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

V1284 - Foreign Spending (2%) (Amendment) Bill 2017 watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this bill be passed into law?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    51.16%
    On the contrary, No
    34.88%
    Abstain
    13.95%

    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    V1284 - 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% 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% - which is the NATO target. 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.

    Changes:
    - 1.2 amended from "2.5%" to "2%"
    - Costings removed from notes because there are no costs.

    Original Bill - https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=3450365
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    Nopey McNoFace:nope:
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    Aye. The amendment of this Act will ensure that governments follow the NATO target of 2% of GDP on defence.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Nopey McNoFace:nope:
    That's a shame because you're essentially voting to allow governments to not respect the NATO 2% target.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    That's a shame because you're essentially voting to allow governments to not respect the NATO 2% target.
    Yes. I know.

    In case you don't remember I support the abolition of the military.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    PetrosAC - you were one of those who believed we shouldn't be expanding our military when we are dealing with a deficit, changes have been made to ensure that there's no military expansion...?
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Yes. I know.

    In case you don't remember I support that abolition of the military.
    Oh yes I forgot, you deny that the government has a duty to protect its citizens.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    Rakas21 shouldn't it be V1284?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    PetrosAC - you were one of those who believed we shouldn't be expanding our military when we are dealing with a deficit, changes have been made to ensure that there's no military expansion...?
    I believe this bill is completely unnecessary and it should have been withdrawn. The bill should have also been put to division as amended Rakas21 so people do not miss the fact that there have been changes to the bill at division
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I believe this bill is completely unnecessary and it should have been withdrawn. The bill should have also been put to division as amended Rakas21 so people do not miss the fact that there have been changes to the bill at division
    How is it completely unnecessary to ensure that governments respect an organisation like NATO and follow targets?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    How is it completely unnecessary to ensure that governments respect an organisation like NATO and follow targets?
    We already stick to the NATO target regardless of legislation. The Government should be allowed to be flexible and spend how they deem fit
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Oh yes I forgot, you deny that the government has a duty to protect its citizens.
    I take the view that guns help nobody.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    We already stick to the NATO target regardless of legislation. The Government should be allowed to be flexible and spend how they deem fit
    What a poor excuse. The Government can choose at any time to spend less than 2% and ignore NATO targets - just because they are already sticking to NATO targets doesn't mean nothing will stop them from not sticking to NATO targets. If we were to go by this "flexibility" argument then why don't you believe in removing the minimum then? Because that would be great, allow the Government to spend nothing on defence for "flexibility" - that's ridiculous. The minimum of 2% ensures that Governments follow through on the NATO target but also allows them to go beyond that if needed and not disobey a target set by a well-respected body.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Aye I see no reason to oppose this
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You know, a part of me keeps thinking that the poorer our ‘defence’ is, the less we'll be able to act as the Murricans' lackeys and I sure as heck don't want this country to be a part of NATO, especially if our ‘partners’ get even more negligent and decide to go for Russia's throat. On the other hand, this is our bill and I support it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    What a poor excuse. The Government can choose at any time to spend less than 2% and ignore NATO targets - just because they are already sticking to NATO targets doesn't mean nothing will stop them from not sticking to NATO targets. If we were to go by this "flexibility" argument then why don't you believe in removing the minimum then? Because that would be great, allow the Government to spend nothing on defence for "flexibility" - that's ridiculous. The minimum of 2% ensures that Governments follow through on the NATO target but also allows them to go beyond that if needed and not disobey a target set by a well-respected body.
    I hope the Leader of the Opposition so fervently defends 'obeying targets set by well-respected bodies' when it's the UN's target of 0.7% of GDP on Foreign Aid.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I hope the Leader of the Opposition so fervently defends 'obeying targets set by well-respected bodies' when it's the UN's target of 0.7% of GDP on Foreign Aid.
    No not quite because I said we should not disobey "[article] a [singular] target set by [article] a well-respected [singular] body". Reading what I said in the context it is in without manipulating what I said people would be able to realise I was referring to NATO...
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    No not quite because I said we should not disobey "[article] a [singular] target set by [article] a well-respected [singular] body". Reading what I said in the context it is in without manipulating what I said people would be able to realise I was referring to NATO...
    So you don't actually care about obeying a target just because a well-respected body set it. So how about you don't bring that up then - seeing as it's clearly irrelevant.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    So you don't actually care about obeying a target just because a well-respected body set it. So how about you don't bring that up then - seeing as it's clearly irrelevant.
    This bill isn't amending the minimum for foreign aid spending it's amending the minimum for defence spending and changing GNI to GDP. Not quite sure why you brought it up, don't know if you're trying to prove a point, like there's any point to prove... It is relevant, but what isn't is you talking about foreign aid spending - so how about you don't bring that up then - because that's not relevant to what is being amended.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    I take the view that guns help nobody.
    Clearly you’ve forgotten how you won the freedom you have today.
 
 
 
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 18, 2017
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.