Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

TSR National Liberal Party Q&A - Ask/Join here! Watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If we have the last SoI to go by the minister really will not.
    Well then don't put it on me as chancellor to do his dirty work for him then
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Well then don't put it on me as chancellor to do his dirty work for him then
    Oh, and collective responsibility is a thing in this government, right?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Oh, and collective responsibility is a thing in this government, right?
    Does LP expect you to fulfil his responsibilities as leader? I doubt it, but either way, you're not expected to. I'm not expected to go into detail about defence policy as Chancellor, I do spending and revenues, that's it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    The fact you seek to fulfil one obligation but not another highlights for me how arbitrary it is. You as a party do not seek multilateral disarmament or to de-scale our nuclear weapons, though you do wish to spend £50bn+ on defence but on what?



    I'm not the Defence Secretary...
    It's not arbitrary. I don't think you understand the meaning of the term. Arbitrary is something that is based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. We are committing to the minimum 2% GDP due to the reason that is asked of us from NATO.

    If you want to talk about something arbitrary, lets talk about your party that has suddenly decided that security threats don't exist, and have imposed cuts of the armed Forces for no rational security reason whatsoever.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    It's not arbitrary. I don't think you understand the meaning of the term. Arbitrary is something that is based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. We are committing to the 2% GDP due to the reason that it is asked of us from NATO.

    If you want to talk about something arbitrary, lets talk about your party that has suddenly decided that security threats don't exist, and have imposed cuts of the armed Forces for no rational security reason whatsoever.
    But the fact that you don't commit to the obligations to either de-scale our nuclear arsenal or actively try and achieve multilateral disarmament as per the ICJ, goes to show that it is indeed arbitrary and has nothing to do with international obligations.

    We have a more focussed defence policy which puts our cyber security and counter terrorism efforts at paramount importance. These will be elaborated on by our Defence Secretary when he puts out his SoIs and Review
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    But the fact that you don't commit to the obligations to either de-scale our nuclear arsenal or actively try and achieve multilateral disarmament as per the ICJ, goes to show that it is indeed arbitrary and has nothing to do with international obligations.

    We have a more focussed defence policy which puts our cyber security and counter terrorism efforts at paramount importance. These will be elaborated on by our Defence Secretary when he puts out his SoIs and Review
    Disarmament in an increasingly unstable international atmosphere would be the wrong idea.

    We also would like to emphasise cyber security and counter terrorism. Its seems strange that you are cutting those services (defence).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    But the fact that you don't commit to the obligations to either de-scale our nuclear arsenal or actively try and achieve multilateral disarmament as per the ICJ, goes to show that it is indeed arbitrary and has nothing to do with international obligations.

    We have a more focussed defence policy which puts our cyber security and counter terrorism efforts at paramount importance. These will be elaborated on by our Defence Secretary when he puts out his SoIs and Review
    Care to show us the ICJ ruling, because when it came up last time you were waving in our faces a clause in the NNPT and related documents that didn't even say what you thought they said?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    Disarmament in an increasingly unstable international atmosphere would be the wrong idea.

    We also would like to emphasise cyber security and counter terrorism. Its seems strange that you are cutting those services (defence).
    That's strange, because I could have sworn that in the budget we increased spending in those very departments.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Care to show us the ICJ ruling, because when it came up last time you were waving in our faces a clause in the NNPT and related documents that didn't even say what you thought they said?
    There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control".

    http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index....4&case=95&p3=5
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=James Milibanter;62258187]That's strange, because I could have sworn that in the budget we increased spending in those very departments.



    There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control".

    http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=498&p1=3&p2=4&case =95&p3=5[/QUOTE]
    Erm no. Given that the armed forces make up a large part of the counter terror, cyber intelligence and intelligence forces, why cut them?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    That's strange, because I could have sworn that in the budget we increased spending in those very departments.



    There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control".

    http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index....4&case=95&p3=5
    Once again, it does not say what you think it does, it says the exact same as the stuff you were waving around before, and does not mandate by any stretch of the imagination any form of disarmament. In fact, I think the more interesting part of the whole thing is that they basically say that nuclear weapons to use in the form that they are generally deployed, and the way we deploy them, as a second strike system.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Once again, it does not say what you think it does, it says the exact same as the stuff you were waving around before, and does not mandate by any stretch of the imagination any form of disarmament. In fact, I think the more interesting part of the whole thing is that they basically say that nuclear weapons to use in the form that they are generally deployed, and the way we deploy them, as a second strike system.
    I know what it says, basically, it gives the obligation that a state must seek all routes to multilateral disarmament before having a nuclear arsenal that is the bare minimum a state needs to remain "safe". It condemns first strike systems and also outlaws the use of a nuclear weapon.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    Erm no. Given that the armed forces make up a large part of the counter terror, cyber intelligence and intelligence forces, why cut them?
    We increased funding for them, check the report for yourself.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I know what it says, basically, it gives the obligation that a state must seek all routes to multilateral disarmament before having a nuclear arsenal that is the bare minimum a state needs to remain "safe". It condemns first strike systems and also outlaws the use of a nuclear weapon.
    Ummmm...

    "However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;"

    Did we read the same thing?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummmm...

    "However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;"

    Did we read the same thing?
    There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons;
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons;
    There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such;
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such;
    So you could say it's 50 shades of grey
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    We increased funding for them, check the report for yourself.
    Link the report?

    Have you or have you not cut the defence budget?

    Given that the armed forces work together, sharing resources and personnel, it is irrelevant whether you have increased the spending in one budget or another - cuts hit the entire efficiency of the armed forces.

    More to the point, if you have cut the armed forces, you have cut the recruiting base for the UKSF (counter terror) and you have also hampered the ability of the intelligence services to do their job.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    Link the report?

    Have you or have you not cut the defence budget?

    Given that the armed forces work together, sharing resources and personnel, it is irrelevant whether you have increased the spending in one budget or another - cuts hit the entire efficiency of the armed forces.

    More to the point, if you have cut the armed forces, you have cut the recruiting base for the UKSF (counter terror) and you have also hampered the ability of the intelligence services to do their job.
    Trident has been scaled back as the house demanded by voted against full renewal and full disarmament, which saved £1.4bn, then we increased other areas by £1.4bn in turn which resulted in the overall budget remaining the same
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Trident has been scaled back as the house demanded by voted against full renewal and full disarmament, which saved £1.4bn, then we increased other areas by £1.4bn in turn which resulted in the overall budget remaining the same
    You did not increase other areas by 1.4bn, you increased them by 800m.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You did not increase other areas by 1.4bn, you increased them by 800m.
    Other than Trident we increased the budget by £1.4bn
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 8, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.