments in favour of nuclear disarmament.
Government withdrew from NATO: No.
X becomes Prime Minister: No. As of itself, any given person becoming PM would not justify it, but what they try to do in office could.

At the end of the day, the primary duty of the armed forces is to defend our country. If the government turn themselves into the enemy by opposing the military or the monarchy or by establishing a tyranny, the armed forces have the right and duty to protect our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Those are dangerous thoughts and dangerous conclusions with which I do not agree. The sticking point might come if the policies carried out were not only extreme but very different from the manifesto on which the administration had been elected and had mass revolt of a majority of the electorate. Even then best to force an election and simply redress the situation by democracy. It is only if the democratic option is withdrawn by the banning of people, banning of parties, banning of policies or the removal of elections altogether impose themselves in an extreme form. I think actual civil war or a revolution is more likely and in many ways more acceptable than any form of coup. A civil war or revolution show obvious signs of a mass movement in the public. A coup might be and often is the work of a clique that may or may not have any widespread support. 

[Richard Allen]

My biggest concern about a military coup would be that I have very little faith in the ability of the armed forces to run anything. In the last decade we have had monumentally incompetent people like Sir Mike Jackson and Sir Richard Dannatt reach such high office as Chief of the General Staff. They were incapable of running the Army let alone the country.

As for a coup to get rid of Corbyn as PM, it is an absurd notion. There are much more subtle ways of preventing unacceptable risks to national security.

[johnloony]

If there were ever such an extreme situation in this country that a coup became a realistic possibility, the circumstances would be substantially different from anything that is foreseen as a scenario in a poll like this.

[john07]

I would imagine it starting rather like the end of the following sketch:

[Deleted]

The British army could never pull off a successful coup for the simple reason that its modern incarnation is no good at holding territory or at defeating insurgents, as demonstrated in Basra and Helmand. Given that it is incapable of performing some of the functions it ostensibly exists for, the idea that it could be relied upon to discharge all the other functions of state lacks credibility.

If the government were ever close to a position where the military might intervene it would most likely also be in a position where it could be removed by parliament or by public pressure forcing its hand. In these circumstances the role of the military would most likely be to offer assurances that it would not obstruct the removal of the government.

[Tony Otim]

I'm not sure that I could see the chain of command being followed effectively enough for a coup to happen in Britain (in addition to those issues mentioned above).

The only circumstances I can envisage "supporting" such a coup would be fear of being lined up against a wall and shot for not doing so . Cowardice rules!

[Deleted]

Oct 20, 2015 14:21:33 GMT Tony Otim said:

 .... being lined up against a wall and shot .....

They are unlikely to intervene in purely internal Labour Party matters ...... 

[Deleted]

The Government have all but disbanded the Army and Airforce and the navy is jus a couple of big boom booms under the water.

[greenchristian]

Oct 17, 2015 13:12:55 GMT peterl said:

I could certainly see circumstances where a military coup would be warranted, so I would answer yes.

I think we all agree that there could be extreme circumstances where a military coup is the lesser of two evils, I don't follow your thinking about a couple of these.

Government legislated to abolish armed forces: Yes. We need a military more than we need politicians. Cuts to the military may also justify it if they went far enough.

We only actually need the military if we will be engaging in military action. We need some kind of politician in order to actually run the country. There are sixteen sovereign states which have absolutely no armed forces, and no sovereign states without some form of political class (Vatican City probably comes closest to not having politicians, but it also has no armed forces). The UK does not need a military in order to exist as a sovereign state, unless we are under threat of military invasion (which we haven't been since the end of the Cold War). We may or may not need a military in order to achieve foreign policy objectives, or to hold on to overseas possessions. But it certainly isn't more important to have armed forces than it is to have a functioning government.

Government abolished the monarchy: Yes. The government has no authority to do this, it would be treason and the military would have every right to remove them from office to protect the monarchy.

I thought we established that Parliament does have the authority to abolish the monarchy (and to reinstate it) back in the 17th century. And Parliament has a lot more authority now than it had then. You could argue that we've now established a precedent that major constitutional issues should be decided by referendum, which overrules the earlier precedent, but that doesn't really support your point. But I can't see why abolishing the monarchy would necessarily be treasonous.

Nuclear disarmament: No. There are convincing arguments in favour of nuclear disarmament.

I'm not sure why you think the existence of convincing arguments is relevant. I'm sure we could all come up with examples of laws that have been passed or government policy that has been actioned which do not have a convincing argument behind them (even if we disagree with what they are). But that doesn't mean that we think those laws/policies are valid justification for a coup.

[peterl]

Oct 20, 2015 22:26:54 GMT greenchristian said:

Oct 17, 2015 13:12:55 GMT peterl said:

I could certainly see circumstances where a military coup would be warranted, so I would answer yes.

I think we all agree that there could be extreme circumstances where a military coup is the lesser of two evils, I don't follow your thinking about a couple of these.

Government legislated to abolish armed forces: Yes. We need a military more than we need politicians. Cuts to the military may also justify it if they went far enough.

We only actually need the military if we will be engaging in military action. We need some kind of politician in order to actually run the country. There are sixteen sovereign states which have absolutely no armed forces, and no sovereign states without some form of political class (Vatican City probably comes closest to not having politicians, but it also has no armed forces). The UK does not need a military in order to exist as a sovereign state, unless we are under threat of military invasion (which we haven't been since the end of the Cold War). We may or may not need a military in order to achieve foreign policy objectives, or to hold on to overseas possessions. But it certainly isn't more important to have armed forces than it is to have a functioning government.

My view (and the view of a reasonable amount of people) is that the first and foremost duty of a government is to keep the country safe. We need a military to keep us safe from any threats which may arise. The Vatican doesn't need that as they have an agreement with Italy for defence, and I imagine most countries without a military would have a similar agreement with one country or another. On the other hand, Parliament and the Cabinet could be abolished tomorrow. The bureaucrats would take over and things would be run about the same, minus the regular changes in policy.

Government abolished the monarchy: Yes. The government has no authority to do this, it would be treason and the military would have every right to remove them from office to protect the monarchy.I thought we established that Parliament does have the authority to abolish the monarchy (and to reinstate it) back in the 17th century. And Parliament has a lot more authority now than it had then. You could argue that we've now established a precedent that major constitutional issues should be decided by referendum, which overrules the earlier precedent, but that doesn't really support your point. But I can't see why abolishing the monarchy would necessarily be treasonous.

Parliament derives its power from the Monarch. The Monarch derives her power from God. We probably won't agree on either point, but its what I believe and its the principle of which our constitution was built. Parliament does in a real way act at the sufferance of the Monarch, who can both refuse assent to bills and can dissolve Parliament as her pleasure. All MPs (and soldiers for that matter) swear an oath of allegiance to the Monarch.

Nuclear disarmament: No. There are convincing arguments in favour of nuclear disarmament.

I'm not sure why you think the existence of convincing arguments is relevant. I'm sure we could all come up with examples of laws that have been passed or government policy that has been actioned which do not have a convincing argument behind them (even if we disagree with what they are). But that doesn't mean that we think those laws/policies are valid justification for a coup.

My argument here was merely that since I lean towards supporting nuclear disarmament and see it as a rational and sensible policy, I would see no reason that a military coup could be justified in this situation.

[greenchristian]

Oct 20, 2015 22:35:17 GMT peterl said:

Oct 20, 2015 22:26:54 GMT greenchristian said:

I think we all agree that there could be extreme circumstances where a military coup is the lesser of two evils, I don't follow your thinking about a couple of these.

We only actually need the military if we will be engaging in military action. We need some kind of politician in order to actually run the country. There are sixteen sovereign states which have absolutely no armed forces, and no sovereign states without some form of political class (Vatican City probably comes closest to not having politicians, but it also has no armed forces). The UK does not need a military in order to exist as a sovereign state, unless we are under threat of military invasion (which we haven't been since the end of the Cold War). We may or may not need a military in order to achieve foreign policy objectives, or to hold on to overseas possessions. But it certainly isn't more important to have armed forces than it is to have a functioning government.

My view (and the view of a reasonable amount of people) is that the first and foremost duty of a government is to keep the country safe. We need a military to keep us safe from any threats which may arise. The Vatican doesn't need that as they have an agreement with Italy for defence, and I imagine most countries without a military would have a similar agreement with one country or another. On the other hand, Parliament and the Cabinet could be abolished tomorrow. The bureaucrats would take over and things would be run about the same, minus the regular changes in policy.

If we left running the country to the civil service, senior civil servants would quickly become politicians, rather than bureaucrats. You can't make country-governing decisions for any length of time without some form of politician becoming involved.

My pointing out the number of sovereign states without a military was simply pointing out that a military is not absolutely essential to the existence of a country. Also, several of the countries on that list don't have any defence agreements with other countries (Vatican City and Costa Rica don't). And a military is only relevant if the threats to a country's safety are military ones. Threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, or climate change can't be dealt with by military force.

Government abolished the monarchy: Yes. The government has no authority to do this, it would be treason and the military would have every right to remove them from office to protect the monarchy.

I thought we established that Parliament does have the authority to abolish the monarchy (and to reinstate it) back in the 17th century. And Parliament has a lot more authority now than it had then. You could argue that we've now established a precedent that major constitutional issues should be decided by referendum, which overrules the earlier precedent, but that doesn't really support your point. But I can't see why abolishing the monarchy would necessarily be treasonous.

Parliament derives its power from the Monarch. The Monarch derives her power from God. We probably won't agree on either point, but its what I believe and its the principle of which our constitution was built. Parliament does in a real way act at the sufferance of the Monarch, who can both refuse assent to bills and can dissolve Parliament as her pleasure. All MPs (and soldiers for that matter) swear an oath of allegiance to the Monarch.

Parliament has been de facto supreme over the monarch ever since they tried Charles I. They've abolished the monarchy, restored it, and changed dynasties without it being considered treasonous to do so. I'm pretty sure the majority of constitutional scholars would agree that parliament does have the legal authority to abolish the monarchy, should it choose to do so. For at least the last century, the monarch's powers have been purely symbolic and ceremonial.

Incidentally, I would agree with you to some degree about the monarch deriving her power from God - though certainly not in the medieval "right of kings" way. But I'm not convinced that it's a constitutionally binding thing.

You may have a point about the oath of allegiance, though. I don't think abolishing the monarchy would necessarily count as treason, but it probably would count as oath-breaking.

[Pete Whitehead]

I don't think the divine right of Kings is official UKIP policy ...

[peterl]

No. Though I doubt its official repudiated either.