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

M422 - NATO and Defence Spending Motion 2017 Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, 3% budget? so minimum 1.2% GDP (and with a proper government have even Ireland outspend us), how about fix the motion.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, ray provided fine reasons for this, as he usually does
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Yeah, 3% budget? so minimum 1.2% GDP (and with a proper government have even Ireland outspend us), how about fix the motion.
    Ah, indeed the wording was off, I'll correct that for division.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Ah, indeed the wording was off, I'll correct that for division.
    Expect labour to "we didn't whip" whip it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics)
    Aye - I think at least 3% spending on NATO and defence is responsible.
    The motion is unclear, on first I reading I interpreted it as being 3% of the existing defence budget to be spent improving the welfare of troops, however, if the motion is calling for 3% of government spending to spent on the military, the motion is calling for a 43% cut in defence spending.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    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:
    That is true, this motion is calling for a 43% decrease in defence spending.
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, good idea
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    That is true, this motion is calling for a 43% decrease in defence spending.
    I would read my reply to JD, was poorly worded, I meant 3% of GDP, this will be corrected for division.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm unconvinced.

    If all NATO members coughed up the 2% then that ought to be enough, no?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I'm unconvinced.

    If all NATO members coughed up the 2% then that ought to be enough, no?
    But most don't want to, why spend 2% when the likes of us and the US will spending for them?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But most don't want to, why spend 2% when the likes of us and the US will spending for them?
    Well perhaps sanctions ought to be in place to make it a proper condition of membership?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Well perhaps sanctions ought to be in place to make it a proper condition of membership?
    Remind us who's in government again? And also, why the libers are saying NATO is under threat in the first place
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    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.
    It seems you are disappointed - were you instead hoping that I'd divert resources from my government's left-wing platform and from the poorest in society to get the approx £14 billion (I'm assuming you lot meant % of GDP, not government spending) this petition is asking for?

    We will be fiscally prudent and spend what needs to be spent to keep the nation safe - we won't pluck a percentage out of thin air, wasting billions for the sake of spending taxpayer money. It is very concerning that you'd seek to put ideas in the heads of my coalition partners.

    Your not knowing my Defence Secretary (understandable given he's changed his username since his most prominent days and has given up some time to found a Model House of Commons on another website) does not make him a non-entity. He is an eminently qualified and respected member of the House.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It seems you are disappointed - were you instead hoping that I'd divert resources from my government's left-wing platform and from the poorest in society to get the approx £14 billion (I'm assuming you lot meant % of GDP, not government spending) this petition is asking for?

    We will be fiscally prudent and spend what needs to be spent to keep the nation safe - we won't pluck a percentage out of thin air, wasting billions for the sake of spending taxpayer money. It is very concerning that you'd seek to put ideas in the heads of my coalition partners.

    Your not knowing my Defence Secretary (understandable given he's changed his username since his most prominent days and has given up some time to found a Model House of Commons on another website) does not make him a non-entity. He is an eminently qualified and respected member of the House.
    So does this mean that you are slashing spending? Oh, you don't actually mean fiscally prudent
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So does this mean that you are slashing spending? Oh, you don't actually mean fiscally prudent
    It means we'll spend on specific things we need rather than saying 'you know what, I feel like spending 14 billion more on defence today'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It means we'll spend on specific things we need rather than saying 'you know what, I feel like spending 14 billion more on defence today'.
    Jammy Duel I'm sure he's done his fiscal multiplier calculations.
    TheDefiniteArticle am I right? Please share your figures
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It means we'll spend on specific things we need rather than saying 'you know what, I feel like spending 14 billion more on defence today'.
    It really is not hard given the dire state the forces have been left in.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It really is not hard given the dire state the forces have been left in.
    Hear, hear!

    The traitorous left all hate our veterans and would gladly have the heros that fight for this country do so with poor, underfunded equipment and resources.

    In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister openly supports a terrorist organisation that illegally murdered British soldiers.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Hear, hear!

    The traitorous left all hate our veterans.
    Don't forget the pseudo right.
    Offline

    2
    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.
    It's disappointing that, when told he can't leave derelict his foremost responsibility as head of HM Government, the Prime Minister feels the need to mope. I'll support this no matter who ends up paying for it, and eventually cooler heads will come into office and ensure that our national security can be adequately sustained and funded.
 
 
 
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.