Should the UK have to hold a referendum before going to war, unless it is attacked first?
The UK has no legal requirement for any vote before war: deploying the armed forces is a royal prerogative power exercised by the Prime Minister and ministers. Since the 2003 Iraq vote, a convention has developed that the Commons gets to debate or vote on non-emergency military action. The government said in 2026 that the convention applies only to offensive and/or sustained action. No UK war referendum has ever been held, and the question would go further than the existing convention by requiring a public vote.
7 Opinions
Much as I hate to argue for trust in our lanyard wearers, it's totally impractical to rob them of the ability to respond rapidly in all circumstances.
No, unfortunately there may be no time to take the decision to the public and it would give significant advantage to an enemy
Because referendums are great ways to solve complex issues. Not.
Yes, we do not want a half brain, elected on 30% of all casted votes in GE, or on 24,927 votes in by election, took us to the war. It would be so obvious solution for covering all ruling class issues and incompetent decisions.
It would be disastrously slow and give adversaries total warning of our plans. Electing MPs to make these grave, intelligence based decisions is exactly how representative democracy is supposed to work
Would you really want to organise and hold a referendum to work out if we could retaliate if someone nuked us?
The current process is ample, a referendum would add ridiculous delay