Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many as are of the opinion, aye (16)
33.33%
Of the contrary, no (28)
58.33%
Abstain (4)
8.33%
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
V1451 – Defence Spending (3%) Bill 2019, TSR Libertarian Party
Image

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
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
No, of course.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Abstain.

I do like the idea but also consider it a degree of duplication and more symbolic than nessesary.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by Rakas21)
Abstain.

I do like the idea but also consider it a degree of duplication and more symbolic than nessesary.
I do love it when people refuse to support their own policies
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I do love it when people refuse to support their own policies
Parliament already affirmed defense expenditure, this would be a symbolic hurdle to reduction, nothing more.

Hence i like the idea but the bar for my vote is set higher than this bill achieves.

Rest assured, if it comes down to one vote i shall support it but until that time i shall stand by my belief.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I do love it when people refuse to support their own policies
As Connor also mistook, setting defence spending at 3% is different to keeping it there indefinitely.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
Aye. Defence of the realm is the first and foremost task of any government.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Rakas21)
Parliament already affirmed defense expenditure, this would be a symbolic hurdle to reduction, nothing more.

Hence i like the idea but the bar for my vote is set higher than this bill achieves.

Rest assured, if it comes down to one vote i shall support it but until that time i shall stand by my belief.
And then somebody like JMR becomes defence sec and it drops down to neglgible amounts. I know you're looking for an excuse to not support it, but the fact that current spending was arbitrarily set above it is not a justiofication for that
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And then somebody like JMR becomes defence sec and it drops down to neglgible amounts. I know you're looking for an excuse to not support it, but the fact that current spending was arbitrarily set above it is not a justiofication for that
JMR would need to gain parliamentry consent, your bill just duplicates that.

Do not proclaim to suggest what i do and do not really support. You are in no position to make such proclimations given your history last term.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
I've decided to vote against this because there's no need to set a given figure in stone as long as the NATO requirements are met, which they are. The UK does not face a threat that would require enlarging the military and I suggest to keep it that way using diplomating means to support disarmament rather than start another arms race like the US overlords. On the contrary, more should be done to fight illegal immigration, domestic terrorism, and radical Islam, which are much bigger threats than China or Russia will ever be (unless you keep provoking them, of course).
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by Rakas21)
JMR would need to gain parliamentry consent, your bill just duplicates that.

Do not proclaim to suggest what i do and do not really support. You are in no position to make such proclimations given your history last term.
He wouldn't need parliamentary consent, just like you didn't to blindly throw £15bn, or to arbitrarily cut NHS spending? We also see right now how easy it is to push through lots of things at once and then the bits that aren't wanted to be picked out.

If the bill passes then there is explicit need to repeal it for the spending to be cut, refuse to and it can be done absolutely freely. Because of legislation like this Aid spending in TSR land remains at 0.7% GDP despite your desires to all but abolish it.

Just admit that LP requested you abstain because he wishes for this to fail for no reason other than the proposers, you can also ask him how easy it is to reduce spending because we both know that given his way he would gut the armed forces because he does not believe in defending the UK, just hoping that it doesn't need defending.
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 1 year ago
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Just admit that LP requested you abstain because he wishes for this to fail for no reason other than the proposers, you can also ask him how easy it is to reduce spending because we both know that given his way he would gut the armed forces because he does not believe in defending the UK, just hoping that it doesn't need defending.
Get some help because this kind of delusional paranoia will poison your mind even more. :rolleyes:
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
Mr Speaker, as a favour to Libertarians please change my Abstain to an Aye.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Life_peer)
Get some help because this kind of delusional paranoia will poison your mind even more. :rolleyes:
Did you support the policy in the budget because it was proposed by your own party, despite being consistently against it, or because you didn't actually read the budget yourself? Alternatively, is it your intention to immediately reverse the spending increase that you yourself sanctioned?
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
I, personally, support the funding of our military, no matter what. Though I would prefer a more flexible approach to funding allocation...
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Did you support the policy in the budget because it was proposed by your own party, despite being consistently against it, or because you didn't actually read the budget yourself? Alternatively, is it your intention to immediately reverse the spending increase that you yourself sanctioned?
As I already explained, I am mainly against setting the figure in stone and also consider your intentions, i.e. the absurd report that you cited as justification for this bill. The reason I supported the budget despite the increased defence spending is that the additional funds were never and are still not meant for expanding and/or modernising the military or any warmongering as you demand, but I'm not going to go into that further until the relevant bill(s) are submitted to the Speaker. To this effect, this bill is superfluous at best and thus there is no reason to support it.

You're hugely overstating your own importance if you believe it has anything to do with you or that I have been particularly active in trying to get my colleagues to vote against it. I opposed it since the very conception, back when you were being just your plain old just-about-but-tolerable self from roughly two years ago when you were still in our party rather than the ****-super-ultra we've known since. I'll happily vote for your legislation provided that I agree with it.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by Life_peer)
As I already explained, I am mainly against setting the figure in stone and also consider your intentions, i.e. the absurd report that you cited as justification for this bill. The reason I supported the budget despite the increased defence spending is that the additional funds were never and are still not meant for expanding and/or modernising the military or any warmongering as you demand, but I'm not going to go into that further until the relevant bill(s) are submitted to the Speaker. To this effect, this bill is superfluous at best and thus there is no reason to support it.

You're hugely overstating your own importance if you believe it has anything to do with you or that I have been particularly active in trying to get my colleagues to vote against it. I opposed it since the very conception, back when you were being just your plain old just-about-but-tolerable self from roughly two years ago when you were still in our party rather than the ****-super-ultra we've known since. I'll happily vote for your legislation provided that I agree with it.
I do enjoy when you accuse me of warmongering despit the fact that it is the government that you are a part of that is endorsing an aggressive foreign policy.

I am also increddiby intrigued as to how you are going to manage to spend £15bn in such a way that it does not lead to this level of spending for the next decade or two, unless the plan is to buy £15bn worth of ammunition to be shot into the ground, to do it simply by increasing current spending would mean roughly doubling current spending, and a good chunk of that is really capex is accounted for in funny ways because the government can get away with it. Then again, I suspect you will do nothing because that would open you up far too much to being demonstrated wrong, and we all know that upsets you.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
Happy to see this bill defeated by as many as 13 votes. 👌🏻
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#19
The Ayes to the right: 16
The Noes to the left: 28
Abstentions: 4

The Noes have it! The Noes have it! Unlock!

Turnout: 97.96%
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#20
One Abstention was changed to an Aye for seat 12 (Rakas21).
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (118)
14.22%
I'm not sure (36)
4.34%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (249)
30%
I have already dropped out (21)
2.53%
I'm not a current university student (406)
48.92%

Watched Threads

View All