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

This discussion is closed.
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 week ago
#21
(Original post by SnowMiku)
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.

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.


Basically sums it up. Money < Lives
There is no could about it, to believe that this is anything other than virtue signaling is being naive. It isn't even a case of more time or logistical issues, existing orders just get increased, if for instance we sell 100 missiles a year to a country, and the Americans 1000, the cancellation of that 100 just leads to the US orders being 1100 a year with no practical impact, the only difference is that somebody else is benefiting from the sale and we can pretend that nothing is happening.

Basically, naively feeling good < money
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 week ago
#22
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
So do you both believe that our trade deficit is more important than innocent lives?
Well given you aren't proposing anything to save or help these "innocent lives" it's a no brainer
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 week ago
#23
(Original post by SnowMiku)
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.
It's an anti-NATO measure because Saudi Arabia are an ally of NATO, and quite frankly, an oil crisis precipitated by this turn of events would cause far more deaths from hypothermia or starvation than the war you're doing literally nothing to mediate in. This is essentially a daft measure designed to pretend this government is solving problems as opposed to creating more. I'd like to see this government justify its fallacious "lives over trade" strategy when we're dragged headfirst intl a recession.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 week ago
#24
Mr Speaker, i will be opposing this bill in division.

Although i personally am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that we should be developing in-house weaponry and defense technologies that is more advanced for our own use rather than selling to other nations, as pointed out by others these weapons are developed by private firms and we should not impede their trade, especially when these exports generate jobs and tax revenue.

What they are used for once the order has been fulfilled is none of our concern so long as we have an appropriate record of whom the sale was to.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#25
This item has entered cessation.
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 (479)
66.44%
No (242)
33.56%

Watched Threads

View All