If Britain were to introduce mandatory service in the event of a conflict, it may be based on existing European models.
The UK says it is not considering conscription, but this position could change in the event of a war. (Image: Getty)
As tensions soar around the world, Britons may be wondering whether they could be forced to live through a global conflict, as their ancestors did. A single event could spark a wide-ranging war, whether over China’s desire to take over Taiwan or a confrontation between NATO and Russian forces. There have even been tensions among allies, with European leaders resisting US President Donald Trump’s attempts to take over Greenland.
During the First World War, Britain introduced conscription for the first time in its history to boost its manpower after initially relying on a volunteer army, spurred on by the moustachioed secretary of war, Lord Kitchener. From March 1916, military service was compulsory for all single men aged 18 to 41, except those in jobs considered essential to the war effort, the sole support of dependents, medically unfit, or “those who could show a conscientious objection”.
Lord Kitchener mustered a volunteer army before conscription. (Image: Getty)
There were approximately 16,000 British men on record as conscientious objectors (COs) to armed service during the Great War, according to the Imperial War Museum.
Experts also noted that the usual procedure for a CO was to apply to his local tribunal for exemption from military service.
But these were run by members who were “poorly briefed” and in many cases “merely used the hearings to state their own views”.
The consideration is included in legislation adopted by some EU member states that already have an active conscription system, as lawmakers recognised the rights of objectors through national law.
An EU report stated that they instead offer the option to enrol in an alternative service programme, usually a civil or unarmed service.
The document added that the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO) highlights that the duration of the alternative service is “often proportional to that of military service”.
However, in some countries, people performing alternative service may be subject to longer periods.
In Finland, for example, COs serve for 347 days instead of 165 or 255 days of military service.
In Austria, they serve for nine months instead of six.
If the UK were to introduce conscription, which the Government said last year it is “not considering”, it may base its method on those already used on the continent, and would most likely include a CO clause.
