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

VM422 - NATO and Defence Spending Motion 2017 Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this motion be passed?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    40.00%
    On the contrary, No
    51.11%
    Abstain
    8.89%

    • 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% GDP 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.

    Changes for division:

    Amended the wording to make it clear that it's 3% of GDP, not the budget.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Again, nay.

    The UK's current defense spending is 2.0% of its GDP and that puts it in the top 5 for military expenditure worldwide.

    I do not see a significant reason for increasing it by 50% when its current level meets the NATO requirements. MoD reports have not indicated a need for nor recommended an increase of 50% in spending (although they'd probably like it)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Scrap NATO, it causes more problems than it solves.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    NATO doesn't even fight terrorism, if it did then I'd say yes
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. 3% of GDP on defence is obscene.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Our taxpayers shouldn't be making up for other countries not spending enough.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No reason why we shouldn't invest in our defences. Some within the Labour and the Socialist Parties may like to think otherwise, but this world isn't exactly sunshine and roses and regardless of our NATO commitment, we should do all we can to ensure the defence of the nation. And if that means a 1% rise, then so be it! It's an aye from me!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    An enthusiastic aye.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Our taxpayers shouldn't be making up for other countries not spending enough.
    Article 5 is not at all specific in terms of what needs to be contributed, in theory providing but a single man would satisfy the article, and the case of Afghanistan shows how absurd your argument is.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. The Cold War of old may have ended but we face threats from an expansionist Russia and would be Islamic caliphates who would seek to disrupt our global interests and these people cannot be left to their own devices.

    (Original post by zayn008)
    NATO doesn't even fight terrorism, if it did then I'd say yes
    We did fight terrorism in Afghanistan and article 5 was engaged. Granted, the treaty obligations around funding and military contributions need sprucing.

    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Our taxpayers shouldn't be making up for other countries not spending enough.
    This logic only applies if you believe that the UK should only act as part of NATO. If you to shape this world then there are times that we will need to act bilaterally rather than multilaterally (NATO).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Quamquam123 how can you second a bill and not vote aye?!?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
    No reason why we shouldn't invest in our defences. Some within the Labour and the Socialist Parties may like to think otherwise, but this world isn't exactly sunshine and roses and regardless of our NATO commitment, we should do all we can to ensure the defence of the nation. And if that means a 1% rise, then so be it! It's an aye from me!
    Hear hear!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Quamquam123 how can you second a bill and not vote aye?!?
    I seconded this motion to allow a debate to happen, not necessarily because I agree with the it, because the Libertarian Party originally thought they required a motion to submit it. They do however require an MP to second future bills they create which I have offered to do, even if I might not agree with all of them. Hope that makes sense.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
    No reason why we shouldn't invest in our defences. Some within the Labour and the Socialist Parties may like to think otherwise, but this world isn't exactly sunshine and roses and regardless of our NATO commitment, we should do all we can to ensure the defence of the nation. And if that means a 1% rise, then so be it! It's an aye from me!
    It means a 50% rise in actual spending (about 14 billion).
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Hear hear!
    So much for fiscal conservatism.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    No. The government will look at the figures and spend what needs to be spent to keep the country safe - not spend billions more just to meet a semi-party's arbitrary target.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It means a 50% rise in actual spending (about 14 billion).
    It'd allow for an improvement of our defences, something I will never vote down.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    So much for fiscal conservatism.
    When it comes to defence, I don't think we should be leaving anything to chance. We should be taking all opportunities to better protect the United Kingdom and its citizens.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
    It'd allow for an improvement of our defences, something I will never vote down.

    When it comes to defence, I don't think we should be leaving anything to chance. We should be taking all opportunities to better protect the United Kingdom and its citizens.
    If you knew about the Army 2020 reforms you'd know that the future of our national defence is a more efficient, more streamlined and more effective force. Blindly spending more and more because it feels good and patriotic to do rather than actually looking at the specifics and basing your spending plans on those is neither sustainable no responsible.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It means a 50% rise in actual spending (about 14 billion).
    What are we taking as the UK GDP for this for you might find if you're cheeky and include capital expenditure very little will be needed over the next half decade to satisfy the motion.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It means a 50% rise in actual spending (about 14 billion).
    Not enough in my opinion.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    So much for fiscal conservatism.
    We would be happy to discuss measures to pay for it.
 
 
 
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 15, 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.