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

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

    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (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.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    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.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Mr Speaker

    Despite agreeing with the premises of this bill I would like to know how this will be funded?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (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
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    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.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (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.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (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.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
 
 
 
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: October 13, 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's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.