“Prepare for War” - Tucker Confronts Britain’s Most Pro-War Advocate

Mr. Eastmark, thank you very much for having us in your home. It's really pretty. I'm sad to think of it being destroyed in the war you described. What is this war and why do you have to fight it? Okay. What I've said is that the United Kingdom needs to be prepared for war, that we are coming under attack in various ways from Russia. We've had murders and attempted murders take place. There was an attempted murder in Salisbury, and there was a murder that took place in London by agents of Putin, that Putin has invaded Ukraine and he is making threatening noises that some Russian people close to the state, not formally of the state, have talked about the potential for nuclear war. And the way to avoid war is to prepare for it. And if you're prepared for war, it doesn't happen. So that's what I'm talking about. It's the preparedness, which I'm worried that we don't have. Why would Putin want to threaten Britain? Well, he is threatening Britain, really. Why? I wonder why. Why has he tried to poison people in Salisbury? Why have his submarines been poking around near our undersea cables? Do you have any sense of why? Why would he want to do that? Well, I think he wishes to reassert the power of Russia, which in many ways is now a failing state, that its economy has been in the doldrums for years since the decline of the Soviet Union. It's lost a good deal of territory, which is a very un-Russian thing. That if you go really from the Romanovs taking charge in Russia through to the collapse of the Soviet Union, in most years, Russia expands. And then you get the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia suddenly shrinks. And it seems to me that that is looked upon by some Russians as a matter of shame and against the historic destiny of Russia. That's of course the reason for activity in Georgia and, more recently, in Ukraine. Clearly, Russia wants some control over its neighbors. It wants a sphere of influence as a nuclear-armed power. But I wonder, and assuming that everything you're saying is true and we could debate it, it still doesn't explain why Russia would want to pick a fight with Britain. It's got a much larger economy than Britain's by, I think, basic measures. No, no, no. It hasn't got a larger economy than Britain's. No, but it has a much… It's got a larger military. But it has a much larger economy. It has much more wealth and resources. It has a much larger manufacturing sector. Its GDP is smaller than the UK's. Yeah, but GDP is not, I mean, the only measure of an economy. It's a Russian… It's a pretty important measure of an economy. No, the Russian… It's one measure we can… Russia is an economic failure. Okay. That it could have a huge economy, but it's got a small economy because it's deeply corrupt and it hasn't made any progress. It hasn't managed to use its resources effectively. And so, although the population of Russia is bigger than that of the United Kingdom very significantly, its GDP per capita is so much lower that the total GDP of Russia is smaller than that of the United Kingdom. Right. Its inherent wealth dwarfs that of the UK. It's the largest country in the world. But leaving aside that, I'm not in charge of central… Yeah, but inherent wealth isn't very useful, is it? There are lots of African countries… Well, it is… …that have huge resources that have never been able to… It depends what your timeline is. Well, if you go over hundreds of years, they haven't used them. Yeah, I… Russia has consistently been a poor country in spite of its resources. Yeah, okay. That's true. I don't agree, but I will grant you that. Okay. But it still doesn't explain why Russia would benefit from fighting with the UK. Do you imagine that they want to take your territory? Russia has already shown itself to be aggressive, as we saw with the invasion of Ukraine, which was not only… …illegal in international law, but also against a specific agreement between Russia, the United States, the UK, and Ukraine, that in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, Russia and the other signatories would allow its territorial integrity to be maintained. I… We can debate why that war started. I have a completely different view from yours, but these are subjective questions. But I feel like we're avoiding the question I have asked you now three times, which is why does any of that add up to Russia threatening the UK? Do you believe in cause and effect? Do you think there's some reason that Russia is mad at the UK? Why do dictators attack? They do because they can. But you're nowhere near Russia. And because they see… This is not Belarus. But we have the NATO agreement with Poland, which must feel under attack. We know that the Baltic states feel threatened. We know there have been cyber attacks on the Baltic states. Right. So of course we should be concerned about our fellow NATO members, and we have Article 5 of NATO, which would then involve us. And we've got Russia saying bellicose things about the United Kingdom. So of course we should be… But do you have any sense of why? We should be aware. I guess it's… Here's the point that I'm attempting to make, and I just think it's important to understand it, whether or not you approve of it, which is that from the Russian perspective you are helping to fund a war against Russia, and so therefore you're a combatant in that war. They feel this way about the United States as well. And Germany and NATO. But that is a legitimate perspective. Can you not see that? That there's a reason that they're mad at the UK? Well, Russia invaded Ukraine. Right. But this is not Ukraine. This is the UK. That's right. And what the UK is doing is supporting Ukraine and defending its territorial integrity. Fighting a war against Russia. So you are participating in the war. But this is exactly the same as America helping Kuwait rescue itself from Iraq. Right, except Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons. But do you believe in territorial integrity? Do you believe in territorial integrity of nation states? In my own, for sure. I'm not sure the territorial integrity of someone else's state is worth risking my life for. Even when America has guaranteed it. The question is, should, first of all, can you guarantee it? America did. So do you think that was wrong? Probably. Because the quid pro quo was that Ukraine would have kept its nuclear weapons. So you're saying Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons. Well, there were many subsequent arrangements that were violated on all sides. No. No. No. I'm trying to get away from. So let me put this back to you. Please do. The United States made an agreement with Ukraine, Russia, and the United Kingdom that the territorial integrity of Ukraine would be inviolable on condition that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. Oh, no. You are mistaken. The United States has never pledged to go to war with Russia. I didn't say it did. Okay. Then what you're saying is immaterial, actually. No. I'm saying it made this agreement with the other parties. So there's a treaty that obligates the United States to fight a war against Russia. No, it doesn't obligate it to fight a war. That's irrelevant what you're saying. I'm saying that if you don't think America has an interest in this, it shouldn't have signed the treaty, and then Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons. There is no treaty that obligates the United States, I'm speaking with authority on this, to fight Russia on the basis of what Russia did in February of 2020. I'm well aware of that. I'm well aware of what was said in relation to the nuclear weapons. It is not an agreement to go to war, nor, strictly speaking, is Article 5 of NATO. It's not a requirement to go to war. It is a request that can be ignored. Where? It's not an automatic act of war, that the member state affected can call upon Article 5. I'm aware of that. But it doesn't require an automatic response. But what you're saying is that this treaty that was signed, where Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, was entirely pointless. Well, of course I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that there have been many subsequent agreements since, including a verbal agreement, which has been testified to by people who are present, that the United States would not expand NATO to Russia's borders, which is an understandable concern of Russia. You don't want nuclear weapons controlled by another country on your borders. Why would you? And so, look, a lot has happened. There was the overthrow of the Ukrainian government by NATO in 2014. A lot has happened. All sorts of things have happened. My only point is, right now, we're on the brink of a nuclear exchange. And the question is, why? And I don't understand why it's in Britain's interest to be at war with Russia. What I am arguing is that if we are prepared for war, war becomes less likely. That's the whole basis of deterrence. It's the whole reason. How about if you stop fighting the war, they will be less likely to nuke you? Oh, no, that's not true. If you don't support Ukraine, if you allow Russia to take Ukraine, then it moves on to the next object. But why is it up to the UK to decide whether or not Russia takes Ukraine? Because it's strongly in our national interest and, indeed, the United States. In what way? Because the one fundamental thing of the world order is the integrity of nation states. If all nation states are up for grabs for whichever country wants to take it, then why shouldn't China take Taiwan tomorrow? Well, I don't know whether the UK can affect— Would you be worried? Would you be worried? I assume that's going to happen, of course. So you don't mind nation states invading China? I mind a lot of things, but it's—the question is not simply do I think it's wrong. The question is, can I do anything about it and at what cost to my own population? Well, you could. So it's a much more complicated calculation than the one— You could. The one you're presenting. You can if you project strength. And I'm afraid what the West did towards Russia was protect—project weakness that the agreements made over the Crimea by Germany and France made it look to Putin that he could do what he wanted. He then miscalculated with Ukraine and found that the West was not going to go along with that. And it's very important that you don't allow dictators to miscalculate. Same is true of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein thought that he had had a message from the CIA, and I'm sure you know all of this, that invading Kuwait would not upset the Americans, and that when you project weakness you make war more likely well the cold war was one of the most intense moments in our history regular people lived in fear of getting blown up by a nuke no one had any idea how that war would end it's easy to think that we knew for 50 years but we didn't until the end that we would win so if you like history you probably do like history you ought to learn more about this portion of american history and that's why you ought to watch a movie called the brink of war it's streaming now on angel the brink of war takes viewers inside ronald reagan and mikhail gorbachev's negotiations to end their country's stalemate and it shows how much the rest of the world sat on the edge of its seat to see what would happen millions of lives were at stake now unlike the leaders we have now reagan understood that preventing a conflict was the only good outcome for the u.s nuclear war is the ultimate disaster that's wise and that wisdom guided him along the path to peace though he could have chosen war he didn't so watching this film makes you realize how much modern washington differs from previous generations and not for the better so if you're interested in peace in leadership and diplomacy then the brink of war is something you want to watch join the angel guild to stream today at angel.com imagine if every time inverse kramer or another top investor bought a stock you bought it too in your own brokerage account automatically well that now exists in the u.s or in the united states but if you want to know more about what's in it's called autopilot built by the team behind the viral pelosi stock tracker autopilot lets you browse their marketplace of strategies run by proven investors or ai driven models just find one with a high return connect your personal brokerage account like a schwab or robin hood and every trade they make you make automatically your money never leaves your own account autopilot just mirrors the moves so now no more guessing no more staring at charts and no more checking the market between meetings also over 1.3 billion is already invested so if you wanted to check it out search autopilot in the app store or go to join autopilot.com that's join autopilot.com investing has risks like the loss of principle we all hear the radio ads about the irs they tell you to be afraid to be scared and they try to frighten you into calling i'm not here to do that tax relief advocates is different tra is here to tell you that if you owe money to the irs whether it's 5 000 50 000 or 500 000 we're we have a solution it doesn't matter if you're sitting in your car at work or with your kids no matter where you are call now 800-576-4705 don't lose hope tra can eliminate or reduce what you owe to the irs generous programs are now available that can give you a fresh start our passion is taxes and helping individuals fix their irs problems we have over 1 000 5 star reviews on google and an 8 plus with the better business bureau you don't need to be afraid of the irs any longer and your tax night's free nightmare today by visiting us online at tra.com or call 800-576-4705 that's 800-576-4705 tax relief advocates real solutions for real people tc well i i think if you truncate the story you can tell yourself that but you are truncating the story because that war ended in 1991 the first gulf war and then 12 years later there was another gulf war in which more than a million people okay on the on the second gulf war i share exactly now there is okay on this 22 years later another gulf war and iran is using iraq as a staging base to hit the united states so how did this work okay on the second gulf war i share what i think is your view i think you supported it at the time but now i think it was a mistake i thought it was a mistake when i went to iraq in december of 2003. i knew immediately it was a mistake and i've been apologizing ever since let me do so again i apologize because i think it was a mistake too i agree with you that the first gulf war i think was absolutely right because it was about the territorial integrity of nation states i think there's one fundamental well if it was right then how did it result in another war less than 15 years later because the other war was none of our business it was the internal affairs of iraq on a pretext of nuclear weapons that didn't exist but hold on the two wars are completely different um and actually the george bush senior got it right because he had the opportunity to go to iraq in the end of the first gulf war and he said no that is not the objective of this mission the objective of the mission was the territory and integrity of kuwait now where i think i disagree with you is that the fundamental building block of any form of world order is the nation-state and that therefore is in all our interests to protect the nation-state because if aggressors can invade one nation-state and get away with it they will carry on with it and that's what i think is really important and i think i think we're all in this together and i think we're all in this together and i think there's no global order at all where i think we have made a mistake is in liberal interventionism which i'm opposed to i think it is not my business how iraq is managed internally by iraqis that is a matter for them or how putin manages russia then why does it why do you keep describing putin as a dictator as distinct from zielinski who has not been elected well he was seven years he's cancelled the elections and banned him and imprisoned people for criticizing him so it would be not a dictator it would be very difficult for me to criticize him on canceling elections it's exactly what the uk did during the first i'm merely saying you're not a liberal interventionist why is putin's form of government even material why do you care it's up to him how he governs russia it is my business when he starts invading neighboring countries but the question is not whether or not you approve of one nation's territorial expansion or its need to control its neighbors which is by the way the state of play for all great powers no country with nuclear weapons will tolerate another nation's nuclear weapons on its border of course well that's the cuban missile crisis yes of course yes well it's the current iran war because israel and nuclear on power did not want iran to have a nuclear weapon and i'm not criticizing anyone this is very sensible we do not want iran to have a nuclear weapon i don't want anyone to have a nuclear weapon i'm just saying i want britain to have nuclear weapons and i don't mind the united states having money i didn't want anyone on our trails to happen i'm really saying that we can't be surprised by that response because that's just the nature of great powers okay yes my question is what can you do about it so you have said that weakness abets aggression which is an often repeated axiom which sure is entirely true but it can't be true but what's your option so britain right now has uh apparently a military strength of under 19 000 ready for combat so for perspective you know there are battles in the first world war in which britain lost more than 19 000 in one day so that's nothing russia has one of the most powerful militaries in the world a standing army of a million and a half well that's not necessarily the same as one of the most powerful militaries in the world is it a very large number of troops is not necessarily a powerful army no it's not that's right but i'm not and by the way it's hard to know exactly how powerful the russian military is it's very easy to know how powerful the the british military is which is not at all so like what is this everyone thought the russian military was sufficiently powerful that it could roll up ukraine in a fortnight and it failed well they could send hypersonic missiles into kiev today and end the war we're relying on putin's restraint not to do that they could also nuke ukraine if they wanted they could but that would be i'm just saying as a material fact um they have restrained themselves to a land war with people where they were thought to be overwhelmingly powerful and they've turned out not to be well they could be a overwhelming power if they wanted to wait this afternoon i didn't decide well they used nuclear weapons but without using hypersonic weapons which can't be stopped if if they took it up to an enormous stage but actually in 2022 people thought russia would walk in and roll up ukraine within a fortnight that was all the experts do you disagree that they could if they wanted to today end this war of course they could well i think if they took it to another level they would they would risk if you keep pushing them they'll do it and maybe that's the basis of this conversation which is why are you pushing them no i'm not pushing them i'm pushing us to be prepared because they are making attacks on the west and we know this they are making cyber attacks they are making but do you see a connection between what the west is doing and russia's attacks on the west or is this just what would be the other explanation for why the reason for russia going into ukraine what allowed them to do it was our weakness earlier over the crimea and that made it look as if we didn't really care and then it turned out that we did care i never cared for the record at all so that's my position you see i cared because we had signed a treaty about the nuclear weapons being given up by ukraine as had your country and that as it was overwhelmingly in our interests expect you to agree with this for ukraine not to be a nuclear power we didn't want small keep referring to an event from 35 years ago that is one small part of a long no no no this is fundamental because russia russia would not have evaded invaded ukraine if ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons well ukraine being the most corrupt country in europe might have already sold those nuclear weapons to bad actors around the world which is one of the reasons that the united states forced them to get rid of them i was there for this i remember i'm not denying this i'm not denying that ukraine has had enormous corruption and still saying that's why the rest of the world felt ukraine could not be trusted not because we didn't want them to have sovereignty but because we wanted to protect their sovereignty and for them not to have nuclear weapons because we didn't want smaller states to have nuclear weapons we could live with russia and china and india and pakistan and israel the uk and france having nuclear weapons but we didn't want i feel like we're in a coldest place second. Right now, we are. But this is fundamental, because you have to go back to why is it in our interest for Ukraine's territorial integrity to be maintained? First of all, because the nation-state is the fundamental of global order. Without the nation-state, there is no global order. I'm not an internationalist. And then there is the issue of, is America's word worth anything? Do you have an interest, if you persuade a state to give up nuclear weapons, and say that you believe its territorial integrity should be maintained, and you are signatory of that treaty, does that matter? Or do you just sign these things and walk away? We have never signed a treaty obligating. I know you've said that before. Well, we haven't, and you keep pretending that we have. No, I haven't. We have no obligation to be participants. You seem to be devoid of nuance, that the two questions are not the same. Just because you've signed a treaty does not automatically commit you to fighting a war. But the treaty doesn't suggest the course of action that you're suggesting. So the treaty is immaterial to this. The treaty is pretty important. Here's what I'm saying. Let me ask you this question. It gives you an interest in the territorial integrity of Ukraine. There's a hierarchy of responsibility that a nation and an individual faces. We've got all kinds of obligations, but we have to put them in order of importance. And you seem to be suggesting that a nation's obligation is to something called the international order, over and above the interests of its own population. No, I don't agree. No, that's not what I've said. The national interest is my biggest concern. Okay. And the national interest is served overwhelmingly by the integrity of nation states. Do you have majority support for war with Russia here in the UK? Majority support for what? A war with Russia. Nobody wants to go to war with Russia. Okay. But that's why there's increasing support in this country for building up our military, so that we are able to defend ourselves. How would you do that? Well, you just spend more money on it. You recruit more soldiers. Owning a home has always been the core of the American dream. It's the family's work, their lives to build a place of stability, security, and actual wealth. But too many homeowners right now are stuck swiping credit cards to cover groceries, paying a survival tax of 20% interest or more. So we're against that. We always say that. But you can't buy a house without debt right now. Almost anybody has to take out a loan. So the question is, who are you going to get a loan from? Why are you handing your money to big banks when you can keep it for your family? Our friends at America, we're going to give you a loan. We're going to give you a loan. We're going to help you. So if you go from a fighting force of under 19,000, which is bigger than Estonia's, which is 5,000, but still somewhat less than the three and a half million in the Russian army, how much would that cost? And where would the money come from? Well, there's plenty of money. We're just spending it all on welfare at the moment. We're about to spend 400 billion pounds a year on welfare. On welfare. Specifically, what do you mean by welfare? It's people who are out of work. Some of that's on pensions. But our welfare benefit system has been ballooning. If we could take even a part of that. And you could spend that on bombs. So what are you doing? That's a fair point. Right. We've got a crazy welfare system. I mean, this country is not being well run. We are spending much more money than we have. And our defense spending is pitifully low. It's even lower than it seems because we're at 2.7% of GDP. Is there a public demand for more defense spending? The public is going to have to pay for it. The world is getting increasingly worried. The world is getting. Do you think that the average Briton, if given the choice between food and housing assistance or unemployment benefits, would instead choose to forego those in favor of more bombs? I think the country at large is deeply fed up with people on welfare who have made it a lifestyle choice. I bet that's true. But do you think if you put it up to a vote, a national referendum. I think you would find that people want defense. And that they'd be willing to reduce social spending. I think they want to reduce social spending anyway. Okay. I think they might rather have the social. The social spending in tax cuts. But people are deeply fed up. Do you know, in this country, there are six million wonderful people who we should really admire who work even though they would be better off on benefits. Oh, I'm aware. And I would never defend your disease tax codes at all. I agree. This is just crazy. No, I'm in full agreement with you. The question is, should you take that dividend, that savings, and spend it on a pointless war that you can't possibly win that will only get your citizens killed? We won't fight a war if we are defended. To what extent would you have to increase the size of your military to intimidate Russia, which possesses nuclear and hypersonic weapons? Putin, it's not a question of intimidating. We're not trying to intimidate Russia because we wouldn't succeed in intimidating Russia. Now I'm totally confused. Okay. It's a question of being taken seriously. What's the difference? Putin did not take Ukraine seriously. He thought he could invade it and take it over very quickly. What's the difference between intimidating someone and being taken seriously? I thought they're identical concepts, aren't they? No, I don't think they are. Intimidation. He'll just be impressed by your resolve? Intimidation is throwing, is suggesting that you are intending to be aggressive. It's suggesting there's a penalty for messing with you. That's right. No, I don't think that is right. I think intimidating is showing that you want to be aggressive, whereas showing resolve. Scaring someone off. I'm armed, back off. I'm armed, so it's not in your interests to do anything. Okay, so we're saying the same thing. We're saying broadly the same, but I don't think it is intimidating because we're not going to intimidate Russia, nor do we want to. But you're going to, you want to tell Russia. Russia, if you mess with the UK, it's just not worth it. We're scary enough that, like, go pick on someone else. That's. Well, ideally, don't pick on anybody. But how much do you think you would, from the condition of the British military right now, like, how much would you have to spend? How many people would have to join the British military in order to have that effect on Russia? Well, it's a question of building up our overall defense expenditure. The interim target is three and a half percent of GDP. Whether that's enough is highly debatable. But it's much more about equipment than it is about numbers. Okay, so you wouldn't have to have a larger fighting force than. I don't. I'd be very surprised if you needed it. But it's not going to be a war on British soil. Russia is not going to invade Britain. It's got a long way to go to get here. It's a question about working. It could take out your capital city instantly. It could, but then we could take out Moscow. I mean, if you want to get to nuclear war, but the reason we don't get to nuclear war is that both sides. So you're totally convinced that Russia would never use nuclear weapons under any circumstances? Offensively? One could never go that far. The whole point of. Well, both Russia and the United States, President Trump, are both openly threatening to use offensive nuclear weapons. Both to use tactical nuclear weapons at the moment. Low-yield nuclear weapons. They're the same thing. And the reason the Cold War strategy worked is because deterrents work. But to make deterrents work, you have to be strong. And there is no deterrent, really, if you go from step one to nuclear weapons in one fell swoop. If your only real defense, if Russia does something in Poland or Estonia, is to go to nuclear war, nobody's going to take you seriously on that. No one's going to go from. No one's going to take you seriously if you use a nuclear weapon? No, no, no. I think people take you very seriously. No, no, no. They're not going to take you seriously that you would use a nuclear weapon, because it wouldn't be proportionate. So tell me how this plays out. You've got to have the. The interim levels of defense as well. You can't just go from, we're all pacifists, but if you really do something nasty, we'll nuke you, because nobody will believe that you would use the nuclear bomb in those circumstances, because the level of aggression would not be high enough. Would it be worth using a nuclear weapon against Russia to preserve the world order and to deter territorial aggression against sovereign states like Ukraine? I think ultimately, nuclear weapons serve a very useful. A very useful purpose as being the final threat. Useful in what way? To what end? That the whole Cold War strategy worked. Russia and America did not go to war, because both sides realized that the other could wipe them out. Right. They talked about using nuclear weapons, but is using nuclear. the actual use of nuclear weapons, is that ever justified? I think it was justified in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yes. I think it was justified in bringing the Second World War to an end. Yes, unquestionably. Unquestionably justified. Unquestionably. Unquestionably, yes. I thought the number of lives. So it's justified to kill people who did nothing wrong? Well, we're not talking about people who did nothing wrong. The Japanese were. Well, the populations of crowded cities are not responsible for the war. Women and children get incinerated. We were in a state of total war. Okay, well. I think. We were not in a state of total war, actually. There were no Japanese troops on American soil. We were not in a state of total war. That's not even close to a state of total They had attacked American soil. Four years before, and then they were losing. But we were not in a state of total war. But I'm asking you a theological question, which is, is it ever allowed, under the precepts of, say, Christianity, to kill people who did nothing wrong? To kill women and children? Does it meet Aquinas' test of a just war? It does not. I think it does. How? Well, are you a legitimate authority? Yes, you are. Is it an important cause? Yes, because you have been attacked and you're defending yourself. And is it proportionate? Yes, because it actually shortens the duration of the war. That's not the definition of proportionate. Proportionate means that you're responding in a way that is not. grandly larger than the initial attack the the um overall in other words if i you punch me in the face i can't shoot you the um yes but this is different means of killing people but i'm zeroing you're not talking about a punch in the face you're talking about is it legitimate that i'm killing people's kids there's nothing to do with it that's okay because we went war with the whole country and it went war with the kids and it ended the war yes the japan was at war with the united States and the United Kingdom. So if another nation says they're at war with us, it's okay to kill our kids? Well, we don't want to be at war with other nations. No, I'm asking an abstract question. But you're asking a ridiculous question. It's not a ridiculous question. Japan had attacked the United States. I don't think its kids attacked the United States. Had started a war. Why not kill the people who started the war? Well, we did in the end. The Japanese prime minister tried to commit suicide, and we spent ages getting him back to good health. We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and you're saying that's okay? To end the war. Well, I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War was justified. So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong. It was a proportionate response. Do you feel that that is a Christian position? Yes. I think it meets Aquinas' conditions of a just war. Really? Has any pope since Aquinas? Confirmed that? Have there been any papal statements saying yes, under certain circumstances, it's okay to kill other people's kids? The church has preached for centuries that there are conditions of a just war. I don't think there have been any statements since 1945. I'm not Catholic, so you know, I'm not an expert, but you are, so you tell me. As a Catholic, you think that the church endorses killing people's kids? Since 1945, there's only been one explicitly excommunicated cathedra statement by the Holy See, by the Holy Father. I guess the question is, if you are willing to kill non-combatants who committed no crime, if you're willing to murder the innocent, then in what sense are you better than the people you are fighting? That once a war is engaged, the whole point of what I'm talking about, to go back to the opening part of your question, I will come back to it, because it's to avoid war. And you avoid war by being strong. Once you're in war, you are justified in winning the war. So you can behave like an animal once the war starts. And if the risk to you is sufficient, you can use nuclear weapons. I think that is morally justifiable. I mean, even leaving aside the details of America's use of those two bombs, there was no risk to the United States. Japan was in no condition to invade the United States. It had never put troops on our shores. So there was no risk. It attacked you, but it wasn't likely to put troops on your shores. It attacked a territory, right? Well, it attacked the state. It was not a state. It was not a state. There wasn't a state then. Of course, you're quite right. In December 40. But the point is, we were not at risk from an invasion by Japan, in any sense. Okay? It was a defeated nation. We already firebombed Tokyo. Yes. Multiple times. You see, that's where. Do you think the firebombing of Tokyo is justified? I don't think killing the innocent is ever justified under any circumstances. And I think the basis of Western civilization. The basis of Western civilization is justice for the individual. I believe that blood guilt and group punishment are antithetical to our entire civilization. They're the things we fight against. That's why the gulag was wrong. That's why what's happening in Gaza is wrong. It's always wrong to kill people who did nothing wrong. And if we don't think that, then on what basis are we administering our own justice systems that take such exquisite care to punish only the guilty? I don't even understand what you're saying. I think it's very difficult to afford the Second World War without. Without innocent people being killed. I don't know. No one tried. But maybe. I never understood why fight the Second World War in the first place. Well, that's a very fundamental question. How about the First World War? Well, let's stick to the Second World War. No, let's start with the first. Well, we were on the second. The Second World War, Hitler would have taken as much as he could have done, as he was showing. And did you really want him to. Well, Hitler said that 15% of Poland was once Germany, and it was given to Poland. At the Treaty of Versailles. That was German territory with Germans. That was his case. And by the way, that was true. Except, except, except the Polish borders had been cut up by. I'm not here to. Russia and Russia and Austria. I'm just saying, the idea that Hitler just randomly rolled into Poland is a lie, and everyone believes it because they know nothing about the actual facts. But the truth is, Germany had big pieces of it carved off, including part of Prussia, and it was given to this other country to infuriate the Germans. Maybe it shouldn't have, but it did, and that was a justification for it. The UK had nothing to do with it. At all. And they destroyed their empire and their country fighting this war that they still pretend was a good idea, but it wasn't. It was fundamental. It was the classic good versus evil. Has the UK benefited from it? We did the right thing. Is it a better country than it was? To have defeated Hitler, yes. So the UK is a better country now. It's a healthier country now. Otherwise, we'd be speaking German. Who cares? There are a lot of people in Britain who can't speak English. So it would be nice to have, like, at least a European language spoken. No, I've seen no advantage speaking German over any other language. We want to speak English. Thank you so much. But the point is, a war should benefit, if a war is fought with the children of your citizens, which it is, then that war should benefit those citizens. And it did benefit this country. In what ways? It benefited this country. Can you tell me how? But as I said to you, otherwise Germany would eventually have invaded us. So Germany. But we've had 80 years to assess. Tell me the benefits. Now, sitting 80 years later as the Grand Secretary. I'm certain people who fought in that war, I am. Well, my grandfather was too old. He was in the First World War and the Second World War. My father was too young. So we sort of missed a generation. I'm saying, now that we've had it, and as a lover of history, why don't you tell me the ways in which Britain benefited from, and I'm going to use air quotes here, winning the Second World War? Because from my perspective, it looks like the empire ended, India was lost two years later, the United States took over the world, and has had troops here ever since. Yes. You lost troops. You lost your sovereignty and your self-respect. And this beautiful country has been destroyed. We certainly didn't lose our self-respect over winning the war. I mean, in terms of self-respect, that's a rather ethereal benefit. Our self-respect was hugely maintained by defeating the greatest evil the world has known. Then why would you allow foreign troops on your soil ever since? Because we wanted to stop the Russians. Okay, but I mean, it's kind of a prerequisite of sovereignty and self-respect not to have foreign soldiers on your soil for 80 years. They're allies, we're in NATO together. You can call them whatever you want, but there's still foreigners on your soil. Yeah, they're very welcome here. I know. That's the point I'm making. But they're part of defending our shared interest, which we have, and our shared interest is the nation-state and maintaining its integrity and not having people thinking, because there was a treaty some hundreds of years ago and Poland once had a bit of it that was Germany, we can now say we're going to take it. I'm merely saying. We cannot allow. You use the phrase nation-state, but it has no meaning. Yes. It has no meaning. It has no meaning if the nation-state has no sovereignty. This nation-state has sovereignty. How can it have sovereignty when it has foreign troops on its soil? We were able to pull out of the European Union. That showed us an exercise in sovereignty. You. Well, that's all I'm saying. I was on your side there and I feel so sad about what happened. But my point is, if you don't have sovereignty, if you can't make decisions that are rooted in the core interests of your own population, then how are you a nation-state? But we do make interests that are in the core interests of our population. Well, you're just telling me. You're telling me that you may need to prepare for a war. Yes. on behalf of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. And why is that in our interest? Because if the territorial integrity of nation-states is protected, there's much less need for us to go to war. But what about your own territorial integrity? Aren't you getting invaded by people in boats all the time? Why don't you use the military to protect your own borders? Oh, look, I'm not going to disagree with you on that. We should definitely be. But you're not calling for conscription or defense build-up or 3% of GDP to go to. to a military response to an invasion of your own country. I think you can do it without a military response. Why? I think the Rwanda scheme would have worked. No, but why not? If you're so willing to commit military force and lives of Britons to defending Ukraine, why not commit them to defending your own country? Because the small boats is a civil matter rather than a military matter. Really? What percentage of your population is foreign-born? 19%. 19%. What was the percentage 20 years ago? 20%. About 8%. Okay. What was the percentage 40 years ago? It was 2%. So, like. Look, I think our immigration policies have been catastrophic. I think we've got it hopelessly wrong. But it's not immigration, it's an invasion. And so why not use the military? Because, actually, the small boats is not the biggest part of it. The biggest part of it, which is now coming down, thankfully, but needs to be reduced much further, is legal immigration. But you've also got the problem of visa overstaying, which is a massive problem. And we don't even know the details of it. So, you're already admitting that you're not a nation-state. That's not true. Because you can't control who comes in and out of your own country. No, no, no. What I'm saying is that there are failures in the administration. Every country has. How do we define nation-state? Well, let's deal with the first point first. Every nation has crime that takes place in it. This is crime that is taking place in this country. This is civilian crime. It's not military crime. There are things you can do. As Donald Trump has shown, you can get a grip. on the new flow of illegal migrants. It turns out even in America, it'd be very difficult to remove the illegal migrants who are already there. Well, we're not even trying. Well, there you go. Just for the record. Okay, well, I'm glad you said that because it's not for me to make any displeasing comments. The UK is not alone in lacking self-respect or the willingness to protect itself. It doesn't stop you being a nation state, but we have a serious political problem of immigration, which we need to deal with, and particularly illegal immigration, and we need to be deporting people. I'm just not sure what a nation state is because the countries that you have described, Ukraine specifically, which has been completely controlled by NATO and the United States and the US intel agencies since at least 2014, and we know that. It's on tape. How is that a nation state? That's a proxy state. That's a country controlled by a larger power. Very interestingly, I think you make a very important point about Ukraine. Ukraine was, to a significant extent in 2022, still Russian-speaking. Putin has created a strong feeling of Ukrainianism by his attack. I'm sure, yeah. And has strengthened Ukraine. Ukraine as a nation state. It's a very interesting side effect. That may be right, but I'm merely saying the pretense that Ukraine is this like sovereign country when it's controlled by larger powers is grating because really the choice is between a Ukraine controlled by the East, Russia, or the West, the United States. That's the choice. No one's actually suggesting Ukraine should be able to make independent decisions. They tried to do that in 2014, and we overthrew the government. I don't think that's right. I think that the American interest is in having. an independent Ukraine that makes its own decisions. Really, what if an independent Ukraine wanted to link up with Russia? Because they have a lot more in common with Russia than they do with most of Europe. I think under current circumstances, that is extremely unlikely. Well, it is now. You're right. But in 2014, it was moving in that direction, and the U.S. government just kind of overthrew the government. Well, you then got the invasion of Crimea at about that time, and so you've got active attack from Russia, which was deeply problematic. But I think. We're trying. We're beginning to lose the wood for the trees, because the world is built up of nation-states, and nation-states are the legitimate building blocks. They sometimes are badly governed. They are sometimes dictatorially governed, but nonetheless, they have an inherent legitimacy. And if you don't believe in the nation-state, what do you replace it with? I do believe in the nation-state. That's why I don't believe in NATO. So we agree. We agree. So how is NATO consistent with your concept of the nation-state? Here you have a supra-national organization that's over these countries. NATO is by far and away the best supra-national organization, because it is a voluntary grouping with no ability to compel. So the nation-state retains its nation-state capability within NATO. So it's not like the European Union or the International Criminal Court or any of these things, which seek to override your sovereignty by a higher sovereignty. NATO requires the cooperation of states within a structure, but they are always the individual nation-states. Except when you're at war, when you agree that your troops may be commanded by an ally. But we've agreed to the command of troops by allies in wartime long before we had NATO. That's a norm of international affairs for hundreds of years. Yeah, I mean, you still give up your own. You still give up your own sovereignty because you wind up in a place where you're like, you know, really we have to defend. No, you don't, because as we were discussing earlier. Ukraine or Estonia or. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. No, no, but I'm saying I'm aware of that. I know you are. You don't get obliged to, you get asked to. Article 5 is not. No, I understand that. And that's important. But, like, let's just reinsert common sense here. I just want to. Tie a bow on our previous conversation, which is how specifically did the UK benefit from its heroic victory in the Second World War? Like, what are the material or spiritual benefits? Like, how do you see this country as better than it was in 1945? Well, I think if you think of it in terms of peace, there has now been peace in Europe between the major nations since 1945. And in the history of the UK, our prosperity has. Our prosperity has always depended upon peace. So, we. So, is this a richer country than it was in 1945? Much richer. Materially, much richer. Really? Oh, yeah, GDP growth per capita. GDP growth from 1945. What was the unemployment rate in 1945? Well, everyone was in the army. Well, of course, you're in the middle of a war, right? It's an unfair question, I agree with that. But. We've got much more welfare. I'm not saying we've got no problems, but has our GDP grown in real terms so phenomenally. The GDP is not a measure of national strength or prosperity at all. It is of prosperity. Of course not. It's a measurement of money. How much money is in the system, but it doesn't account for where it goes. We are better fed, we are better housed, we have conveniences that weren't even thought of in 1945. Happier country? Happiness is a different concept. Suicide rate, higher or lower? Oh, it's much higher. Well, that actually depends. The thing about suicide is that it depends on the reporting of the rate. In 1945, there's much more stigma around suicide. Suicide. And therefore, people were much more likely to record. It was a Christian country, now it's mostly atheist country. Yes, I think that's a great tragedy. Yeah. But the point is. I mean, you're an Episcopalian, aren't you? But you don't believe in half things the Episcopalian church now says. I don't believe in witchcraft. No, nor do I, no. I'm out on that question. You ought to come over to Rome. Well, I certainly believe in Rome's position on murdering innocents. I'm totally opposed. So I admire that. Whether it's in the womb or in Hiroshima, they're against it and so am I. I think the killing of the unborn child is the greatest tragedy of the West. But you bottom line think, I just want to get this on tape, you think the UK is a stronger, better country now than it was. In 1945, yes, I do. I think we have all sorts of problems. I think we have bad governments. I think immigration has been terribly badly handled. I think we have too much state control. But of course, in 1945, we had masses. We had masses of state control. And I think there are huge ways in which we can improve the country. But are we a better country in 1945? Are we a better country for the fact that we defeated Nazism? Yes, I think Hitler was one of the great evils the world ever saw. And it was a good thing to ensure that that was destroyed because it would have destroyed us otherwise. Yeah, I'm against the Nazis, against Hitler. I don't think it was a good thing for you at all. But, you know, I don't live here, so I'll leave it to you. Also, I don't think you mentioned, touched on India. I think it was very unlikely that we would have kept India much longer anyway. Because the First World War. India was going. The First World War is a different question. Okay, so without even getting into all of this, I'm just trying to get to the core question here, which is, is it worth it? So Britain lost, I think, just in deaths in the Second World War, 450,000 maybe. But let me. The point you've really challenged me on is the idea that being prepared deters war. The experience of the UK in 1914 and in 1939 was that because we were thought to be soft, our enemy didn't take us seriously. You joined both of those wars. You were not attacked in either war. We joined both of those wars. What are you even talking about? The Kaiser knew that there was the guarantee to Belgium, and he thought the British wouldn't do anything about it. He thought we weren't interested, we would not do anything. So you went. So we. Unfortunately, our enemy in 1914 and in 1939, on both occasions, thought we were weak and a feat and would cave, and therefore felt it was free to. So you're saying in order to protect Belgium, it was worth destroying all of Europe and losing 1.5 million Britons? You don't always listen, if I may say so, Mr. Tucker. I do, I'm listening carefully. What I said was that the enemy felt free to invade because. Because we were seen to be weak. That's not the same as saying it was the right thing to do. But you attacked them. They did not attack you. If. Well, we went to help the French. If we had. You attacked them. We had a treaty with Belgium, but we went to help the French who were falling back remarkably quickly in August. You attacked the Germans. They attacked Belgium, with whom we had a treaty, on their way through to attack France. But can't you take a big picture of you and answer the question, was it worth losing everything? I'll happily come to that question, but I'm trying to make a point that you seem to have refused to allow me to make, that had we, in 1914, been projecting strength, had the Kaiser thought there was a big British army, and the British will take this seriously, he would not have gone through Belgium. And if he had not gone through Belgium, we would not have gone to war. And it is the projection of strength that avoids war. And this is what we should be doing now. We should learn from history that if your enemy thinks you are a hero, you are weak, then you find you get into war by accident. If you show that you are strong, then the invasion doesn't take place. And if Hitler had thought we were strong, then Poland would not have been invaded. Hitler did not want to go to war with the UK. He thought we wouldn't do anything about Poland, as we'd done nothing. Hitler repeatedly said, I do not want to go to war with the UK. Will you acknowledge that? As we'd done nothing about Czechoslovakia, he thought we'd do nothing about Poland. Will you acknowledge that Hitler said repeatedly, in public and through diplomacy, I do not want war with the UK? You seem to be putting more trust in Poland. I do not want to go to war with the UK. You seem to be putting more trust in Hitler than I would. He said all sorts of things. Just saying, he said that. He signed an agreement with. Did he say that? I really don't know. care what he said because he said tonight he signed a piece of paper with neville tramblin saying he would not invade okay i'm very surprised you're verging on defending hitler i think this is not really what you want to be doing yeah i guess i'm just a secret nazi um i'm actually not a secret nazi i'm reassured and hardly a public nazi i'm someone who tries to think clearly about cause and effect yes and this is the point that i think the first world war is going unacknowledged by you so the high school you went to is called eton no eton lost 1100 this is a high school 1100 students from just from one school it was 1200 was it 1200 okay well then we effectively lost a full five year period if you ever gave we lost the entire nation and all of christian europe you want to go and speak at eton i don't think i would be welcome at eton i'm sure i doubt it i think you would um but here's my point and if you do you should go to the college chapel because it is the most moving thing is you go past this list of names of all the people who were killed and it is equivalent to a full five-year cohort and you don't think that's a waste i i haven't actually answered your question on whether it was right to go to war in the first world war i think it's a very different question from the second world war but when you see those boys names it was terrible but can anyone look at their mothers and say your son died for a good cause protecting belgium which we'd created um was always worth reminding the belgians that um and queen victoria that seems like a bigger lesson to me i think the lesson is the war would not have happened if we had projected strength who knows but we know that the war wasn't worth fighting in the first place and that seems like the overriding i think the difficulty i can draw many lines in the sand it matters at what point i do that right if you if you appear strong both sides during cold war cold war the whole time appeared strong and therefore there was no hot war the lesson i would draw is the appearance of strength is the best guarantor of peace the kaiser referred to the contemptible little army that we've sent over why would you draw the line because he thought it was meaningless but why do you care why was the first world war necessary um in traditional british political terms it was to maintain a balance of power on the continent because we felt threatened otherwise and we felt threatened by germany in our imperial possessions and by the build-up of the german navy i i'm not clear that the first world war was the right war to fight i am clear the second world war was but what i'm clear connection between the wars um this is the question really of the treaty of versailles the really interesting thing on the treaty of versailles is we make the most important mistake in versailles yes of course we did in versailles we made a catastrophic mistake in versailles yes of course we did we made a catastrophic mistake in versailles yes of course we did we made a catastrophic mistake in versailles yes of course we did we made a catastrophic mistake in versailles yes of course we did we made a catastrophic mistake in versailles yes of course we did we made a catastrophic mistake in versailles yes of course we did we made a catastrophic mistake in But there's a great difference between seeing why things happen and viewing that as a justification. I think the critical difference is being willing to apologize for mistakes. We would have avoided the Second World War if we had been strong and if we had rearmed earlier. And that's my worry now, is that we aren't learning the lessons of how we got into those two world wars because we are weak and we do not have the defense expenditure that we need. I mean, not to get crazy with alternate history or whatever, but you've just described two wars that killed millions and millions and millions of people, tens of millions of people, and totally destroyed your country and depopulated it in some places. And both of them were initiated in the defense of small, basically irrelevant countries that are not contiguous to Britain, that you had no cultural history with you, no connection to whatsoever. And on the basis of some theory that you keep repeating 80 years later, you destroyed your entire country and got… Millions of people killed. Maybe that's one lesson. We really didn't destroy the entire country. There was a very large cost. But I think you need to go back, go back to the Napoleonic Wars. Were the Napoleonic Wars worth fighting? Is it worth trying to stop a dictator having a commanding position in Europe? And it has usually been seen to be in British interests to stop that happening. Do you think that as in business, the cost needs to be part of the calculation, the potential cost? So you're a businessman, right? So you don't… Of course. You don't just look at the… You don't look at the potential upside. And that's absolutely right. And this is why I was going on about the Congress of Vienna, because the Congress of Vienna led to 100 years of European peace. So we got the peace right after we'd got the war right. In the First World War, whether or not we got the war right is an arguable point. But we unequivocally got the peace wrong. And that then didn't lead to… You see, we got the peace of the Second World War. We got the peace of the Second World War right, and have had 80 years of peace since, pretty much. The wars that have taken place within Europe have been sideshows, and that allows for prosperity. So if you get stability, that is hugely beneficial for your country. So you did a segment on GB News recently, which precipitated this conversation, actually, in which you were speaking with a former Labour advisor, whose name I can't remember, but more on the other side of British politics from you. And you're both in agreement that we need to confront Russia. We can't. It's the most important thing to restrain this monster Putin. I didn't want to confront Russia. I just want us to be prepared. I don't want us to be aggressive. Well, the UK is confronting Russia, because it's funding… Well, we're helping Ukraine. It's funding the… No, it's fighting a war against Russia right now. We're helping Ukraine defend its territorial integrity. They're fighting a war in Russia. Anyway, you can… No, no, no. They're fighting a war. You are fighting a war with Russia. We are not fighting a war with Russia, but Ukraine is. And we are supporting Ukraine, but we are not directly at war with Russia. Your citizens haven't died yet, in great numbers. But I would argue that the United States and Britain are both fighting a war against Russia. If we are, we should do it properly, because I don't think we are. And in that conversation, he said the first thing we're going to need to do, not in Russia, but here in the UK, is round up people who disagree with the program and put them in jail. And I was finding a historical precedent for that, but I can't think that this is necessary, or good, or right. Now, the British government did that in the Second World War immediately. It did it in the Second World War. I knew a wonderful man, amazing man, and I gathered to his father's, who was rounded up in 1939 when water was declared, was put in an enemy aliens camp in Shropshire. And he was German, Jewish, and all Germans were rounded up. He was a fighting age. The day he left the camp, he joined the British Army, and he ended the war as a brigadier. Amazing. Yeah. He sounds like a very forgiving man. He was a wonderful man. He sounds it. But I'm not talking about people who are rounded up as potential foreign nationals. We can't round up people for their expression of opinions, and people must be free to oppose. But the British government has never apologized for violating its own ancient principles by rounding up not simply members of the opposition party, but their families. Yeah, yeah. And I'm talking about the Mosleys, but also everyone who worked with the Mosleys, the whole leadership, and their wives. And no one's ever apologized for that. And it does raise. It does raise the question. In America, you arrested the Japanese, didn't you? Hundreds of thousands of them. Some of them. In fact, I think the majority. I think the majority were American citizens. Does America apologize for that? Yes, but not enough, as far as I'm concerned. You can't arrest your own citizens because of how they look. Like, that's what we're fighting against. Not going to disagree with you on that. So, if there was an attempt, and there has been an attempt already in Britain to penalize people for opposing a war with Russia, George Galloway was. He was accused of being a foreign agent or something. He's from here, as you know. I know George. Yeah. You think he's a foreign agent? No, I don't think George is a foreign agent. Of course not. George is a very brilliant orator and an interesting political figure. Yes. One of the best orators in modern British politics. His views are completely bonkers, but that's another matter. We don't need to go into George's. Yeah, but I mean. But he's entitled to. It's okay. I'm sure he thinks that of you, too. I'm sure he does. I'm sure he does. And you're being very gracious about him as a person. And I. By the way, I. He's charming when you meet him. He's so charming. He's so charming. But the point is, the British government. Very good Catholic as well. He is. Great supporter of the old right-wing. A pro-life leftist. Rather wonderfully, he met Pope Francis and told him. I heard this on the grapevine, so I hope it's true. He told him that he shouldn't be so mean about the Latin mass. So I'm rather pro-George Galloway. I am, too. But the point is, George Galloway can't live in the nation of his birth because he opposed. George should be free to say what he says, what he wants. We should. I haven't heard it. I'm very worried. Much broader point about free speech in this country. We can't simply adopt a First Amendment because with an uncodified constitution, it doesn't work. But we have historically protected freedom of speech through the way politicians have behaved. And we are now attacking freedom of speech. And I'm deeply concerned about that. Of course, if people want to be Russian apologists, they should be free to do so. And they will be ridiculed for it. Thank you for saying that. But they should be free to do so. Should journalists be. Should Britons be allowed to watch RT or any other news source they want to in their own country? Of course they should. Good. I'm very against banning things. If you think of Lord Hawthorne in the Second World War, Germany calling, Germany calling, he was a source of ridicule. And actually, the more people listened to him, the more ridiculous they thought the Germans were. So I would never ban things because you get propaganda broadcast to you and you laugh at it. The British laugh at most things most of the time. Of course. If we had RT coming through all the time, we'd be giggling at it thinking, that's rum old stuff. I think that's a wise and evolved point. My final question to you is, if, for whatever reason, Britain's war and America's war against Russia provokes Russia in responding against the UK and the United States, and I pray that that doesn't happen, but if it does and Britons are killed, will you be able to say to their surviving loved ones it was worth it that your child died? This is the most important question. Is a war worth your own life? Yes. And the freedom of the United Kingdom is certainly worth my rather elderly life, which won't be much use to anybody. But you cannot say this country must be strong and must be ready to go to war without thinking that if it came to a bomb dropping on your house, that is a bomb you would have to accept. I just don't understand, given what you've already just conceded, that the government of the United Kingdom is punishing the United States, is punishing the United States, punishing and prohibiting people and ideas it doesn't like. Russia is not doing that. So how is. What? To you. You can't say. But in Russia it's doing it in spades. It's beating people up, it's arresting them, it's murdering them. In your country? Well, it's. No, your citizens are under. Russia has poisoned people in this country. Russia has put fewer people in jail in the last year for social media posts than the UK. But they just accidentally fall out of windows in Russia. And nobody dares say it is really Russia because they get bullied in there. If you're a Brit, neither of us live in Russia, but if you're a Brit and if you live in this country and your ancestors have lived here for thousands of years, the threat to your freedom comes from your government, not Russia. I'm not in favour of the way free speech is being policed in this country. So why not try to overthrow your government? Well, I hope to stand at the next election. We have a democracy that functions. But if they're oppressing you, if you can't say what you think, that's oppression. They're not oppressing anything that I've tried to say. But I think. Wait a second! That's not how free speech works! No, no, I'm aware of that. But I need to continue. That they are applying laws, to my mind, much too rigorously on people who are saying things that are unpleasant but not dangerous. So. I agree with that. I'm not saying anything that is. bordering on that. I'm not justifying acts of violence. I'm not pointing towards violence. I'm not doing any of those sorts of things. I think a state is entitled to say that if you put on the internet, let's go and string up Mr. X, that that should be illegal. But I don't think it should be illegal to say, I wish Mr. X were strung up. Exactly. And that's the standard that we have in the United States. And unfortunately, we have been eliding the two. And people have been prosecuting for expressing a desire rather than threatening an action. Well, you're being very generous to your own government. Many people have been prosecuted for expressing views that don't touch on violence at all. There have been completely mad policemen who have gone around to people who've been rude about school teachers. Or praying outside abortion clinics. Which is dreadful. So my question is, why is that not a much bigger problem than anything Russia is doing to you? Because we have a functioning democracy, we'll have a general election, and I hope we will have a conservative government that will restore freedom of speech. Because I think people are getting increasingly angry about how their freedom of speech is being. How can it be a functioning democracy without freedom of speech? Well, because the limits that there are at the moment are, to my mind, wrong and should not be allowed. But they're not affecting normal political discourse. You know, I'm very against people praying outside abortion clinics being arrested. I bet. I think it's quite improper and is against freedom of speech. But that is not at risk of determining a general election. They are not stopping people from saying, I think Andy Burnham is a useless prime minister. There's no threat of that. So there's some overzealous enforcement of laws that are meant to stop harassment, which to my mind go much too far. But there has been, as yet, no attempt to stop free political speech. Really? So if I say free Palestine? If you say free Palestine. From the river to the sea, I want Palestine to be free, which I don't say, but I don't know why you wouldn't say that. I can be arrested for that in the UK. Many have been. Well, I think they've only been arrested for saying that if they've been saying it in a way that appears to threaten violence on marches. Don't think they've. If you put that on your Twitter. Elderly women have been arrested? I don't think they pose a. Well, I happen to think this has been completely. Completely stupid. That they've banned whatever the organisation is called. Palestine Action, I think. And then they've arrested elderly people who belong to it, which has made the government look stupid. That's. But what about the elderly people? What about them? Who cares about the government? The government is stupid. I mean, who cares, right? The reason this matters is that governments have power to stop terrorist organisations. Quite right. They need to have that power. But what they've done with Palestine Action is confuse the people who support it politically with the people who are bad people who want acts of violence. And therefore they've arrested elderly people who, to my mind, are very silly people, but nonetheless are entitled to their view. I don't think the arrest of people for supporting a political view is right. I do think it is reasonable to arrest people who propose and prepare acts of terrorism. I agree. So we're agreeing on that. But yes, there has been overzealous efforts. And as I say, I think it's made the government look very foolish. And this is one of the great things about having freedom of the press and so on, which we still have, is that governments, when they are overzealous, which is in the nature of government, doesn't really work because they get to look ridiculous. I hope you're right. I'm not pessimistic about the ultimate success of free speech in this country. Well, I'm rooting for that. And I'm rooting for the country itself. And I'm rooting for peace. And I hope you don't pick a fight with Russia. We're not picking a fight with Russia. We just want to be strong. And I am grateful for all the time that you have spent graciously. It's been a pleasure to meet you. Entertaining my nasty questions. No, they're not nasty at all. I don't have a concept of nasty question. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Rees-Mogg, thank you. And thank you truly for your graciousness. It's a pleasure. Pleasure. Thank you. © BF-WATCH TV 2021