Voters here chose Yes, 151 votes to 117, yet the floor’s most-respected arguments were No. That mismatch matters: the winning side carried the decision with fewer, less highly rated contributions, while the losing side supplied the room’s clearest account of why the boundary between soldier and border guard should hold.
The No case was about role, capacity and institutional discipline. Its strongest voice said “the armed forces are not a police force”, while another asked, “Why can’t we resource the Border Force properly?” rather than diverting personnel from the military’s primary duties.
Yes voters instead treated the border as an extension of national defence. One argued that it is “to protect us from external enemies”, while the most highly respected Yes contribution rejected merely employing troops as “greeters” — a harder-edged case for visible control and deterrence. The two sides often talked past each other: No was debating who should do the work, Yes what it would mean if the state appeared unable to do it.
That leaves the result inside a familiar argument about state capacity and the civil-military boundary. No voices pointed to police and airport staff as capable and warned of unnecessary cost; another mocked the prospect of a military blockade by politicians who also claim the armed forces are failing. Even the lightest exchange carried the divide: against a comparison with migrating birds came the reply, “Birds are very territorial.”
The vote granted the armed forces a larger border role; it did not settle what, precisely, they would be there to do.
10 Opinions
That is not the military's role. If Border Force needs more people, hire them.
We already have costal police and other police bodies that are better equipped to carry out the job. Training and equipping the armed forces is an unnecessary step and cost.
That what's military is for, to protect us from external enemies. I always believed Border Force should be part of military.
I voted yes, but of course that supposes that they can turn away illegal migrants if shoot them. Just employing them as “greeters” for the parasites that daily ignore our borders and our laws would be counterproductive. It would just add to the impression we give of helplessness and acceptance.
It's about all they can do. Heart has been ripped out of service does it morph into other question is dei a problem!!
I find incredibly funny that reform and restore- who claim that our military is failing and that our ships cannot leave port- want the same military deployed in a WW2 style blockade if Europe.
NO Britain isn't a military state.. It's hard enough recruiting armed forces personnel as it is. From experience most people who join the forces do so to protect our country, not to be security guards.
Border police and airport staff are more than capable of 'dealing' with these 'problems'. Personally, I say borders are kinda stupid. I wish we were like the birds; they don't shoot each other for migrating, and we shouldn't progress towards any kind of ICE/gestapo-esque presence in this country.