M635 - Balanced Budget by Treaty Motion

Watch
This discussion is closed.
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
M635 - Balanced Budget by Treaty Motion, Rt Hon Jammy Duel MP

This house calls on the government to immediately enter into negotiations with foreign powers including but not limited to the EU, US, and China to ensure annual payments not less than £1tn per year index linked and to abolish all domestic taxation.

This house notes the belief of the government that, when it is convenient, any instances of negotiations with foreign entities is instantly concluded with the outcome being what the government desires, no matter how unrealistic that is.

This house further notes the Speaker was called on to make a ruling on this matter but, true to form, declined to do so.

On this basis this house therefore believes a perfectly valid way to fund the nation would be via reparations from other entities, the US for lost revenue due to independence, the EU for being the EU, and China because as we all know by now to this government China is evil incarnate.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
Interesting that this is not a joke motion
0
ibotu020
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
I will be ignoring this
0
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
This motion makes no sense whatsoever.
0
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by ibotu020)
I will be ignoring this
Funny looking form of ignoring :wink2:
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
I am highly surprised that this wasn't simply declared a joke given I honestly cannot see any other way of interpreting this.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
Mr Speaker, this motion is so far out of the realms of reality that it should have been declared a joke motion in my view and should be opposed.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Rakas21)
Mr Speaker, this motion is so far out of the realms of reality that it should have been declared a joke motion in my view and should be opposed.
*Madame Deputy

This was submitted with a statement that it was a serious proposal. I personally don't think that this is a joke motion, it's just another piece of posturing.
0
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
Given JD's usual contempt for troll motions i find it interesting he's submitted one..
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
Once again we find ourselves considering the difference between a joke and a stunt - this is (again) the latter.

Needless to say I oppose this motion. Furthermore I find the author's fixation on responses to questions particularly interesting given he's been lacking responses to my questions over the last 4 weeks (despite reminders).
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
I'm trying to work out when the definition of 'joke item' changed from being 'humorous item' to 'item not reflective of the proposer's actual views'.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
I'm trying to work out when the definition of 'joke item' changed from being 'humorous item' to 'item not reflective of the proposer's actual views'.
As has already been established by the house, an item doesn't need to reflect the views of its author, whether serious or otherwise.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
I'm trying to work out when the definition of 'joke item' changed from being 'humorous item' to 'item not reflective of the proposer's actual views'.
I think any item that would have wacky consequences should be considered a joke item. There's a difference between something the proposer doesn't believe and something that nobody believes.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
I'm trying to work out when the definition of 'joke item' changed from being 'humorous item' to 'item not reflective of the proposer's actual views'.
I'd say that getting £1tn per annum from the China, the EU, and US is a joke. It's something so beyond the realms of possibility that it isn't ever going to happen.

For instance, if JD submitted something about changing the laws of physics to make the UK carbon neutral right away because parliament is sovereign and can change the laws as it pleases, that would be so beyond the pale that to consider the item anything other than a joke is ludicrous.

Whilst I accept that the proposor need not completely agree with their items, they should at least be reasonable if they are to be taken seriously.
1
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
Unofficial Statement from Her Majesty's Government
Following the passing of M635 we have entered into negotiations with the US, the EU and the People's Republic of China regarding reparations for existing. We have received the following responses from each nation:
The US: **** off
The EU: va te faire foutre
The PRC: méiyǒu.

Mr Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.

1
SnowMiku
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
I'm honestly slightly confused by this motion.
0
El Salvador
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
If we pass this, will it stop the Libbers from saying we have sustained a deficit?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by SnowMiku)
I'm honestly slightly confused by this motion.
It's quite simple, it asks for the government to demand vast sums of money from other countries, their interpretation of how things work and the Speakers' refusal to tell them it's wrong means it instantly happens irrespective of how unrealistic it is. Limitless money with no tax, everybody can spend whatever they want and there are no issues because there is a magic money tree via instant diplomacy.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by El Salvador)
If we pass this, will it stop the Libbers from saying we have sustained a deficit?
No, you would then have to go and start and instantly finish the negotiations, but until such a time as the Speaker can be bothered to say the theory the government runs on is wrong there would be no deficit as long as you demand enough money from other countries.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Aph)
I'd say that getting £1tn per annum from the China, the EU, and US is a joke. It's something so beyond the realms of possibility that it isn't ever going to happen.

For instance, if JD submitted something about changing the laws of physics to make the UK carbon neutral right away because parliament is sovereign and can change the laws as it pleases, that would be so beyond the pale that to consider the item anything other than a joke is ludicrous.

Whilst I accept that the proposor need not completely agree with their items, they should at least be reasonable if they are to be taken seriously.
Funnily enough as much as you worship international law and something that actually matters treaties cannot change the laws of physics, they can however require one country to hand over money to another.

It is also worth noting that while £1tn is a lot it also isn't, convert that to dollars comes out at about $1.3tn, now compare to GDP of specified entities last year:
US $21.4tn
China $14.3tn
World Bank doesn't have EU as a whole so just go for the top 5
Germany: $3.8tn
France $2.7tn
Italy $2tn
Spain $1.3tn
Netherlands $0.9tn

Total of all that $46.4tn

so the £1tn is ~2.8% GDP, which is quite small if you compare it to say WWI reparations or the French Indemnity which itself was calculated to match the one imposed on Prussia by Napoleon.

Of course it could be expanded to the entire world in which case it is less than 1%
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 (95)
13.85%
I'm not sure (32)
4.66%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (215)
31.34%
I have already dropped out (16)
2.33%
I'm not a current university student (328)
47.81%

Watched Threads

View All