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

M422 - NATO and Defence Spending Motion 2017 Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    NATO and Defence Spending Motion 2017 (TSR Libertarian Party, seconded by Quamquam123 MP)

    This house believes that the government and the Secretary of State for Defence should make a formal commitment to our membership of NATO and also commit to spending at least 3% of the budget on defence to increase the welfare of our armed forces as well as the quality of equipment.

    Notes:

    In these trying days that we currently face, NATO is under threat, the new president of the United States has repeatedly suggested that he will withdraw if others do not pay their way; in my opinion 2% is not enough considering the threats out there in the world today: Daesh, Vladimir Putin; Iran now they are in possession of nuclear weapons.

    This motion commits the country to NATO and is a sign of solidarity with our long lasting allies.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Aye!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    aye
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Aye - I think at least 3% spending on NATO and defence is responsible.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    nay
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, this motion is my own and I'm happy to take any questions in regard to it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Aye, this motion is my own and I'm happy to take any questions in regard to it.
    Do you think the government will ignore this and would you encourage this be implemented if you enter a coalition( probably with us if you form and do well)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    nay
    What're your reservations?
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Do you think the government will ignore this and would you encourage this be implemented if you enter a coalition( probably with us if you form and do well)
    I trust the right honourable members of the Labour Party to respect parliamentary sovereignty and follow up on any successful motions.

    I wouldn't be so sure that we will enter a hypothetical coalition with your party, considering the attitudes of some of your leaders towards our formation.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. The UK already meets NATO standards by making military expenditure 2.0% of its GDP and that makes it the 5th largest military spender in the world.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    NATO is under threat, but also irrelevant, and 3% dear god, Labour refused even 2% a couple of terms back (including IIRC the seconder)
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It must be some kind of record for a party to subvert the expectations of the electorate before it's fully formed - never mind before it contests an election. God forbid the government spends to help vulnerable people but buying more guns? Sure let's put a few billion more into that.

    If this passes rest assured it'll be funded wholly by punitive taxation on the richest - not one penny will be diverted from public services or those with the least to fund this vanity.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It must be some kind of record for a party to subvert the expectations of the electorate before it's fully formed - never mind before it contests an election. God forbid the government spends to help vulnerable people but buying more guns? Sure let's put a few billion more into that.

    If this passes rest assured it'll be funded wholly by punitive taxation on the richest - not one penny will be diverted from public services or those with the least to fund this vanity.
    Weak on defence! Weak on defence!

    Then again, hardly news that Labour is weak on defence :mmm:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    If this passes rest assured it'll be funded wholly by punitive taxation on the richest - not one penny will be diverted from public services or those with the least to fund this vanity.
    I think the tories should think carefully now!
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.

    (Original post by Connor27)
    I trust the right honourable members of the Labour Party to respect parliamentary sovereignty and follow up on any successful motions.

    I wouldn't be so sure that we will enter a hypothetical coalition with your party, considering the attitudes of some of your leaders towards our formation.
    I would like to know where I explicitly said I was against the formation of the Libertarians.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Aye.



    I would like to know where I explicitly said I was against the formation of the Libertarians.
    You didn't; I was more talking about the leader of the opposition, and the two former prime ministers currently in the shadow cabinet.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It must be some kind of record for a party to subvert the expectations of the electorate before it's fully formed - never mind before it contests an election. God forbid the government spends to help vulnerable people but buying more guns? Sure let's put a few billion more into that.

    If this passes rest assured it'll be funded wholly by punitive taxation on the richest - not one penny will be diverted from public services or those with the least to fund this vanity.
    With this sort of rhetoric, I'm dreading the defence SoI, I can also see why you appointed a non-entity that I can safely say I've never seen post in the MHoC as defence secretary.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    You didn't; I was more talking about the leader of the opposition, and the two former prime ministers currently in the shadow cabinet.
    No mention of other people from other parties that have also been criticising adam9317 actions? The criticism isn't just focused from our party. mobbsy91 has stated that he has nothing against the party, he only has a problem with

    a) with the CT for not giving them a sub-forum on here, and b) the blatant ignoring of the Constitution by the Speaker and his lack of due diligence of ensuring that proposed members are actually interested, and not already in other Parties.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, we should commit to NATO but seek to revise spending downwards, not upwards. Pretty sure 3% of government spending < 2% of GDP too.

    Also, in the Libers' very first motion they managed to write something contradictory to Liber philosophy? :laugh:
 
 
 
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: February 11, 2017
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.