Turn on thread page Beta

Should we have to spend 0.7% of GNI on foreign aid? watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you believe the UK should spend a minimum of 0.7% each year on foreign aid?
    Yes
    47.46%
    No
    52.54%

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The UK government should continue its foreign aid policy because most of the countries that receive this aid (reparation) were largely exploited during the colonial era. I do understand the argument that these countries should not receive aid because of corruption and money given as aid (reparation) is better spent at "home". However, I also do believe if the UK government stopped giving aid they still wouldn't solve the housing crisis or homeless or police shortages etc.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I think foreign aid is a diplomatic tool to an extent that isn't generally appreciated.

    In general charity should be a private matter, but diplomacy and security are properly matters of state. Foreign aid should be maintained to the extent that it advances our position in these areas.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdddd)
    Did you not read what I said? Poor argument. Must have lost. Can't name one hospital or school built by foreign aid like you keep saying they are (4th time).
    I've helped teach in a school built with foreign aid. In Mostar, Bosnia, most of the city centre was destroyed by civil war. The young people spent several months living in cellars while many teachers fled (mostly to Germany) or joined the army. The country was bitterly divided between Muslim and Croat areas and there was little hope.

    The EU and UN aid budgets (which the UK contributes to, and counts as part of its 0.7%) paid for the schools to be rebuilt and helped to fund the teachers. It was a strange experience, walking past the shells of burnt out buildings and bullet-ridden cars into a freshly painted school with glass in the windows and children playing outside. The schools were also mixed, so the children of former enemies shared the same classroom.

    This summer I went back and met some of the children again. All of the group that I had worked with had decided to stay in the city, and all were in work. The mistrust between the two communities still existed, but it was being fed by nationalism from outside rather than divisions within the city. Without foreign aid these children would have either had no education for years or would have been forced to flee abroad. They would have grown up in isolation and the hatred and resentment that caused the war would continue. If my taxes helped Bosnia have a brighter future then that was money very well spent.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Here's some logic that Right-wingers should be able to follow.
    The biggest recent increase in UK overseas Aid has been to Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Supporting refugees in these countries with sanitation, education and housing means that they are less likely to travel to the UK.
    Another fairly recent project was the fight against ebola in West Africa. Spending money on treatment centres and sending UK staff to support local efforts prevented ebola from spreading to the UK.
    Another major recipient is Afghanistan. Spending money to support education, particularly of girls, reduces the likelihood of these people growing up into extremists who might threaten the UK.
    Pakistan also receives significant funding. At the moment there is a struggle in that country with democracy and secular government competing with religious extremism. Supporting democracy and helping the poor makes it less likely that the country will turn into its neighbour, Afghanistan.

    From a purely selfish point of view, reducing poverty and disease overseas, and encouraging democracy and good governance is completely in our national interest. You can't cut funding to support refugees in Jordan and then complain when they want to travel to the UK.
    See my point above.

    Afghanistan Has no rule of law and is therefore pointless to send aid to. We have been there for more than a decade and have spent billions and achieved barely anything.

    The rule of law and liberty generally cannot be granted by another company try to another.

    If we policed our borders properly people would not travel here.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    I've helped teach in a school built with foreign aid. In Mostar, Bosnia, most of the city centre was destroyed by civil war. The young people spent several months living in cellars while many teachers fled (mostly to Germany) or joined the army. The country was bitterly divided between Muslim and Croat areas and there was little hope.

    The EU and UN aid budgets (which the UK contributes to, and counts as part of its 0.7%) paid for the schools to be rebuilt and helped to fund the teachers. It was a strange experience, walking past the shells of burnt out buildings and bullet-ridden cars into a freshly painted school with glass in the windows and children playing outside. The schools were also mixed, so the children of former enemies shared the same classroom.

    This summer I went back and met some of the children again. All of the group that I had worked with had decided to stay in the city, and all were in work. The mistrust between the two communities still existed, but it was being fed by nationalism from outside rather than divisions within the city. Without foreign aid these children would have either had no education for years or would have been forced to flee abroad. They would have grown up in isolation and the hatred and resentment that caused the war would continue. If my taxes helped Bosnia have a brighter future then that was money very well spent.
    I was asking him, as he seems to have no experience in volunteering etc. However, now you ask I will answer. Respect for teaching in Bosnia. However, during the war we heavily bombed it etc and whenever we go to war we do try to help the communities by building schools and infrastructure, such as we have in Afghanistan. How do you know it was apart of the EU budget? I could understand as UN troops, volunteers etc were helping and that would be evident in UN trucks etc but EU? Also that wasn't directly from the UK we built. That was built from money from the UN wether we contribute or not we don't know if our money was used for it. If we weren't in the UN the school would have been built anyway. Once I graduate I want to apply for the UN as a volunteer.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ezisola)
    We should not send anything abroad while there are still people legitimately homeless and hungry in this country.
    That is assuming that this is because of a lack of money. I assure you that there is money, the government just don’t spend it where it’s needed. Stopping foreign aid isn’t going to make the government less inept.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    See my point above.

    Afghanistan Has no rule of law and is therefore pointless to send aid to. We have been there for more than a decade and have spent billions and achieved barely anything.

    The rule of law and liberty generally cannot be granted by another company try to another.

    If we policed our borders properly people would not travel here.
    Well, if Calais was policed properly too
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eva.Gregoria)
    That is assuming that this is because of a lack of money. I assure you that there is money, the government just don’t spend it where it’s needed. Stopping foreign aid isn’t going to make the government less inept.
    I agree. We are such a rich country. Why for the cuts in NHS, Police etc? The Government want to try to cut the deficit so needs to cut services in order to do so. Cutting the deficit also makes us more attractive to investors.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdddd)
    Well, if Calais was policed properly too
    Calais is not our problem, I believe we’re paying the french money for this in the (I think mistaken) hope of secureing a good brexit deal
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eva.Gregoria)
    That is assuming that this is because of a lack of money. I assure you that there is money, the government just don’t spend it where it’s needed. Stopping foreign aid isn’t going to make the government less inept.
    We are 2 trillion pounds in debt. Of course the government is going to be inept. The answer clearly is to limit their involvement in certain areas and not increase it (no im not a libertarian and the public sector is better than private in some areas- but where they can have direct accountability. Foreign aid clearly isn’t one)

    (Inb4 tax cuts to the wealthy - tax revenue is higher now than before)
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    We are 2 trillion pounds in debt. Of course the government is going to be inept. The answer clearly is to limit their involvement in certain areas and not increase it (no im not a libertarian and the public sector is better than private in some areas- but where they can have direct accountability. Foreign aid clearly isn’t one)

    (Inb4 tax cuts to the wealthy - tax revenue is higher now than before)
    Every other country is in debt, we’re not special. Also again you’re making the assumption that less spending on foreign aid will force the government into spending more on domestic issues. Theresa May has repeatedly said there’s no magic money tree for the country, except when it was convenient for her to use I.e. for the DUP, renovating the queens palaces and other useless endeavours.

    Your point is that spending less on foreign aid would ease our national debt, my point is that it wouldn’t make a difference to the lives of ordinary British people.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    The issue of taxation is a seperate issue entirely. Most of the issues of taxation and government spending would be negated if the government actually got off their arses and closed the various tax evasion loopholes for corporations like Amazon.

    Government has been in cahoots with big business for decades. Tax evasion is an issue, also we should be taxing companies who make their profits here but base themselves elsewhere to avoid tax.


    But more taxation doesn't always mean more revenue, and it's convenient to think that some fictional greedy billionaire can pay for everything, but not the case.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Calais is not our problem, I believe we’re paying the french money for this in the (I think mistaken) hope of secureing a good brexit deal
    It is, still get a lot of migrants on lorries from Calais, if security was good none would be found in the truck. Yes we are paying France money for this and they are investing too.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    we had a british empire,
    we made them poor and in trouble,
    The British Empire also brought modern infrastructure and helped end slavery, so wasn't all bad.

    Regardless, we shouldn't take the blame for what people did before because they lived in the same place we do.


    we are one of the richest nations in the world,
    if homeless people in UK want to get out of homeless go to a charity,
    people in developing countries don't have this choice as they can't afford it,
    hence why RICH countries give aid to POOR countries
    I think you have this the wrong way around, homeless people CAN be helped by the state (building social housing), while overseas poverty is certainly best helped by charities, not government throwing millions of pounds to drive corruption.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdddd)
    I was asking him, as he seems to have no experience in volunteering etc. However, now you ask I will answer. Respect for teaching in Bosnia. However, during the war we heavily bombed it etc and whenever we go to war we do try to help the communities by building schools and infrastructure, such as we have in Afghanistan. How do you know it was apart of the EU budget? I could understand as UN troops, volunteers etc were helping and that would be evident in UN trucks etc but EU? Also that wasn't directly from the UK we built. That was built from money from the UN wether we contribute or not we don't know if our money was used for it. If we weren't in the UN the school would have been built anyway. Once I graduate I want to apply for the UN as a volunteer.
    The UK didn't heavily bomb Bosnia. We did contribute peace-keeping troops.
    Between 1991 and 2006 the EU contributed 2.6 billion Euros for reconstruction and refugee return in Bosnia. I don't know precisely how the repairs to the school I visited were paid for, but there were EU signs on the wall so at least some of the money came from there. They also paid for repairs to bridges and roads, in particular the main bridge across the river which divided the two communities.
    Yes, if the UK had chosen not to pay anything in overseas aid most of the work would still have been done. In the same way that if you go out for a meal with friends and then do a runner they will probably pick up the tab. It depends how you see the role of the UK.
    Do we pay our fair share to try to make the world a better place for everyone, or do we spend the money instead on barbed wire and armed guards along the coast and live in isolation, like North Korea?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    The UK didn't heavily bomb Bosnia. We did contribute peace-keeping troops.
    Between 1991 and 2006 the EU contributed 2.6 billion Euros for reconstruction and refugee return in Bosnia. I don't know precisely how the repairs to the school I visited were paid for, but there were EU signs on the wall so at least some of the money came from there. They also paid for repairs to bridges and roads, in particular the main bridge across the river which divided the two communities.
    Yes, if the UK had chosen not to pay anything in overseas aid most of the work would still have been done. In the same way that if you go out for a meal with friends and then do a runner they will probably pick up the tab. It depends how you see the role of the UK.
    Do we pay our fair share to try to make the world a better place for everyone, or do we spend the money instead on barbed wire and armed guards along the coast and live in isolation, like North Korea?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deny_Flight

    We did, we provided close air support and provided air strikes. Thats why there is a lot of unexploded bombs still there to this day. Its not 'Do we pay our fair share to try to make the world a better place' but 'Do we make the world a better place.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    The British Empire also brought modern infrastructure and helped end slavery, so wasn't all bad.
    Yes, the British empire brought in modern infrastructure, railroads, trains, better farming techniques, but in return they exploited the local population, took away colossal amounts of wealth and were just generally oppressive.

    I mean, India's wealth was 27% of the ENTIRE WORLD INCOME in the 1700s. Then the British came, and it was reduced to nothing more than 3% in 1950. 3%!! But hey, they got a few railroads, so pat yourself on the back boys.

    And the British started the trans-Atlantic slave trade! You started something, reaped the rewards, and then ended it once you're conscious finally caught up with you. How is that something to be proud of? It's like me enslaving someone, making them work without pay for a couple decades, and then saying 'sorry, I was wrong, whoops'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eva.Gregoria)
    That is assuming that this is because of a lack of money. I assure you that there is money, the government just don’t spend it where it’s needed. Stopping foreign aid isn’t going to make the government less inept.
    Ah ok, well that clears everything up then!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Without the rule of law they are just breeding terrorists and criminals with no future.

    The rule of law is the most important thing a country can have without it everything else is worthless and not sustainable. You may way as well burn all the money you send there.

    Aid CAN be beneficial but you need to full on nation build in order to do that, although this is incredibly costly and complicated as well as unpopular - see Iraq for instance.
    Rule of law in a country where the majority of the population has no access to clean water and food is entirely meaningless. Before you can have systems that work you need to make sure people have access to the most basic of supplies. Telling people who have no access to food not to steal is pointless.


    You need both.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdddd)
    Did you not read what I said? Poor argument. Must have lost. Can't name one hospital or school built by foreign aid like you keep saying they are (4th time).
    There are several.
    British aid does wonders. It provides vaccinations and medicines to stop diseases spreading. It provides clean drinking water and irrigation systems to countries can grow food.

    It contributes to infrastructure, builds roads, schools, hospitals and transport facilities.

    It's vital and if anything should be increased.
 
 
 

1,383

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

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.