title: Foreign Policy
layout: policy published: true
What policies should we adopt in our relations with other countries?
We believe that a clear view of the role that the UN, EU, NATO and other international bodies play in reducing the likelihood of war should be clearly and unambiguosly communicated to the electorate.
The UK should also use it's membership of such bodies to influence them to reinforce this role and use this peaceful approach whenever possible to avoid conflict.
The UK should also use its membership of such bodies to influence them to reinforce this role and use this peaceful approach whenever possible to avoid conflict.
We will maintain the UK's committment to the UN Millennium Project agreement of allocating 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) to Overseas Development Assistance. These funds will be kept separate from military spending; any required security, demobilisation, or peacekeeping expenses will be seperately funded, from Defence budgets.
We will remain a part of the EU, and we will campaign for:
If an In/Out Referendum was held and the UK opted to leave the European Union, we would campaign to join the European Free Trade Association.
The UK should join many other countries around the world, as well as the UN, and officially recognise Palestine as a sovereign state. This is in line with our existing national preference for a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict in accordance with international law.
We should use our significant financial position within the global economy to help us achieve our ethical foreign policy goals. We should impose financial and trade restrictions against states who pursue aggressive or expansionist policies against their neighbours, or anti-democratic or oppressive policies against their own citizens.
The UK should repatriate fully the natives of the Chagos Archipelagos that were evicted illegally by the British government between 1967 and 1973. All descendants of those originally evicted should be given the option to return. A referendum should then be held from those that choose to return to decide what to do with Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia which is currently based on the islands.
The UK should revoke the Chagos Marine Protected Area as it was founded under the auspices of a legitimate environmental project, when it was later revealed to be a plot by the Americans to keep the Chagossians off the islands, and it was also declared illegal on 18 March 2015 by the UN's Permanent Court of Arbitration.
We recognise that the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) has turned to peaceful means to secure rights for the Kurdish people[^2]. We also note the PKK's leadership in resisting the brutality of the ISIS forces in the Middle East. We therefore wish to delist the PKK as a terrorist organisation, and move that the organisation similarly be de-listed at EU and NATO levels.
[^2]: Why delist the PKK?
Can we separate into two separate PRs? They seem like different issues to me, both worthy of a good debate
@yellowgopher - almost 9 years ago
I'm a Euro Sceptic but I think any membership of international organisations like the EU doesn't HAVE to be cost neutral - it should be about sharing ideas and resources for the greater good and, because we have inequality, some people/countries have to accept they might pay more. Now I can see that "greater good" could equate to a value but I am concerned, as soon as you put a figure on such things, it only serves to turn people against the idea ("it costs THAT much!?!").
Second idea - if we leave to try and join the EFTA - is sound.
@philipjohn - almost 9 years ago
Cost neutrality sounds like a purely quantitative goal that ignores the actual benefits.
I don't think cost neutrality should be an explicit objective, but there I would support something about "all member states sharing fairly in terms of overall benefits and costs".
If there is to be a redistributive element (i.e. richer nations being greater net contributors) then I think that the level of this redistribution should be explicitly agreed (e.g. 2% of GDP from each country pooled and re-allocated according to population size would have a modest redistributive effect).
If you don't do this, then you end up with a bunch of "back door" redistribution happening through various channels (CAP, Structural fund, Cohesion fund etc.) which is driven by political / bureaucratic agendas isn't really transparent or fair.
@anilliams - almost 9 years ago
So we agree that joining the EFTA is sound, but cost effective is not. I'll exclude cost effective and edit this to reflect that later today.
@andrewdwilliams - almost 9 years ago
Added one about ensuring our membership is cost neutral - we get out what we put in, not necessarily just straight up money but through investment, development, etc.
Also added one about the possibility of leaving the EU and if we did, joining the EFTA.