B1451 – Defence Spending (3%) Bill 2019 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#1
B1451 – Defence Spending (3%) Bill 2019, TSR Libertarian Party


Defence Spending (3%) Bill 2019

A Bill to set a minimum that government can spend on defence.

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: Definitions

(1) Defence Spending, for the purpose of this bill, includes spending on military defence, civil defence, foreign military aid, research and development in the defence industry, including capital spending, and does not include economic aid.

(2) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is defined as the monetary value of all finished goods and services produced within a country’s border within a given time as measured by the Office for National Statistics.

2: Minimum Defence Spending

(1) From April 1st 2020, defence spending shall be no less than 3.00% of GDP.

3: Commencement, Short Title, Extent and Conditions

(1) This bill shall come into force upon Royal Assent.
(2) This bill may be cited as the Defence Spending (3%) Bill 2019.
(3) This bill extends to the United Kingdom.

Spoiler:
Show
Notes and costings:

A recent report by the Commons Defence Select Committee made clear that the current defence spending levels are inadequate and that a rise to 3% would be preferable. Proposed in the bill is a minimum of 3% defence spending. This means we can begin to urgently rebuild a military which has not been looked after in recent years.

2018 Q1 UK GDP - £504,195m
2018 Q2 UK GDP Forecast - 0.3% Growth [OBR] - £505,708m
2018 Q3 UK GDP Forecast - 0.5% Growth [OBR] - £508,236m
2018 Q4 UK GDP Forecast - 0.4% Growth [OBR] - £510,269m
2018 UK GDP Forecast - £2,028,408,000,000
2019 UK GDP growth forecast - 1.3% growth [OBR] - £2,054,777 m
2020 UK GDP growth forecast - 1.3% growth [OBR] - £2,081,489 m
2021 UK GDP growth forecast - 1.4% growth [OBR] - £2,110,630 m
2019 2.50% of GDP - £51,369 m
2020 2.75% of GDP - £57,241 m
2020 3.00% of GDP - £63,319 m

This bill was initially submitted in the 27th Parliament and some minor amendments have been made to make the item fall in line with the Finance Act 2018.

http://cdn.obr.uk/EFO-MaRch_2018.pdf - OBR Growth Forecast Page 52
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gross...eries/abmi/qna - Using seasonally adjusted Q1 GDP as basis for growth figures.

https://publications.parliament.uk/p.../818/81802.htm - Defence Select Committee Report on Defence Spending.

0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 months ago
#2
Aye - in light of Rakas21’s raising of defence spending in the Finance Act; this bill would create a new ‘floor’ of 3% that enshrines and protects much of that spending increase into law.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 months ago
#3
Unsurprisingly from me, no.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 months ago
#4
A huge age from me.

However I’m surprised the Libertarians who don’t like the state are mandating for a requirement on state spending.

Why can’t we have Gold Subscriptions to the McArmy™, is that not what you’d prefer?
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 months ago
#5
No, at least be proper libertarians and exercise some fiscal prudence. I doubt many of you are happy with spending taxpayers money on nice things like healthcare and keeping poor people from starving to death, so why are you happy to waste my taxes on war and destruction?

I’m aware that’s an over-sensationalist view of Defense, but as far as I’m concerned, our defense budget is already sufficient if it meets the 2% NATO target. So I really do not see this as a high spending priority when we can’t even keep people at home safe from preventable harm.
1
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 months ago
#6
(Original post by Jarred)
No, at least be proper libertarians and exercise some fiscal prudence. I doubt many of you are happy with spending taxpayers money on nice things like healthcare and keeping poor people from starving to death, so why are you happy to waste my taxes on war and destruction?

I’m aware that’s an over-sensationalist view of Defense, but as far as I’m concerned, our defense budget is already sufficient if it meets the 2% NATO target. So I really do not see this as a high spending priority when we can’t even keep people at home safe from preventable harm.
Do you actually keep track of the MHoC and have you actually read the bill?

This doesn’t increase defence spending by one penny, it sets a floor in place that’s all; Rakas’ finance act 2018 from last term (which I believe you supported actually) increased spending to be greater than 3% already, fiscal prudence is nothing to do with this debate.

Take back knee jerk reaction and try again.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 months ago
#7
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
A huge age from me.

However I’m surprised the Libertarians who don’t like the state are mandating for a requirement on state spending.

Why can’t we have Gold Subscriptions to the McArmy™, is that not what you’d prefer?
Good meme but you know AnCapism is too spicy for me.

Serious answer: so-called anarcho-capitalism is impossible because a private defence agency would get a monopoly on violence and would become a de facto state anyway; so we should support defence spending as one of the few legitimate functions of the state.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 months ago
#8
I, personally, support this Bill; defence is an area of spending we cannot compromise on, lest the enemy use it to their advantage.
1
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 months ago
#9
(Original post by Connor27)
Do you actually keep track of the MHoC and have you actually read the bill?

This doesn’t increase defence spending by one penny, it sets a floor in place that’s all; Rakas’ finance act 2018 from last term (which I believe you supported actually) increased spending to be greater than 3% already, fiscal prudence is nothing to do with this debate.

Take back knee jerk reaction and try again.
You didn't notice the use of the word if. Jarred didn't say that the defence budget was at 2%, the criticism of the bill still stands, as does the criticism of Rakas' original spending commitment.

Take back knee jerk reaction and try again.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 months ago
#10
(Original post by 04MR17)
You didn't notice the use of the word if. Jarred didn't say that the defence budget was at 2%, the criticism of the bill still stands, as does the criticism of Rakas' original spending commitment.

Take back knee jerk reaction and try again.
Jarred clearly implies that this bill increases spending when it does no such thing.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 months ago
#11
I noticed that the select committee report link in the notes does not work,

please use this one instead:

https://publications.parliament.uk/p.../818/81802.htm
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 months ago
#12
(Original post by Connor27)
Jarred clearly implies that this bill increases spending when it does no such thing.
I don't see any implication, put the guns away.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 months ago
#13
(Original post by 04MR17)
Unsurprisingly from me, no.
Did you vote in favour of Rakas budget last term that increased the defence spending?
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 months ago
#14
(Original post by Connor27)
Jarred clearly implies that this bill increases spending when it does no such thing.
It enforces a requirement for defense spending to be at a higher level than what I believe in. I don't particularly care what a MHoC Tory government put in place. It's not a spending increase and indeed I never said it was, but would result in higher spending on the issue than I would want a hypothetical 2020 budget to have. In that sense I see nothing wrong with my earlier remark - to play hypotheticals, it is an increase from what I would allocate at that time if I were Chancellor.

Of course, spending floors absolutely do have something to do with fiscal prudence because a Chancellor at the time would lose some flexibility and I am sure anyone on the right would argue this is irresponsible on many other departments so why defense? I'd urge anyone leftwards of the centre to vote against this.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 months ago
#15
(Original post by mr T 999)
Did you vote in favour of Rakas budget last term that increased the defence spending?
No because I wasn't an MP at the time.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 months ago
#16
Likely a tentative abstention because our government is going to spend them monies on top schemes designed to reduce unemployment and welfare abuse rather than warmongering envisioned by the proposers.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 months ago
#17
(Original post by Life_peer)
Likely a tentative abstention because our government is going to spend them monies on top schemes designed to reduce unemployment and welfare abuse rather than warmongering envisioned by the proposers.
Is that why your government last term increased defence spending to 3%?
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 months ago
#18
(Original post by mr T 999)
Is that why your government last term increased defence spending to 3%?
I believe the figure isn't exact but that is exactly the reason. We never supported the warmongering advocated by that silly report and Dodger et al., though unfortunately the main piece of legislation that was necessary to allocate the additional money elsewhere (still under the Ministry of Defence) wasn't finished in time, which I hope will be addressed soon, while of course making sure that the appropriate defensive capacity required by NATO and effective against the true threats such as domestic terrorism by Islamic extremists is maintained.

As the Defence Secretary (ha!), I will find the additional funds a very good home.
Last edited by Life_peer; 4 months ago
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 months ago
#19
(Original post by Life_peer)
I believe the figure isn't exact but that is exactly the reason. We never supported the warmongering advocated by that silly report and Dodger et al., though unfortunately the main piece of legislation that was necessary to allocate the additional money elsewhere (still under the Ministry of Defence) wasn't finished in time, which I hope will be addressed soon, while of course making sure that the appropriate defensive capacity required by NATO and effective against the true threats such as domestic terrorism by Islamic extremists is maintained.

As the Defence Secretary (ha!), I will find the additional funds a very good home.
Buying the Russians hardware because they can't afford it themselves doesn't count.

Actually that's unfair, you'd never be able to given that ns seems to be doing everything possible to distance the current government from the foreign policy of the former, even going so far as to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign state and baselessly icnite fears of Russia to justify it.
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 4 months ago
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 months ago
#20
(Original post by Life_peer)
As the Defence Secretary (ha!), I will find the additional funds a very good home.
I bet you will.... shoots an envious look across the Cabinet table.
1
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

How did your AQA A-level Chemistry Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (206)
32.75%
The paper was reasonable (307)
48.81%
Not feeling great about that exam... (71)
11.29%
It was TERRIBLE (45)
7.15%

Watched Threads

View All