The EU is going to come down to immigration (Out) vs jobs (In) for the public debate.
Out people will argue that jobs aren't going to be lost if we go out, but it will be In's core argument. In people will argue that immigration can be controlled if we stay in, but it will be Out's core argument.
At the end of the day I think job security trump immigration for the public, so In will win.
Job security? I would have thought a lot of people will be worrying about their job security with hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming into the country each year.
As the discussion on here centred around railway gauges, you probably missed my reference a week or two ago about the results of the Sceptics recent military exercises. In a nutshell the Yanks have discovered that they could not actually sustain a war in Eastern Europe.
But then, I doubt if the Russians could.
The Russians are hardly excelling themselves in their Ukrainian campaign. Most of their kit is shagged out, and has been for decades.
Of course what a lot of BOOers fail to realise is that EU immigration is a two way street.. We are as free to go live in Bulgaria as a Bulgarian is to come here
The EU is going to come down to immigration (Out) vs jobs (In) for the public debate.
Out people will argue that jobs aren't going to be lost if we go out, but it will be In's core argument. In people will argue that immigration can be controlled if we stay in, but it will be Out's core argument.
At the end of the day I think job security trump immigration for the public, so In will win.
I'd have agreed with you a year ago. Now as 100,000 "swarm" into Greece every weekend, Calais turns into a concentration camp, and Britain experiences the highest net migration since Hengist and Horsa, I'm not so sure at all.
It will depend on the depth of the migration crisis when we have the vote. Europhiles need to pray that it gets better. But it could easily get WORSE.
As of this moment the migrants in Greece etc aren’t EU citizens. Therefore they can’t come to Britain. If they are not given citizenship documents in Germany or wherever, does it matter whether swell the Calais Jungle?
Since several dozen from Calais get through the tunnel every night, YES!
The scenes of migrants death in the media could shore up the Better Off out movement because the EC will be seen as incapable of addressing these challenges. It also can be argued that an EC policy, Schengen, encourages this.
Being Our would mean having to actually be In Schengen as a prerequisite for getting back In to any trade deal. As it is by being In we are safely Out. Additionally if we were simply In the EEA and somehow managed to say Out of Schengen then in all other respects we would be In the EU single market and free movement but withOut the votes or vetoes.
The point is that when it comes to sovereignty people often vote emotionally, not *logically* (as we saw in indyref - the NOs had all the economic arguments but YES still got 45% of the vote).
All the BOO-ers have to say is
"Look at the billions of people pouring into the EU, the dead in the lorries, the terrorists in Sweden, once they are in the EU they can come to Britain, do you want that? If not, vote OUT, and let us secure our island borders once and for all. Pull up the drawbridge. Britain for the British."
In the middle of a truly horrendous immigration crisis - and it is hideous, with hundreds dying every day - such an argument is going to be very powerful, whether it is logical or not.
If I was running BOO I'd go on the immigration issue every time. Bang it home. Relentlessly. It would be ugly, but it could win the vote. With two years to go, Europhiles are dangerously complacent ("it'll be IN by 2 to 1"), just like the NO campaign, at the same stage, in Scotland
They must be averting their eyes from the latest polls which already show a fairly tight race apart from one outlier giving Yes 66%. The latest put Yes on 54% after excluding DKs.
Maybe he will be a disaster for the Labour Party, however on some issues I think he strikes a cord with many people even those who would not naturally be Labour supporters under any leader. Of course, as is typical with his political tribe he correctly identifies the problem then proposes a simplistic or wrong, if not downright bat-shit crazy solution.
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
I'd bloody well hope we'd be prepared to defend Poland and to publicly be unambivalent about that. It was our ambivalence towards being prepared to defend our allies like Poland that was a key contributory factor to WWII.
Yes, but the last time we went to war to protect Poland it didn't actually work out too well for anyone, least of all the Poles.
Those claiming on here we would go to war with the collective might of NATO might actually want to look at what that collective might actually is. Then think about the political willingness of governments across Europe to sacrifice their young men and women in a war for a far away country that for most of the last 75 years has been, effectively, a Russian colony anyway.
As the discussion on here centred around railway gauges, you probably missed my reference a week or two ago about the results of the Sceptics recent military exercises. In a nutshell the Yanks have discovered that they could not actually sustain a war in Eastern Europe.
1) Neither - probably - could the Russians. They found their Georgia conflict difficult, and Ukraine's hardly been a pushover. True, these are wars by proxy, but even so ...
2) We should never underestimate the capability of the US to wage war, if they have the political will to do so.
The EU is going to come down to immigration (Out) vs jobs (In) for the public debate.
Out people will argue that jobs aren't going to be lost if we go out, but it will be In's core argument. In people will argue that immigration can be controlled if we stay in, but it will be Out's core argument.
At the end of the day I think job security trump immigration for the public, so In will win.
I'd have agreed with you a year ago. Now as 100,000 "swarm" into Greece every weekend, Calais turns into a concentration camp, and Britain experiences the highest net migration since Hengist and Horsa, I'm not so sure at all.
It will depend on the depth of the migration crisis when we have the vote. Europhiles need to pray that it gets better. But it could easily get WORSE.
I think that's a very fair remark. I also think a huge known unknown is whether or not migration is linked to a terrorist attack in the UK. Were an illegal migrant to do a terrorist attack like 7/7 or those we've seen in France lately like Charlie Hebdo then that could be a tragically significant event.
The EU is going to come down to immigration (Out) vs jobs (In) for the public debate.
Out people will argue that jobs aren't going to be lost if we go out, but it will be In's core argument. In people will argue that immigration can be controlled if we stay in, but it will be Out's core argument.
At the end of the day I think job security trump immigration for the public, so In will win.
I'd have agreed with you a year ago. Now as 100,000 "swarm" into Greece every weekend, Calais turns into a concentration camp, and Britain experiences the highest net migration since Hengist and Horsa, I'm not so sure at all.
It will depend on the depth of the migration crisis when we have the vote. Europhiles need to pray that it gets better. But it could easily get WORSE.
As of this moment the migrants in Greece etc aren’t EU citizens. Therefore they can’t come to Britain. If they are not given citizenship documents in Germany or wherever, does it matter whether swell the Calais Jungle?
Since several dozen from Calais get through the tunnel every night, YES!
The Jungle will still be there, though, if we leave the EU. Unless, of course, our economy crashes as a result of leaving and no-one wants to come here!
As the discussion on here centred around railway gauges, you probably missed my reference a week or two ago about the results of the Sceptics recent military exercises. In a nutshell the Yanks have discovered that they could not actually sustain a war in Eastern Europe.
But then, I doubt if the Russians could.
The Russians are hardly excelling themselves in their Ukrainian campaign. Most of their kit is shagged out, and has been for decades.
So if the Sovs, sorry, Russians aren't a threat then what is the point of NATO?
You take me back to my original question what is NATO for?
As the discussion on here centred around railway gauges, you probably missed my reference a week or two ago about the results of the Sceptics recent military exercises. In a nutshell the Yanks have discovered that they could not actually sustain a war in Eastern Europe.
But then, I doubt if the Russians could.
The Russians are hardly excelling themselves in their Ukrainian campaign. Most of their kit is shagged out, and has been for decades.
So if the Sovs, sorry, Russians aren't a threat then what is the point of NATO?
You take me back to my original question what is NATO for?
Mutual self-defence. I can't see anything at all to be gained by winding up NATO. What do we lose by being a member of it, and what would we gain if it didn't exist?
Maybe he will be a disaster for the Labour Party, however on some issues I think he strikes a cord with many people even those who would not naturally be Labour supporters under any leader. Of course, as is typical with his political tribe he correctly identifies the problem then proposes a simplistic or wrong, if not downright bat-shit crazy solution.
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
I'd bloody well hope we'd be prepared to defend Poland and to publicly be unambivalent about that. It was our ambivalence towards being prepared to defend our allies like Poland that was a key contributory factor to WWII.
Yes, but the last time we went to war to protect Poland it didn't actually work out too well for anyone, least of all the Poles.
Those claiming on here we would go to war with the collective might of NATO might actually want to look at what that collective might actually is. Then think about the political willingness of governments across Europe to sacrifice their young men and women in a war for a far away country that for most of the last 75 years has been, effectively, a Russian colony anyway.
It would be a pity to let democracy get snuffed out in Eastern Europe, simply because we couldn't be bothered to do anything about it.
The EU is going to come down to immigration (Out) vs jobs (In) for the public debate.
Out people will argue that jobs aren't going to be lost if we go out, but it will be In's core argument. In people will argue that immigration can be controlled if we stay in, but it will be Out's core argument.
At the end of the day I think job security trump immigration for the public, so In will win.
Job security? I would have thought a lot of people will be worrying about their job security with hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming into the country each year.
Hence why I said both arguments cut both ways. But undoubtedly jobs will be In's killer argument while immigration is Out's killer argument.
If Out can neutralise jobs (in the public's mind), or In can neutralise immigration (in the public's mind) then that side will win. As always in a democracy its what the public perceive the facts to be that matter.
As the discussion on here centred around railway gauges, you probably missed my reference a week or two ago about the results of the Sceptics recent military exercises. In a nutshell the Yanks have discovered that they could not actually sustain a war in Eastern Europe.
But then, I doubt if the Russians could.
The Russians are hardly excelling themselves in their Ukrainian campaign. Most of their kit is shagged out, and has been for decades.
So if the Sovs, sorry, Russians aren't a threat then what is the point of NATO?
You take me back to my original question what is NATO for?
Mutual self-defence. I can't see anything at all to be gained by winding up NATO. What do we lose by being a member of it, and what would we gain if it didn't exist?
The EU is going to come down to immigration (Out) vs jobs (In) for the public debate.
Out people will argue that jobs aren't going to be lost if we go out, but it will be In's core argument. In people will argue that immigration can be controlled if we stay in, but it will be Out's core argument.
At the end of the day I think job security trump immigration for the public, so In will win.
I'd have agreed with you a year ago. Now as 100,000 "swarm" into Greece every weekend, Calais turns into a concentration camp, and Britain experiences the highest net migration since Hengist and Horsa, I'm not so sure at all.
It will depend on the depth of the migration crisis when we have the vote. Europhiles need to pray that it gets better. But it could easily get WORSE.
As of this moment the migrants in Greece etc aren’t EU citizens. Therefore they can’t come to Britain. If they are not given citizenship documents in Germany or wherever, does it matter whether swell the Calais Jungle?
Since several dozen from Calais get through the tunnel every night, YES!
The Jungle will still be there, though, if we leave the EU. Unless, of course, our economy crashes as a result of leaving and no-one wants to come here!
The choices where laid out rather well here in the Telegraph a couple of days ago, they seem to come down to ending Schengen and free movement, or effectively closing Europe's external borders.
The derisive response by some here misses the point about Don's piece, which is essentially that non-Corbyn Labour people are thinking about how best to come to terms with his potential success. The early stuff about The Resistance etc. is being replaced by sober calculation. That's reflected among the candidates too, who by all accounts get along personally quite well after all the hours on the campaign trail together - Burnham is willing to be in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and Cooper hasn't ruled it out.
Most Labour people agree on the right response to two opposite outcomes: if Labour flourishes under Corbyn, almost nobody is going to try to get rid of him, and if Labour crashes and burns then there's a consensus deep into the left (including, I think, Corbyn himself) that we'll need to move on. There will be problems anyway with yesterday's old guard (Alan Milburn etc.), which I think we'll shrug off, but the main difficulty will be if we do middling well - winning this, losing that, roughly level in the polls, etc. An interesting question which Corbyn has raised himself is whether he can emulate the SNP's success in getting all the young enthusiasts to actually buckle down and register, knock on doors etc.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
JWisemann is one of the rudest posters here. He/she has been really quite insulting to me and others.
But in any case the complaint was not about rudeness but about PB becoming too right wing. Personally I value hearing from people with different political opinions to mine, like you (on some topics - we agree on some things), even if I don't agree with them.
(PS You're still wrong about Corbyn, though!!)
Totally agree about Wisemann and I for one, have heard more than enough of NPXMP's condescension form the lofty heights of Blairism/Brownism/Cooperism/Corbynism - delete as appropriate!
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
Nicola's Brave New World - why bother to leave them in the charge of their parents at all?
HL Because if NATO did not exist then Russia would almost certainly consider retaking back some of the territory it took at the end of WW2...Even with its clapped out gear.. and that is what NATO is for..if there is no deterrent then it will not be deterred..
Maybe he will be a disaster for the Labour Party, however on some issues I think he strikes a cord with many people even those who would not naturally be Labour supporters under any leader. Of course, as is typical with his political tribe he correctly identifies the problem then proposes a simplistic or wrong, if not downright bat-shit crazy solution.
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
I'd bloody well hope we'd be prepared to defend Poland and to publicly be unambivalent about that. It was our ambivalence towards being prepared to defend our allies like Poland that was a key contributory factor to WWII.
when you signing up or do you plan to support from behind the sofa
From behind the sofa? That's so 20th century. Like my support for the Iraq War in 2003 I'd support them from behind the keyboard.
As the discussion on here centred around railway gauges, you probably missed my reference a week or two ago about the results of the Sceptics recent military exercises. In a nutshell the Yanks have discovered that they could not actually sustain a war in Eastern Europe.
But then, I doubt if the Russians could.
The Russians are hardly excelling themselves in their Ukrainian campaign. Most of their kit is shagged out, and has been for decades.
So if the Sovs, sorry, Russians aren't a threat then what is the point of NATO?
You take me back to my original question what is NATO for?
Mutual self-defence. I can't see anything at all to be gained by winding up NATO. What do we lose by being a member of it, and what would we gain if it didn't exist?
Perhaps we might gain a realistic defence and foreign policy rather than one rooted in myth and/or wishful thinking.
The derisive response by some here misses the point about Don's piece, which is essentially that non-Corbyn Labour people are thinking about how best to come to terms with his potential success. The early stuff about The Resistance etc. is being replaced by sober calculation. That's reflected among the candidates too, who by all accounts get along personally quite well after all the hours on the campaign trail together - Burnham is willing to be in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and Cooper hasn't ruled it out.
Most Labour people agree on the right response to two opposite outcomes: if Labour flourishes under Corbyn, almost nobody is going to try to get rid of him, and if Labour crashes and burns then there's a consensus deep into the left (including, I think, Corbyn himself) that we'll need to move on. There will be problems anyway with yesterday's old guard (Alan Milburn etc.), which I think we'll shrug off, but the main difficulty will be if we do middling well - winning this, losing that, roughly level in the polls, etc. An interesting question which Corbyn has raised himself is whether he can emulate the SNP's success in getting all the young enthusiasts to actually buckle down and register, knock on doors etc.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
But what if Corbyn neither crashes and burns, nor flourishes? What if, instead, he bumbles along at level-pegging in the polls or even a few points ahead?
And who is the Michael Howard to unite around? Someone, like him, of the last generation - Johnson? Harman? - or someone of the next?
Shouldn't you have started this with "once upon a time"?
Foot, Hague and IDS all managed poll leads. No reason why Corbyn can't emulate them at some point.
Reggie is not too bright
You obviously share the view that JC is as credible as Foot, Hague & IDS which speaks to your gullibility. This is not to say that JC may not manage a national poll lead some time just that it seems unlikely at this time. Your wishful thinking is on view again.
As the discussion on here centred around railway gauges, you probably missed my reference a week or two ago about the results of the Sceptics recent military exercises. In a nutshell the Yanks have discovered that they could not actually sustain a war in Eastern Europe.
But then, I doubt if the Russians could.
The Russians are hardly excelling themselves in their Ukrainian campaign. Most of their kit is shagged out, and has been for decades.
So if the Sovs, sorry, Russians aren't a threat then what is the point of NATO?
You take me back to my original question what is NATO for?
Maybe he will be a disaster for the Labour Party, however on some issues I think he strikes a cord with many people even those who would not naturally be Labour supporters under any leader. Of course, as is typical with his political tribe he correctly identifies the problem then proposes a simplistic or wrong, if not downright bat-shit crazy solution.
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
I'd bloody well hope we'd be prepared to defend Poland and to publicly be unambivalent about that. It was our ambivalence towards being prepared to defend our allies like Poland that was a key contributory factor to WWII.
Yes, but the last time we went to war to protect Poland it didn't actually work out too well for anyone, least of all the Poles.
Those claiming on here we would go to war with the collective might of NATO might actually want to look at what that collective might actually is. Then think about the political willingness of governments across Europe to sacrifice their young men and women in a war for a far away country that for most of the last 75 years has been, effectively, a Russian colony anyway.
It would be a pity to let democracy get snuffed out in Eastern Europe, simply because we couldn't be bothered to do anything about it.
I wouldn't argue with that. However, is NATO the only way of doing something about it? Come to that would NATO, if push came to a shove, actually be able to do anything about it?
Mr. Dodd says that NATO provides deterrence, does it though? Militarily most NATO countries have so hollowed out their capability that they would struggle to contribute anything meaningful to any war. Politically the willingness of most NATO countries to actually fight a war must surely be in even bigger doubt.
For goodness sake even the UK, under a Conservative government no less, has resorted to accounting tricks to maintain the pretence that it is committed to NATO's military spending agreement. Other countries don't even bother with the pretence.
Is there not an argument that NATO is a solution to a problem that no longer exists and something more useful for the 21st century might not be a bad idea?
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
It would both be highly immoral and politically reckless to allow collective deterrence to collapse by not defending our European allies against aggression.
So you think the UK would go to war to defend Latvia against Russia?
Hurst , the sad truth is we could not go to war with anybody even if we wanted to.
And?
We haven't been able to embark on a major war without someone else's collaboration for the last 100 years.
As the discussion on here centred around railway gauges, you probably missed my reference a week or two ago about the results of the Sceptics recent military exercises. In a nutshell the Yanks have discovered that they could not actually sustain a war in Eastern Europe.
But then, I doubt if the Russians could.
The Russians are hardly excelling themselves in their Ukrainian campaign. Most of their kit is shagged out, and has been for decades.
So if the Sovs, sorry, Russians aren't a threat then what is the point of NATO?
You take me back to my original question what is NATO for?
Insurance.
Mr. 30, I pay for a lot of insurance; my house, my car, my cat, my wife, even my life are all insured against known risks. When selecting an insurance company to cover those risks I would never choose one without being sure that, if it comes to it, they would pay out.
Read Article 5 of the NATO treaty, it doesn't even guarantee mutual defence. If the Russians roll into, say, Poland then all NATO countries are only committed to take such action as they individually deem necessary, and to report the matter to the UN Security council.
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
It would both be highly immoral and politically reckless to allow collective deterrence to collapse by not defending our European allies against aggression.
So you think the UK would go to war to defend Latvia against Russia?
Hurst , the sad truth is we could not go to war with anybody even if we wanted to.
And?
We haven't been able to embark on a major war without someone else's collaboration for the last 100 years.
yes we could be US lapdogs as usual.
Imagine what an independent Scotland could muster. A couple of minesweepers as an excuse for a poor wee navy, and a helicopter. And Salmond probably commandeer the latter for her own use.
Labour Londoners are rightly proud of the legacy of the Livingstone-led GLC in fighting racism and homophobia.
You are really proud of minority-buying identity politics and inviting homophobia hate preachers to spread their filth?
It's funny how Tories believe discredited defamatory defectors from the KGB when it suits them.
It's also pretty evident that the PB comment mainstream may complain about how left-wingers engage in echo chamber groupthink, but they don't appreciate any headers that disagree with their worldview in any significant way.
Some may not appreciate it but I hope most do, if not as vocally. Its important to get differing viewpoints. I think this piece has some flawed premises but I think that about a lot of threads (and I hope I think that not just about ones I disagree with). PBers, like the public at large, do not always know what is good fore them.
Maybe he will be a disaster for the Labour Party, however on some issues I think he strikes a cord with many people even those who would not naturally be Labour supporters under any leader. Of course, as is typical with his political tribe he correctly identifies the problem then proposes a simplistic or wrong, if not downright bat-shit crazy solution.
For example, NATO. What is it for these days? Its general aim, the collective defence of Western Europe against the Soviets disappeared decades ago. Yet the organisation has soldiered on and even expanded Eastwards and in mounting "out of area" operations. However, does anyone seriously imagine the UK would again go to war to defend Poland, or, say, Latvia? So what is NATO for and should the UK remain part of it are, I think legitimate questions.
I'd bloody well hope we'd be prepared to defend Poland and to publicly be unambivalent about that. It was our ambivalence towards being prepared to defend our allies like Poland that was a key contributory factor to WWII.
when you signing up or do you plan to support from behind the sofa
From behind the sofa? That's so 20th century. Like my support for the Iraq War in 2003 I'd support them from behind the keyboard.
Comments
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/637248895463071744
Those claiming on here we would go to war with the collective might of NATO might actually want to look at what that collective might actually is. Then think about the political willingness of governments across Europe to sacrifice their young men and women in a war for a far away country that for most of the last 75 years has been, effectively, a Russian colony anyway.
2) We should never underestimate the capability of the US to wage war, if they have the political will to do so.
You take me back to my original question what is NATO for?
If Out can neutralise jobs (in the public's mind), or In can neutralise immigration (in the public's mind) then that side will win. As always in a democracy its what the public perceive the facts to be that matter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11826675/This-migration-crisis-could-test-the-European-project-to-destruction.html
Why my job'll eventually be taken by someone who is currently 12, and also why I'm rather happy about the fact:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/27/the_raspberry_pi_is_succeeding_in_ways_its_makers_ialmosti_imagined/
Mr. Dodd says that NATO provides deterrence, does it though? Militarily most NATO countries have so hollowed out their capability that they would struggle to contribute anything meaningful to any war. Politically the willingness of most NATO countries to actually fight a war must surely be in even bigger doubt.
For goodness sake even the UK, under a Conservative government no less, has resorted to accounting tricks to maintain the pretence that it is committed to NATO's military spending agreement. Other countries don't even bother with the pretence.
Is there not an argument that NATO is a solution to a problem that no longer exists and something more useful for the 21st century might not be a bad idea?
new thread
Read Article 5 of the NATO treaty, it doesn't even guarantee mutual defence. If the Russians roll into, say, Poland then all NATO countries are only committed to take such action as they individually deem necessary, and to report the matter to the UN Security council.