Well, that’s a deal-breaker.
Oh, well.
At a time when Russian, Chinese and even American aggression is at it’s highest for decades? Great idea.
America is the leader of NATO so yes this is an awesome idea.
Leader. So you don’t even know how it works.
America is not leader of NATO, it’s a member of NATO. If America were to attack anyone that would be by definition not a NATO action.
America decides who NATO is going to invade and all the NATO members will obey and hop aboard. That is how it works.
No it isn’t. America has its opinions on things I am sure but NATO does not exist to execute the arbitrary wims of the United States, especially now, but not really ever.
It’s a military defence packed, if one nation is attacked the others respond as if they themselves were attacked. In the past the US has definitely abused this in order to get what they want. But in no way does that make them in charge.
You don’t seem to realise, that it’s not about your defense. You are likely to die at the frontlines or due to some nuke, once NATO countries decide go to war, if anything. Its “defense” is for the western imposed capitalist and imperialist world order — which is in crisis right now. Not for you, not for your loved ones, not for your way of life.
I am sure
Sure? How? On what basis? Vibes?
the US has definitely abused this in order to get what they want
Why wouldn’t that happen again? What’s different, if the EU abuses it?
You’re naive, sorry. Don’t simp for NATO.
Right because every single war that has happened since the end of the second world war has been a nuclear exchange, oh wait hang on.
If Russia invades a European country NATO or not, Europe is going to war simply for the purposes of self-preservation, so we might as well have it organised.
Nice. NATO is an offensive alliance responsible for the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and more, all by using lies as pretenses for their invasion.
Yeah I don’t know why other commenters here are surprised by the most bog standard leftist position
Can’t see this being a popular move with the majority of the population while Russia keeps antagonising Europe and the US being so temperamental right now.
Given the party is membership lead I cannot see it making it out of November’s conference.
The media likes to push JC and ZS statements as our Party Policy. While desperately trying to ignore the facts. That no one has any idea what the members will vote for yet. The whole question what is the difference between greens and your Party. Can only be answered. You Party is membership not leadership led. Untill those leaders are selected and members vote on policy. Such questions are stupid.
A European army is a far more sensible move than NATO. The US is an extremely unreliable partner. If Russia acually invades EU (which it won’t because the EU already spends 4x more money on military than Russia right now) you can bet America will sit back and call it a day or do some top tier blackmail in exchange for helping.
What’s the difference though? It would essentially be the same thing as NATO just without the US and Canada. We’d still have the same commitments. Canada is a reliable partner and it’s only really Trumps reign where the US has been a bit weird but ultimately it’s still a huge strength to have the US within the pact.
That the US cannot lead the EU into invading Iran under fake pretenses which I expect any moment now.
In case you haven’t noticed, the EU is incredibly dependant on American weapons and are constantly getting blackmailed by it.
I agree with the general sentiment, but let’s be honest. America has been America First since well before Trump and it will be well after. Remember when our darling Obama hacked an EU ally’s phone?
Sounds like she’ll be a useful idiot for Putin then.
Yeah this is my out. Time to sign up for Greens.
She is not leading the party. Her opinions are worth no ,pre then any other members untill the membership votes in November.
The whole question about the difference between greens and your party. Is answered by. Yp will be membership lead not leadership lead.
A party still needs leadership that guides the core principles of the party. If it’s 100% membership lead then what’s to stop the membership being made up entirely of far-right people and creating right wing policies? She’s one of the founding members so her opinions carry weight.
That is not the ideal that Your Party is set up on. Rules have not yet been agreed. We members get to look at the 4 founding documents and approve or change next week. So exact processes have not been agreed.
But we do know that the foundation is bottom up. Leaders do not get to make policy. Members do. He processes that control that are to be voted on in November. But the membership is clear. Unlike labour. Leaders taking over the party from the majority of the membership will be made impossible. No vote has happened on NATO. So ZSs comment are not in any way Your Party Policy. And no evidence I have seen so far indicates the majority of the membership would vote for leaving.
That is not the ideal that Your Party is set up on. Rules have not yet been agreed.
What’s to stop the members from choosing policy that go against Corbyn’s and Zarah’s vision? That’s what I find confusing. The members might make up a load of right wing policies, then what? Who’s going to step in and go “actually, that’s not what we envisioned, you can’t do that.”?
Sorry for multiple replies to one message. But another way to look at it is the following.
Billionaires find it much more practice to control the people working with a leadership team. Then 100ks of members. Even if the cost is low to them. The sheer work involved in controlling a large party via membership is huge. And expensive. Even to them.
Part of the reason you fear membership control. Although you are unaware as all are. Is because billionaires via the media have spent decades arguing against membership lead parties. Simply because far right politics dose not appeal to the masses.
Just looking at recent events. Even reform for all their growth. Is still trying to appeal with left wing politics like nationalising transport and water utilities etc. while desperately trying the deny the far right accusations based on their immigration reform etc. like all historic fasism they have to have an enemy. But concentrate on false claims of harm to lower class people. Rather then selling the right wing ideals their backers require.
But let me ,Ake one thing clear. You would be more then welcome to join Your Party and express these views. You would not be entirely alone. It is a topic discussed a lot. But the majority of members are more worried about the history of every single party being controlled by small groups. Then an oppositional membership in this format.
Nothing ATM. But as the members are attracted to the party through them. It is unlikely we will vote for founding documents that reject that vision entirely.
That vision is a membership lead left wing party. As a founding principle nothing more exists. Once the 4 founding documents are voted on. And accepted by the membership. Then their will be some rules as to party policies. But the basic principal is still membership led.
Here is a more relevent question. Labour was set up as a union supporting working class led party. Yet the leadership opposed the membership by moving to a corperation funded non working class controlled party.
The leadership has refused community Labour Party supported MP candidates and rejected membership voted policies.
It seems a leadership run party is more likely to reject the membership and founding principals then a membership lead party.
This is why many of the left. Who have been lied to and deceived when voting Starmer as a leader. Refuse to join the greens. We tend to love their policies. But are more scared of the future where members cannot control the leadership. Then we are of members overriding leadership.
Oh good a sensible policy that is totally workable and not at all batshit crazy, and absolutely would in no way shape or form put the country in a precarious position.
I’m starting to see why she left labour. They probably laughed at it too much.
To counter that: we need to stay in NATO and fulfil our commitment to increasing spending on the military and nuclear weapons to 5% of GDP. That’s something like £140-150 billion a year. A massive increase that everyone important says we need because war is coming. What’s more we need to further cut services, spending on education and NHS, social security and increase taxes. Why? War is coming. We can’t have the threat of China and Russia driving tanks, sailing boats and submarines all the way to our little country, can we? Do we want to live in Little Beijing-on-the-Thames or St Petersberg-on-Tyne or what?
Tankie.
Oof. And this is the wacky policy they’re happy to say out loud…
