B1552 – Arms Exports (Regulation of) Act 2020. Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
B1552 – Arms Exports (Regulation of) Act 2020, TSR Government






Arms Exports (Regulation of) Act 2020



A Bill to establish regulation of arms exports.


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. “Arms” shall refer to any form of weaponry intended for warfare including, but not limited to: Guns, Ammunition, Military Fighter Jets, Bombs, Missiles. The undermentioned Regulatory Body shall have discretion to decide what constitutes as Arms.
2. “Exports” shall refer to the exporting of Arms, produced or owned by the Ministry of Defence, or any other relevant organisation, to any foreign nation.


(2) Establishment of a Regulatory Body

1. Following the enactment of this act, an independent body shall be established. This shall be named “the Board for British Arms Exports Control”
2. This body shall be wholly independent from HM Government, or any organisations which may benefit from Arms Exports. No persons affiliated to either of these areas may be part of the Body.
3. Membership shall be nominated by the Secretary of State. Any nominations must pass approval by the House of Commons to ensure independence.


(3) Duties of the Regulatory Body

1. If the Ministry of Defence, or any relevant organisation, wishes to partake in the exporting of Arms as defined earlier - licenses for said exports must be granted by the Regulatory Body alone.
2. The Regulatory Body may be instructed to review any specific licenses through a successful motion of parliament. If such motion passes, the Body should investigate the license with a matter of urgency.
3. It shall be illegal for exports to occur without the prior approval of the Body, except in the exceptions listed in Section 4.


(4) Exceptions

1. If it is considered urgent to national security, emergency exports may take place with the unanimous approval of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Secretary of State for Defence.
(a) If Section 4(1) is applied - the reasoning for such decision should be reviewed by the board at the earliest opportunity. The documents or intel that led to the decision should be reviewed once there is no longer a threat to national security by releasing it.
2. If the United Kingdom has declared war on another nation, the Regulatory Body will not be required to approve any necessary arms exports. These instead should be included in any documents provided to Parliament during debate on the deployment of forces. Parliament may then vote to overrule any specific exports, should it choose to do so.


(5) Title, Commencement and Extent

1. This Bill may be cited as the Arms Exports Act 2020
2. This Bill shall apply to the United Kingdom
3. This Bill shall take effect exactly 6 months after successful passage.


(6) Notes

This bill comes alongside the Ministerial Report on Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia, ensuring that all Arms Exports are being approved independently and may be reviewed at any time. Unfortunately, we have seen British weaponry being used against innocent civilians by countries that we have exported it to. This must stop. The government does not wish to have the blood of innocent civilians on its weapons. It should be illegal to export weapons that are being used for that purpose. This act establishes a Body to determine and make exports illegal in that scenario.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
Wonderful, more regulation of free trade. Just what we need. /S
0
SnowMiku
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
This could save so many innocent lives. Aye all the way.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 week ago
#4
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Wonderful, more regulation of free trade. Just what we need. /S
Indeed, and surely we should be working on cutting our trade deficit and not increasing it by stopping some of our exports. This is just unneeded, so it'll be a Nay from me.
0
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Wonderful, more regulation of free trade. Just what we need. /S
(Original post by The Mogg)
Indeed, and surely we should be working on cutting our trade deficit and not increasing it by stopping some of our exports. This is just unneeded, so it'll be a Nay from me.
So do you both believe that our trade deficit is more important than innocent lives?
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
So do you both believe that our trade deficit is more important than innocent lives?
I believe that the free market is the driving force behind humanity, and that this attempt to shackle it is inherently wrong.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
So do you both believe that our trade deficit is more important than innocent lives?
Realistically, if we halt our export of arms to them, they'll just buy them from another country. So these innocent lives will still be ended regardless.
0
Possibly this
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 week ago
#8
(Original post by The Mogg)
Indeed, and surely we should be working on cutting our trade deficit and not increasing it by stopping some of our exports. This is just unneeded, so it'll be a Nay from me.
I find it concerning how willing you appear to be to stomp on poorer nations like Yemen, where some of our exports are used, in the name of an already present trade deficit. Maybe if we were to have supported other British industries more in the past, our trade deficit would be smaller, if non-existent.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
The government is using the straw man of “innocent lives” to ignore the fact that Saudi Arabia is actually targeting terrorists and insurgents in Yemen, their actions are morally justifiable. Nay to this bill and nay to the report that is accompanying it.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by Possibly this)
I find it concerning how willing you appear to be to stomp on poorer nations like Yemen, where some of our exports are used, in the name of an already present trade deficit. Maybe if we were to have supported other British industries more in the past, our trade deficit would be smaller, if non-existent.
As per my above point, if we halt the export of arms to them then all that happens is that they take their business elsewhere, lives are still ended and our trade deficit worsens. It's a lose-lose situation.
0
Possibly this
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
(Original post by The Mogg)
As per my above point, if we halt the export of arms to them then all that happens is that they take their business elsewhere, lives are still ended and our trade deficit worsens. It's a lose-lose situation.
So you want us to essentially be complicit in the war which has created the worst famine of modern times on the mere basis that someone else will if we don't. I find that abhorrent. We must seek to create a better world. As a country which is supposedly one that advocates peace, funding the senseless proxy war in Yemen is not only hypocritical but also quite pathetic. I would like to think that you would agree with me that we should be better than that.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
(Original post by Possibly this)
So you want us to essentially be complicit in the war which has created the worst famine of modern times on the mere basis that someone else will if we don't. I find that abhorrent. We must seek to create a better world. As a country which is supposedly one that advocates peace, funding the senseless proxy war in Yemen is not only hypocritical but also quite pathetic. I would like to think that you would agree with me that we should be better than that.
I still object to this. The UK only accounts for 21% of arms imports to Saudi Arabia, whereas Saudi Arabia accounts for 43% of the UK's arms exports. We're clearly on the losing side of this, the UK stopping arms exports to Saudi has more impact on us than it does to them.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
I do not see how the aim of this bill is inevitably achieved by its contents, which to me means that this bill is either poorly thought through or poorly justified - pick one.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
Aye to the Bill. Long overdue.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
This is a very good way to wreck Britain's defence industry and force BAE further offshore. A bill mostly targeting one organisation should never be approved
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
Nay to this. This is an anti-NATO piece of legislation which only serves to strengthen our enemies' resolve whilst we bound up our own free trade abilities in pointless geopolitics-adversarial red tape. Shame on this government for weaponising the deaths of innocents to bring down a bulwark against international totalitarianism.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
"A Bill to establish regulation of arms exports."

Erm...already regulated
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by SnowMiku)
This could save so many innocent lives. Aye all the way.
Pray tell how? Anybody that thinks that if one country says to another "we will not sell you our arms" will stop that nation being armed is, quite frankly, a moron because breaking news: we do not have a monopoly in the arms trade.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
So do you both believe that our trade deficit is more important than innocent lives?
Pray tell how "innocent lives" are saved?

So let's say the Saudis aren't able to buy Brimstone, do they just not bother with missiles? Of course not, they go to the Americans and buy hellfires, or go to the Russians and buy a Vikhr (assuming the Russians would sell), or an RBS 15 from the Swedes.
0
SnowMiku
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 week ago
#20
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Pray tell how? Anybody that thinks that if one country says to another "we will not sell you our arms" will stop that nation being armed is, quite frankly, a moron because breaking news: we do not have a monopoly in the arms trade.
I said -could-. Us not needlessly selling arms means that yes, I do suppose they'd have to go elsewhere, but that'd take more time and different logistics,. Therefore it *could* save lives if it took longer and people could flee etc.

Also, to all the honourable members saying about "free trade" etc: This is peoples' lives we're on about. Arms we're selling to places like Saudi Arabia are being used to kill people with no connection to war, people just like you and I who want to just live. It might not do much as they'll go get arms elsewhere e.g US, but it's still weapons going nowhere near people and that's something good on your conscience.
By not importing weapons where they're being used completely inappropriately, we're rejecting advocating for wars we should have no involvement in and we might be able to set an international precedent. We can't control other countries selling missiles or whatever to kill our own species, but we can control our own. Foreign policies like these need to start being about humanity not money. Money can't buy peace in 99.9999999999% of cases.
(Original post by SankaraInBloom)
Nay to this. This is an anti-NATO piece of legislation which only serves to strengthen our enemies' resolve whilst we bound up our own free trade abilities in pointless geopolitics-adversarial red tape. Shame on this government for weaponising the deaths of innocents to bring down a bulwark against international totalitarianism.
Weaponising? This bill is stopping exports going to places where they're being used for frankly evil purposes. It's doing the sensible thing, we're not throwing it around like a political sword. How in the heck is this anti-NATO? We're rejecting allowing our weapons to kill people they should be NOWHERE NEAR. It has nothing to do with NATO, except for the fact Trump might be a little sad that we're doing the right moral thing.
"own free trade abilities in pointless geopolitics-adversarial red tape" As i've said, not contributing to killing people is much, MUCH more important than trade.

(Original post by BosslyGaming)
So do you both believe that our trade deficit is more important than innocent lives?
Basically sums it up. Money < Lives
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (185)
67.52%
No (89)
32.48%

Watched Threads

View All
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