Update military.md

Proposer
mjnaber
State

Rejected

Vote Score

0

Age

2314 days


@mjnaber edited manifesto/military.md - over 6 years ago

All foreign deployment of UK Armed Forces, as well as the use of UK Special Advisors and the provision of military support in foreign conflict zones, should be subject to Parliamentary approval.

Membership of, and relationships with bodies, such as NATO, UN and the European Union should be managed with a clear view of the role that they play in the reduction (or otherwise) of the likelihood of war or other armed conflict in the future.

Defence Budget

Reviews of defence budgets should be tied to a review of commitments, not just expenditure, to ensure that UK Armed Forces are properly equipped and trained for role our defence and foreign policies are demanding of them.

Reviews of defence budgets should be tied to a review of commitments, not just expenditure, to ensure that UK Armed Forces are properly equipped and trained for role our defence and foreign policies are demanding of them.

mjnaber

@mjnaber - over 6 years ago

Keep a clear view of the role that the the UN, EU, NATO and other bodies play in reducing the likelihood of war.

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - over 6 years ago

I want to give this a thumbs up, but would you mind expanding this slightly? What is the problem that you're trying to solve? How will this PR solve that problem? I believe our relationships with each of these bodies is very clearly and explicitly defined within each of the founding treaties. Perhaps I'm wrong - I'd like to know more about your thoughts on this.

mjnaber

@mjnaber - over 6 years ago

I'm just trying to make sure that sure that arguments about (for example) straight bananas, and fear-mongering about immigration from Eastern Europe don't drown out the historical reasons for the existence of organizations like these: they were mostly set up in response to the two world wars to try to bind together nations and peoples in order to prevent the emergence of the kinds of conditions that lead to war. I think that an explicit recognition of this fundamental, but rarely explicitly stated, role will help to promote sensible decision-making about the relationships that countries have with them.

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - over 6 years ago

OK with you now. So it's about better communicating some of the positive reasons for our involvement in these organisations - there are of course others. I agree with the principle/sentiment but perhaps this PR could be broadened to incorporate other reasons for supporting an 'internationalist' approach to foreign policy? Or indeed stating that we believe in that principle and will work towards enlargement of these bodies by bringing other nation states onboard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics)

mjnaber

@mjnaber - over 6 years ago

Yes, ok, fair point... I'll try to make time to have a more thoughtful rewrite of this tonight. I'm slightly concerned that it might "spill out" a little from the Military theme of this part of the manifesto, but maybe that's ok.

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - over 6 years ago

Sounds good. Could always go into the Foreign Policy section?

mjnaber

@mjnaber - over 6 years ago

Yes, maybe, but I think making it explicit that such discussions really do have "Military" consequences is one of the things I'd like to keep clear. I'll try to come up with something coherent tonight.

philipjohn

@philipjohn - over 6 years ago

Can I suggest this PR pass, but we have another, perhaps under Foreign Policy, to apply the same principle to the other benefits, as @PaulJRobinson suggests?

mjnaber

@mjnaber - over 6 years ago

I'm just in the process of re-hashing this now, so might be best to kill this one and I'll put something more coherent together in the next few minutes.

mjnaber

@mjnaber - over 6 years ago

Sorry to dither, but I think the two changes I've just proposed are a bit better reflection of what I was trying to achieve.

Floppy

@Floppy - over 6 years ago

I'll close this, as I think it's superceded by #165 and #166. Let me know if that's wrong. BTW, @mjnaber, welcome to the project, thanks for getting right in there and making a load of contributions! Long may it continue :)

mjnaber

@mjnaber - over 6 years ago

Great, thanks. I love the idea of a fully developed manifesto from a completely open organisation without parties involved. It'll be fun to see how it develops and what sort of cross-section of people it attracts. In some ways it would be good to have a few more people with more diverse views to really test things, but I guess it's still at the stage of putting together something that people can really get a feel for. If it grows in participation (which I really hope it does!) then it's going to be interesting to see how it pans out. I suspect I will be a fits and starts contributor (life is busy!).

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - over 6 years ago

Come along to a meetup later this month where I believe @floppy will be presenting our work so far to a group of 100 (or so) Cleanweb enthusiasts.

http://www.meetup.com/Cleanweb-London/events/161697522/

mjnaber

@mjnaber - over 6 years ago

Looks interesting, but I'm a long way from London (West Wales)! Do you webcast or record events?

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - over 6 years ago

Good question! Are you at that stage yet @Floppy?

Floppy

@Floppy - over 6 years ago

The event will be recorded and put online some time later, but the manifesto will only be a short mention really, just to tell people about it. The event itself should be interesting though :)