“Si vis pacem, para bellum” was the governing instinct here: voters backed higher defence spending, but the more revealing fact is that the page produced six Yes arguments and not a single No case. This was a decisive vote accompanied by a one-sided debate.
The floor’s strongest voices framed defence as deterrence and preparedness. One called for “a tough, impossible to swallow cookie”; another said resources “cannot simply be conjured up in response to a threat”, pointing to Russia, China, drones, cyber attacks and the uncertain future of American protection.
Yet the winning side was not arguing for an open-ended world-power role. Its highest-rated practical case demanded forces “designed exclusively for defending the UK”, alongside better procurement and value for money, while another insisted that “We need our borders secured.” The argument stretched from naval protection and undersea cables to domestic manufacturing and jobs.
The No side did not make its case on the page, so the chamber’s internal disagreement appeared mostly within Yes. Some tied spending to stricter borders and even military service for immigrants without children; another said “defence spending would create jobs and export income”, while dismissing pacifist objections as another reason to support it. Security, sovereignty and industrial policy were bundled together rather than tested against one another.
The verdict was clear, but the argument was narrower than the score: the room agreed on the destination while leaving open what kind of defence force the UK should actually build.
7 Opinions
But instead of pretending we're a world power......We're NOT Spend it on building a defense forces (similar to many European countries) designed exclusively for defending the UK rather than posturing in the world stage. We also need to sort out the precurenent methods taking the best possible equipment whilst getting value for money
With Russian military/Chinese Intelligence threats, the US 'Special Relationship' shown up for what it always was (e.g.Falklands), & the changing face of warfare (drones,cyber attacks) it is more important than ever to prepare. These resources need to be in place, they cannot simply be conjured up in response to a threat to ourselves or an ally. Plus make as much of the hardware as possible in UK, for jobs, innovation and security.
Only if it starts at the border Need to stop all immigration until all illegals are sorted .
"Si vis pacem, para bellum", in quicky changing world, with international law failing, USA dropping its role of global policeman and new superpowers emerging and trying to expanse their influence, the UK needs to become a tough, impossible to swallow cookie.
Yes we need to increase spending on defence of the country. We need our borders secured. As we are a group of islands we need a strong Navy and defence starts with secure borders. The Borders Force needs many more recruits to speed up asylum cases. Also every imigrant without children should be square bashed into military service not to fire rifles but to start rebuilding the country they so desperately wanted to come to.
Not just because Russia is a clear threat to comms cables in the North Sea (and Ireland has no Navy), but because defence spending would create jobs and export income. The pacifist snowflakes hate the mere idea, of course, which is another point in favour.