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

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

Announcements
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    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.
    How is it patronising?... I'm not trying to equate it to war even though the response might suggest that - it was not intended to do so. But if you are considering threatening military action then I don't see why we cannot consider increasing defence expenditure.

    If you and others are so opposed to 2.5% then perhaps in the next reading we could change it to 2%.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    How is it patronising?... I'm not trying to equate it to war even though the response might suggest that - it was not intended to do so. But if you are considering threatening military action then I don't see why we cannot consider increasing defence expenditure.

    If you and others are so opposed to 2.5% then perhaps in the next reading we could change it to 2%.
    I felt it was patronising due to the assertion that regardless of how I 'feel' (note the quote marks used) the budget would rise anyway in times of war.
    I think it is fine to consider an increase, I am not against this bill being submitted to the house, however I disagree because we are only considering military threats- not actually threatening North Korea, and indeed not actually going to war (which you have basically confirmed is unlikely).
    Again, as this is all about mimimum expenditure a change to 2 percent will grant you an abstention, in its current form it is going to have to be a nay.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    I felt it was patronising due to the assertion that regardless of how I 'feel' (note the quote marks used) the budget would rise anyway in times of war.
    I think it is fine to consider an increase, I am not against this bill being submitted to the house, however I disagree because we are only considering military threats- not actually threatening North Korea, and indeed not actually going to war (which you have basically confirmed is unlikely).
    Again, as this is all about mimimum expenditure a change to 2 percent will grant you an abstention, in its current form it is going to have to be a nay.
    We can say many things are unlikely but war can surprise you just like it did to others in the past. I'm interested to hear why you would only abstain if it was changed to 2%?
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    A strong Aye. Whether it is threats or actual war, we should always have the money and resources to deal with an enemy.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    We can say many things are unlikely but war can surprise you just like it did to others in the past. I'm interested to hear why you would only abstain if it was changed to 2%?
    2 percent is the NATO target, an organisation rightly respected by most on issues of defence.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    2 percent is the NATO target, an organisation rightly respected by most on issues of defence.
    That should really bring an Aye in my eyes but it's your choice in the end...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    That should really bring an Aye in my eyes but it's your choice in the end...
    That is fair, and I may change my mind on it later. However I think it is abundantly clear things operate differently on TSR and so it is difficult to know when real life metrics are appropriate.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    2 percent is the NATO target, an organisation rightly respected by most on issues of defence.
    It's a minimum target, "you should spend at least 2%" and not a solid target "you should spend 2%, not a penny more nor a penny less" and it would likely be higher than 2% if it weren't for the vast number of members who refuse to even to manage that much because they know they have the 2%ers in Eastern Europe to act as a buffer and the 2%ers in the West to protect them if the buffer isn't enough.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It's a minimum target, "you should spend at least 2%" and not a solid target "you should spend 2%, not a penny more nor a penny less" and it would likely be higher than 2% if it weren't for the vast number of members who refuse to even to manage that much because they know they have the 2%ers in Eastern Europe to act as a buffer and the 2%ers in the West to protect them if the buffer isn't enough.
    Indeed it is a minimum target, just like the 2.5 percent this bill proposes is a minimum, and the current 1.5 is a minimum so I'm struggling to see the relevancy of that point.
    While it may be higher if members actually met the target, the fact is that it isn't.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. We must be prepared to protect our sovereignty, our citizens and our great country from all types of attack - it is imperative that our military's funding is ameliorated to facilitate an augmentation in their raw power and capacity to deal with events on British soil and abroad, if appropriate.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The UK should respect the NATO 2% funding floor for defence spending.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The UK should respect the NATO 2% funding floor for defence spending.
    I'll take that as an Aye, Prime Minister. This bill ensures that the NATO target of a minimum 2% of GDP is spent on our defence.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    I'll take that as an Aye, Prime Minister. This bill ensures that the NATO target of a minimum 2% of GDP is spent on our defence.
    I wouldn't be so confident. This bill goes over and above that and reduces the flexibility we have as a government to spend money elsewhere should we so wish.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I wouldn't be so confident. This bill goes over and above that and reduces the flexibility we have as a government to spend money elsewhere should we so wish.
    There's nothing wrong with it going over and above that, in fact it shows we are more committed than other nations. But if flexibility is really the issue and if people feel that 2.5% isn't what we should be spending then I'm quite happy to consider changing it to 2% - which is the NATO target. But no lower.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ns_2)
    Aye. We must be prepared to protect our sovereignty, our citizens and our great country from all types of attack - it is imperative that our military's funding is ameliorated to facilitate an augmentation in their raw power and capacity to deal with events on British soil and abroad, if appropriate.
    PRSOM.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    As CoffeeGeek knows, I am a supporter of a strong defence and believe in extending expenditure as a percentage of GDP as this bill achieves. Furthermore, it does so at a small cost which could prove invaluable in the times we are in. It is important to note, however, that as a minimum target it would hold little effect until the next government's Statement of Intent on this subject. Seeing as the pan-right coalition is a government in waiting, I would hope that could alleviate worries

    In all seriousness, vote Aye to set a sensible precedent to be followed in the future (I imagine that the percentage increase will be smaller if this goes to a second reading, which should hopefully change some votes).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aye to the first part, nay to the second part (and nay overall)
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Hear Hear
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    This bill has hereby entered division.
 
 
 
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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.