Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Wouldn't that be libertarianism? It's a distinction that seems to be lost on some people but I see them as profoundly different (albeit with very similar underpinnings) and so worthy of the separate labels.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Wouldn't that be libertarianism? It's a distinction that seems to be lost on some people but I see them as profoundly different (albeit with very similar underpinnings) and so worthy of the separate labels.
I think libertarianism is mad. It acts as if externalities don’t exist. Society isn’t a free-for-all, and wealth in particular is problematically distributed and increasingly just inherited.
No, I’m a classic liberal, albeit with Rawlsian leanings and Oakeshottian nostalgia.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
No, because covid is communicable.
I’m not sure the antivaxxers are actually killing anyone (other than themselves, of course), but I guess we’ll never know.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
And Turkey? Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU. The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the USA and adds a lot to the alliance but has also never been in a Union with Russia as Ukraine was.
If NATO is going to include former states of the USSR then they must be in the EU for starters
No, but Turkey was part of the Ottoman Empire... so what? As for your made up rule about former USSR states being in the EU first, why? You say a lot of feverishly random things, but this one is notably weird. I'd love to hear a coherent argument for why you think that.
So what everything. NATO cannot possibly include all former USSR states or it is inviting World War 3 with Putin's Russia.
As far as I am concerned no further USSR nations should be allowed in NATO, it is at its limit as it is and the only justification for those that are in is they are in the EU
So... no arguments for why your weirdo path to NATO accession has to run through the EU. Just a restatement of the opinion. Are you able to understand the difference between someone asking to hear your opinion again (and again), and someone asking you to try to explain your logic? Can you grapple with the idea that someone else might find your opinion that the only path to NATO membership must be through the EU a little strange, and help them along to fill in the gaps? Do you even understand how normal people exchange ideas, debate, maybe change each others' minds? Why are you so restlessly strange?
Norway, Turkey, Canada, USA, North Macedonia and Albania have never been part of the EU.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
No, because covid is communicable.
I’m not sure the antivaxxers are actually killing anyone (other than themselves, of course), but I guess we’ll never know.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
Do they? I’m happy to change my view if you can explain how.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
No, because covid is communicable.
I’m not sure the antivaxxers are actually killing anyone (other than themselves, of course), but I guess we’ll never know.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
Do they? I’m happy to change my view if you can explain how.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
No, because covid is communicable.
I’m not sure the antivaxxers are actually killing anyone (other than themselves, of course), but I guess we’ll never know.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
Do they? I’m happy to change my view if you can explain how.
You can be hit by a flying unrestrained passenger. Also, people outside the vehicle can be hit by said passenger.
Plus, of course, you are imposing a health care cost burden on the rest of us.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
No, because covid is communicable.
I’m not sure the antivaxxers are actually killing anyone (other than themselves, of course), but I guess we’ll never know.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
Do they? I’m happy to change my view if you can explain how.
You can be hit by a flying unrestrained passenger. Also, people outside the vehicle can be hit by said passenger.
Plus, of course, you are imposing a health care cost burden on the rest of us.
This is really not one of my strongest held views.
Nevertheless, I’d want to understand the real prevalence of (1). Is it worth the restriction in liberties?
The health cost argument can be extended to almost anything. I think it’s very sticky to rely on that.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Presumably you are supportive of Novak Djokovic’s stance on vaccination.
No, because covid is communicable.
I’m not sure the antivaxxers are actually killing anyone (other than themselves, of course), but I guess we’ll never know.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
Do they? I’m happy to change my view if you can explain how.
NEW: Boris Johnson’s allies claim he has a “good chance” of avoiding a fine over Partygate. Growing confidence in his inner circle that PM’s justification they were work events may hold
“Legally the situation is not as black and white as it might seem.”
A "work event" is not "work" when it is a social activity in the workplace.
Lock the lying twat up.
As a former diplomat and as someone who works on building workplace culture, I can think of plenty of circumstances where a social event at a workplace is work. However, I doubt the Downing Street parties were, even if work were discussed by many.
Looks as though Johnson will survive, why is everyone else so sure he won't?
Johnson attended events with party snacks and alcohol involving people who were not in his social "bubble". That would appear to be fact, and that being so he broke the spirit of the rules of the day. The great majority of the voting public understand this.
As I own my own business I can take what I want to eat and drink in my office, but I don't take anything more exciting than a packed lunch, because the workspace is for work not parties. An M & S sandwich and a mineral water is lunch, a bottle of Hermitage and a bowl of peanuts is not lunch (for those without an alcoholism problem at least). In my days as an employee if I had cracked open bottles of beer and wine at most employer workplaces I would have been sacked on the spot.
Johnson may well avoid a FPN, it would be a travesty should that come to pass, but so be it. If the speed camera can't read my number plate accurately it doesn't mean I wasn't speeding, or didn't run the red light.
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Wouldn't that be libertarianism? It's a distinction that seems to be lost on some people but I see them as profoundly different (albeit with very similar underpinnings) and so worthy of the separate labels.
I think libertarianism is mad. It acts as if externalities don’t exist. Society isn’t a free-for-all, and wealth in particular is problematically distributed and increasingly just inherited.
No, I’m a classic liberal, albeit with Rawlsian leanings and Oakeshottian nostalgia.
That is why - the externalities - I would describe myself as a neo-libertarian, not a libertarian. As you indicate, classical libertarianism is simply undoable in an interconnected, crowded world.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
And Turkey? Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU. The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the USA and adds a lot to the alliance but has also never been in a Union with Russia as Ukraine was.
If NATO is going to include former states of the USSR then they must be in the EU for starters
No, but Turkey was part of the Ottoman Empire... so what? As for your made up rule about former USSR states being in the EU first, why? You say a lot of feverishly random things, but this one is notably weird. I'd love to hear a coherent argument for why you think that.
So what everything. NATO cannot possibly include all former USSR states or it is inviting World War 3 with Putin's Russia.
As far as I am concerned no further USSR nations should be allowed in NATO, it is at its limit as it is and the only justification for those that are in is they are in the EU
So... no arguments for why your weirdo path to NATO accession has to run through the EU. Just a restatement of the opinion. Are you able to understand the difference between someone asking to hear your opinion again (and again), and someone asking you to try to explain your logic? Can you grapple with the idea that someone else might find your opinion that the only path to NATO membership must be through the EU a little strange, and help them along to fill in the gaps? Do you even understand how normal people exchange ideas, debate, maybe change each others' minds? Why are you so restlessly strange?
Your logic seems to be to make it as easy as possible for World War 3 to break out with Russia by adding one of the biggest ex USSR states right next to Russia to NATO, a nation not even in the EU
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Wouldn't that be libertarianism? It's a distinction that seems to be lost on some people but I see them as profoundly different (albeit with very similar underpinnings) and so worthy of the separate labels.
I think libertarianism is mad. It acts as if externalities don’t exist. Society isn’t a free-for-all, and wealth in particular is problematically distributed and increasingly just inherited.
No, I’m a classic liberal, albeit with Rawlsian leanings and Oakeshottian nostalgia.
Hence why I am a Conservative and not a Libertarian or even a Liberal
Also, note that FH focused on “freedom” rather than democracy per se.
They combine scores for "political rights" with "civil liberties".
So Blighty scored 39/40 for PR, and 54/60 for CL (total 93/100) in 2021.
I have lived in NZ and the UK (and now the USA), and NZ certainly provides a greater level of practical area liberties to its citizens, or at least did until COVID.
I lived in Auckland for a year in the late 90’s and wouldn’t say I noticed any major differences in practical liberties. Can you give me examples of what you mean?
I’d start with CCTV (or lack of it) and move on to the relatively trouble-free interactions with government for everyday living (getting a driver’s license, passport, starting a business, going to the doctor) etc.
NZ is helped by still having a large agricultural sector (farmers don’t like being nanny-stated) and a high trust society also (Scandinavian style).
Fair enough although I’d describe those mostly as annoyances rather than liberties. As for cctv, I think most people regard them as a a good thing, especially in the context of crime. Note how quickly Wayne Couzens was caught, partly owing to cctv evidence. The Yorkshire ripper would never have been able to do what he did in the modern world.
I think it’s well established now that British people don’t especially like freedom.
Really? On what measure? Do you regard cctv as infringing your freedom?
Yes.
Fair enough.
It’s possible I’m an “extreme” liberal. I don’t believe most people feel as I do.
I’m not even 100% sold on mandatory seatbelts, except for children of course.
Wouldn't that be libertarianism? It's a distinction that seems to be lost on some people but I see them as profoundly different (albeit with very similar underpinnings) and so worthy of the separate labels.
I think libertarianism is mad. It acts as if externalities don’t exist. Society isn’t a free-for-all, and wealth in particular is problematically distributed and increasingly just inherited.
No, I’m a classic liberal, albeit with Rawlsian leanings and Oakeshottian nostalgia.
Hence why I am a Conservative and not a Libertarian or even a Liberal
Yes, although you love inherited wealth like a priapic viscount.
One of the reasons I’m *not* a libertarian is in fact because it is agnostic towards inherited wealth and ignores the ill effects of increasing wealth inequality.
In which case you're on the side of Mr Putin. Self determination isn't self determination if it has an asterisk.
Ukraine might not meet the criteria and might never never meet the criteria to join, but it should be allowed to try and apply as is it's choice as a sovereign nation.
No it's far more subtle and complex.
Ukraine joining NATO is sheer idiocy.
You have to know your history and why this would be so so inflammatory.
The best foreign policy is based around compromise, the worst around pig-headedness.
We must NOT let Ukraine join NATO.
I don't pretend to be an expert on a lot of things. I know nothing about fusion reactors or aerodynamics or motorcycle maintenance or the names of different fabrics. But one thing I do take a very keen interest in is history. And one lesson I have learned from my fairly extensive reading is that you don't counter imperial aggression divided. You unite, or you get picked off one by one.
NATO already covers most European nations up to Romania, Poland and the Baltic states. all united in mutual defence.
Expanding it to Ukraine however means we would have to be ready to go to WW3 if Russia invaded Ukraine, which we aren't
So are we prepared to risk a larger war to defend Lithuania or Poland? If not, what does NATO even mean? If so, why do we care about them and not Ukraine?
They got in first.
There doesn’t need to be some kind of “law” underpinning these things.
That's begging the question. I'm asking for reasons why Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO. The answer cannot be "because they aren't a member of NATO", that's just circular logic.
HYUFD's answer seems to be that we shouldn't be prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine but (implicitly, HYUFD can correct me here) that we should be prepared to defend Lithuania). I'm asking why. Why one and not the other?
NATO is already up to its limit, hence Russia already begins to feel encircled. Pushing it beyond the Baltic states will just provoke Putin and the UK population will not support the bodybags of British soldiers required to defend Ukraine. That is just reality.
To have any meaning NATO has to have a limit on how many nations within it to mutually defend.
What "limit"?
For starters EU member states, the Baltic states and Poland and Romania are in the EU, the Ukraine isn't and unlike the UK never has been.
And Turkey? Also, Poland was a NATO member years before joining the EU. The EU really doesn't have anything to do with this. Unless Canada is suddenly an EU state and I hadn't noticed it happen.
Turkey has the biggest military in NATO after the USA and adds a lot to the alliance but has also never been in a Union with Russia as Ukraine was.
If NATO is going to include former states of the USSR then they must be in the EU for starters
No, but Turkey was part of the Ottoman Empire... so what? As for your made up rule about former USSR states being in the EU first, why? You say a lot of feverishly random things, but this one is notably weird. I'd love to hear a coherent argument for why you think that.
So what everything. NATO cannot possibly include all former USSR states or it is inviting World War 3 with Putin's Russia.
As far as I am concerned no further USSR nations should be allowed in NATO, it is at its limit as it is and the only justification for those that are in is they are in the EU
So... no arguments for why your weirdo path to NATO accession has to run through the EU. Just a restatement of the opinion. Are you able to understand the difference between someone asking to hear your opinion again (and again), and someone asking you to try to explain your logic? Can you grapple with the idea that someone else might find your opinion that the only path to NATO membership must be through the EU a little strange, and help them along to fill in the gaps? Do you even understand how normal people exchange ideas, debate, maybe change each others' minds? Why are you so restlessly strange?
Your logic seems to be to make it as easy as possible for World War 3 to break out with Russia by adding one of the biggest ex USSR states right next to Russia to NATO, a nation not even in the EU
"not even in the EU". Why is this relevant, you fruitcake?
Comments
It's a distinction that seems to be lost on some people but I see them as profoundly different (albeit with very similar underpinnings) and so worthy of the separate labels.
It acts as if externalities don’t exist.
Society isn’t a free-for-all, and wealth in particular is problematically distributed and increasingly just inherited.
No, I’m a classic liberal, albeit with Rawlsian leanings and Oakeshottian nostalgia.
Seat belts protect other occupants of a vehicle, not just the user.
I’m happy to change my view if you can explain how.
https://twitter.com/amichaistein1/status/1493694446759723015?s=21
I would have expected Costa Rica and S Korea. But did know the detail on the others.
Plus, of course, you are imposing a health care cost burden on the rest of us.
Nevertheless, I’d want to understand the real prevalence of (1). Is it worth the restriction in liberties?
The health cost argument can be extended to almost anything. I think it’s very sticky to rely on that.
As I own my own business I can take what I want to eat and drink in my office, but I don't take anything more exciting than a packed lunch, because the workspace is for work not parties. An M & S sandwich and a mineral water is lunch, a bottle of Hermitage and a bowl of peanuts is not lunch (for those without an alcoholism problem at least). In my days as an employee if I had cracked open bottles of beer and wine at most employer workplaces I would have been sacked on the spot.
Johnson may well avoid a FPN, it would be a travesty should that come to pass, but so be it. If the speed camera can't read my number plate accurately it doesn't mean I wasn't speeding, or didn't run the red light.
One of the reasons I’m *not* a libertarian is in fact because it is agnostic towards inherited wealth and ignores the ill effects of increasing wealth inequality.