B1284 - Foreign Spending (2%) (Amendment) Bill 2017 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
B1284 - Foreign Spending (2%) (Amendment) Bill 2017, TSR Conservative and Unionist Party


A

BILL

TO

Amend the Foreign Spending (2%) Act 2015 to increase military spending commitments and redefine the spending base.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 Amendment of the Foreign Spending (2%) Act 2015
(1)Repeal section 1(3).
(2) In section 2(1) replace "GNI" with "GDP"
(3) In section 2(2) replace "1.5% of GNI" with "2.5% of GDP"

2 Short title and extent
(1) This Act shall come into force on 6th April 2018.
(2) This Act may be cited as the Foreign Spending (2%) (Amendment) Act 2017.
(3) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Notes

The effects of this amendment are twofold. First, is to change it so that spending is defined relative to GDP rather than GNI, this makes it far easier to work with as GDP figures are far easier to find than GNI figures. Secondly, and more significantly, it increases the defence commitment from 1.5% to 2.5%. The 1.5% is a rather peculiar figure, it is, reasonably, too much for defence, yet is too little to maintain offensive capabilities beyond our very local sphere of influence whilst also maintaining cutting edge equipment and levels of training and quality that make the British Armed Forces among the best in the world. The defence to this statement that was given, and I expect will again, is that this is merely a minimum, and not a maximum, thus there isn't an issue, this, however, is still an issue. Whilst it remains possible to spend more, even to a sensible amount, should the government of the time wish to, if they do not, unless they can repeal the commitment, it commits them to an inefficient and/or ineffective level of spending. Consequently, by increasing the minimum to a level which allows us to maintain effective forces for the purposes they are envisioned we can remove this threat of ineffectiveness.The threats this nation faces cannot be bested through defence alone, defence alone maintains limited effectiveness beyond a conventional attack by nation states, and does not accommodate the defence of the realm from threats based thousands of miles away.

Costings
Currenty, the Defence Budget is £40.802bn - this bill would increase this to a minimum of £48.675bn. Meaning that the cost is £7.873bn.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
There is no evidence for the figures, the bill being amended should be linked, and increasing spending when the TSR Government refuses to engage with defence removes the significance of this bill.
0
CoffeeGeek
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by Jacob E)
There is no evidence for the figures, the bill being amended should be linked, and increasing spending when the TSR Government refuses to engage with defence removes the significance of this bill.
Evidence will be included in the next stage. Yes it should be linked, no problem though I'll link it for you here. If they continue to refuse to engage with defence then they should remember that many of their members for the recent motion on North Korea, which contained threatening North Korea of military action - if this is to be considered then increasing defence spending ought to be considered too.
0
CoffeeGeek
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Aye. There is no doubt that these are troubling times... we have a duty to protect our citizens and with the passage of the recent motion it makes sense that this should be supported if we are ever to consider military action on a country.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
Nay - I do not believe in an expansion of the military at a time where the deficit still exists as a major problem for this country.
1
CoffeeGeek
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Connor27)
Nay - I do not believe in an expansion of the military at a time where the deficit still exists as a major problem for this country.
It's not like we can't reduce the deficit and increase expenditure in our defence - which seems to be what you're suggesting.
0
mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
Mr Speaker

Despite agreeing with the premises of this bill I would like to know how this will be funded?
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by mr T 999)
Mr Speaker

Despite agreeing with the premises of this bill I would like to know how this will be funded?
That is for the the Chancellor to decide if this bill passes in the Division Lobby.
0
CoffeeGeek
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by mr T 999)
Mr Speaker

Despite agreeing with the premises of this bill I would like to know how this will be funded?
This is really a decision for the government with their Budget but if we were in government we would look to find savings to account for the increase in expenditure.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
If we did not spend a large part of our defence budget on Trident renewal then the issues about our conventional forces snd equipment would be much less. If we looked to be seeking a better relationship with the EU then we would have more GDP and tax income to spend.

Nay.
0
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
Was wondering when we'd get to this issue.:dance:

It won't be a surprise to most that it's a no from me.
0
LifeIsFine
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
Nay, I do not feel as if the defense budget needs to be increased, and if it does I do not understand the need for 2.5 percent rather than meeting NATO's targets set at 2 percent.
1
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by Dragon5555)
Who can give me the best first line for my Law personal statement? Thank you
Best place to ask: Law or Law study help
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
As the Conservatives are well aware I was a strong advocate and pushed for this while a member of the part and [shadow] SoS for defence.

Ate.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
This is really a decision for the government with their Budget but if we were in government we would look to find savings to account for the increase in expenditure.
It is for the Government to decide, but it is your responsibility to delineate and account for differences in funding. It is most of all not our responsibility to do your costings for you.

Either way, I'm opposed to the policy of this. Nay.
0
CoffeeGeek
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by LifeIsFine)
Nay, I do not feel as if the defense budget needs to be increased, and if it does I do not understand the need for 2.5 percent rather than meeting NATO's targets set at 2 percent.
Yet you feel it's necessary to consider threatening military action on country? During times of war, government expenditure on defence increases so even if you "feel" it doesn't need to be increased it will be increased if we are at war against a country regardless of what you think or feel.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
As the Conservatives are well aware I was a strong advocate and pushed for this while a member of the part and [shadow] SoS for defence.

Ate.
"Ate"? Someone's hungry.

(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
It is for the Government to decide, but it is your responsibility to delineate and account for differences in funding. It is most of all not our responsibility to do your costings for you.

Either way, I'm opposed to the policy of this. Nay.
If the costings are wrong you're at liberty to say it's wrong and it can be corrected accordingly - not a biggie.

Another government member who voted for a motion that calls on the government to consider threatening military action on a country but then when increasing defence spending is put on the table it cannot be supported. I'll reiterate, whether you think or feel that defence spending shouldn't be increased it will be increased whether you like it or not once you're at war with a country.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
If the costings are wrong you're at liberty to say it's wrong and it can be corrected accordingly - not a biggie.

Another government member who voted for a motion that calls on the government to consider threatening military action on a country but then when increasing defence spending is put on the table it cannot be supported. I'll reiterate, whether you think or feel that defence spending shouldn't be increased it will be increased whether you like it or not once you're at war with a country.
My point is that the authors of the Bill need to take responsibility for any additional spending and explain why it is justified.

The UK being at war with North Korea is extraordinarily unlikely. The US being at war is a little more likely. That's why we don't need to pre-emptively increase our budgets, especially given defence is already overfunded.
0
CoffeeGeek
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
My point is that the authors of the Bill need to take responsibility for any additional spending and explain why it is justified.

The UK being at war with North Korea is extraordinarily unlikely. The US being at war is a little more likely. That's why we don't need to pre-emptively increase our budgets, especially given defence is already overfunded.
Except it has.

Well that's what loads of people said about Germany until they invaded part of Poland.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
Except it has.

Well that's what loads of people said about Germany until they invaded part of Poland.
I'm not going to dignify that with an actual response.
0
LifeIsFine
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
Yet you feel it's necessary to consider threatening military action on country? During times of war, government expenditure on defence increases so even if you "feel" it doesn't need to be increased it will be increased if we are at war against a country regardless of what you think or feel.
.
How you have managed to equate 'considering military threats' with an actual war is beyond me, with both 'considering' and 'threats' clearly signifying that the actual possibility of a war is unlikely.
Thank you very much for the patronising response, again equating the act of merely considering military threats (which may even be called virtue signalling by some of the more extreme members of the house) with an actual war. Indeed your response is made even worse when you consider the fact that I would not be totally against a rise to 2 percent, if suitable justification was given.
Even if war was impending (which it quite clearly is not, even for the US and NK) then as you said, expenditure would rise regardless of what I feel, and so there is no reason to increase the minimum amount. Frankly, if we were to increase the minimum, I'd rather listen to NATO's targets.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (130)
18.6%
No (422)
60.37%
Not really bothered about them (147)
21.03%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise