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

Episode Date: October 2, 2026

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg explains how Britain, which has a combat ready military force about half the size of New York’s police department, must prepare for war with Russia. (00:00) What Is This War and Why Does Britain Need to Fight It? (19:40) Is There Majority Support for War With Russia? (26:18) Is Using Nuclear Weapons Accepted in Christianity? (33:15) Was WWII Good for Britain? (39:08) Is Ukraine a Sovereign Country?Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg is a British politician and broadcaster who served as a Conservative Member of Parliament from 2010 to 2024. A prominent advocate for Brexit, he held senior government roles including Leader of the House of Commons and Business Secretary. He now hosts State of the Nation on GB News. Paid partnerships with: Angel Studios: Watch The Brink of War at http://angel.com/TC American Financing: NMLS 182334, nmlsconsumeraccess.org. Average savings based on borrowers who save over $199.99. Call 800-685-5696 or visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/Tucker. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mr. Rees-Bunk, 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 have 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 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 already. I wonder why. Why has he tried to poison people in Salisbury? Why have his submarines been poking round 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. Hence, 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, I think, basic measure. No, no, no, it hasn't got a larger economy than Britain. It's got a smaller economy than Britain's. It's got larger military.

There's much larger economy. It has much more wealth and resources and there's 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 pretty important measure of an economy. It's one measure we can pay with it. Russia is, Russia is an economic failure. That it could have a huge economy, but it's got a small economy because it's deeply corrupt,

and 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 money in Russia. Inherent wealth isn't very useful, is it?

There are lots of African countries that have huge resources that have never been able to use that. It depends what your timeline is. Well, if you go over hundreds of years, They haven't used them. Yeah. Russia has consistently been a poor country in spite of its resources. Yeah. Okay.

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. 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 the dictators attack?

They do because they can. But you're nowhere near Russia. 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. 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? I guess it's... So 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 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.

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 of nation states? In my own, for sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure that the territorial integrity of someone else's state is worth risking my life for. 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, this is the fundamental point, which we're 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 States. Kingdom, that the territorial integrity of Ukraine would be inviolable on condition that Ukraine

gave up its nuclear weapons. Oh, no, you are mistaken. United States has never pledged to go to war with Russia. I didn't say it did. Okay, then it's 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.

Okay, then it's irrelevant. 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's a request that can be ignored. 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, 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. But if you stop fighting the war, they will be less likely to...

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. 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 of 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 worry to be a...

Well, I assume that's going to happen, of course. So you don't mind nation states and being each other? 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 what cost to my own population? So it's a much more complicated calculation than the one you're presenting. You can if you project strength.

And I'm afraid what the West did towards... Russia was 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 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 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 point. 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 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 the 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 past 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 slash 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 were to. Okay, on the second Gulf War, I share exactly. And now there is 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'm going to apologize. 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 was 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. And actually, the George Bush Sr. got it right because he had the opportunity to take Iraq at 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 territorial integrity of Kuwait. Now, where I think I disagree with you is that the funding, fundamental building Brock 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. And then you've got 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 do you keep describing Putin as a dictator as distinct from Zelensky, who has not been elected in seven years? He's canceled the elections and banned the largest Christian denomination in the country and imprisoned people for criticizing him. So he's 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 and second World War. I'm merely saying if 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 involved. And this is very sensible. We do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I don't want anyone have a nuclear weapon. I'm just saying that this is... I want Britain to have nuclear weapons, and I don't mind the United States having money.

I don't want anyone on our trial to happen. I'm merely saying that we can't be surprised by that response, because that's just the nature of great powers. Okay? Yes, that must be right. My question is, what can you do about it? So you have said that weakness abets aggression, which is an often repeated axiom, which I sure is entirely true,

but it can't be true. But what's your option? So Britain right now has apparently a military strength of under 19,000 ready for combat. So for perspective, 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 is 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 militaries. It's very easy to know how powerful 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, 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 overwhelming powerful if they wanted to, like this afternoon, and they decided not to. Well, they used nuclear weapons, but without... They used hypersonic weapons, which can't be stopped. 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 expectations. Do you disagree that they could if they wanted to today? And this war, of course they could. Well, I think if they took it to another level, they would risk other people. 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 to that point? 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 they're doing? I actually think 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.

Well, 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... You keep referring to an event from 35 years ago

that is one small part of a long saga. No, no, no, no, this is fundamental, because Russia would not have 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' forces, them to get rid of them. I was there for this. I'm not denying this. I'm not denying that Ukraine has had enormous corruption and still... I'm 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 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... But I feel like we're in a cul-de-sec right now. 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 to that treaty, does that matter? Or do you just sign these things a walk-in-way? We have never signed a treaty obligating the... Well, we haven't, and you keep pretending that we have. No, I haven't. We have no... 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. 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. It gives you an interest in the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Let me ask you this question. There's a hierarchy of responsibility that a nation and 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's. 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, say 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 asset that families 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 debt. 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 you're 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 American financing have a better way. They're helping homeowners tap into their hard-earned equity. They're supporting Americans looking to fulfill. the American Dream of Home. American financing saves its customers an average of $800 a month.

That's nearly $10,000 a year. It's not just a loan, it's a total financial reset. And so American financing is worth looking at. They're called America's Home for Home Loans for a reason. Find out more at 800-685-56-86. 800-685-56-96-96-9. Or visit Americanfinancing. Dot net slash Tucker.

So if you go from a fighting force of under 19,000, which is bigger than Estonias, which is 5,000, but still somewhat less than the 3.5 million in the Russian army, how much would that cost? And where would the money come from? Well, there's plenty of money, which is 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? Welfare benefits to 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 getting increasingly worried. The world is getting...

Do you think that the average Britain, 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 life-to-law... 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 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 diseased tax codes at all. I agree. This is, 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.

So to what extent would you have to increase the size of your military to intimidate rights? 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. 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. 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 same, but I don't think it is intimidating.

Using different forms of English. Because we're not going to intimidate Russia, nor do we want to... But you're going to, you want to tell Russia if you mess with the UK, it's just not worth it. We're scary enough that, like, go pick on someone else. 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 3.5% 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. 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 are armed. 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-ield 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? I think people will take you 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 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 purpose as being the, the final threat. Useful in what way? It's useful in 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. 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, yes.

I thought the number of, 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... 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... We were not in a state of total war, actually. There were no Japanese troops on American soil. We were not on a state of total war. That's not even close to a state of total war. They had attacked American soil, as you know. 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 overall... In other words, if you punch me in the face, I can't shoot you.

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... What about killing people's kids? There's nothing to do with it. That's okay, because why? We went war with the whole country. And it ended the war with the kids?

And it ended the war. Yes, Japan was at war with the United States and the United Kingdom. So if another nation says there are a 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. Why not kill the people who started the war? And, well, we did in the end. we, the Japanese Prime Minister tried to commit suicide, and we spent ages getting him back to good health, say we could hang him. We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima Nagasaki, and you're saying that's okay. To end the war, I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War was justified.

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 people's 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 is any statement since 1945. And I'm not Catholic, so I'm not an expert, but you are, so you tell me. As a Catholic, you think the church endorses killing people's kids. Since 1945, there's only been one explicitly ex-catheter statement 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 were fighting? That once a war is engaged with, the whole point of what I'm talking about, go back to the opening part of your question. Can you finish the thought? 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 conditioned to invade the United States and never put troops on our shores. So there was no risk to it attacked you, but it wasn't likely to put troops on the order. It detected territory, right? And with the bad, it was not a state. It was not a state. There wasn't 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 fireboring of Tokyo was justified? I don't think killing the innocent is ever justified under any circumstances.

And I think 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 takes such exquisite care to punish only the guilty.

I don't even understand what you're saying. I think it's very difficult to have fought the Second World War without innocent people being killed. I don't know. No one tried. But maybe, I'd 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.

No, let's start with the First, which lets in 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 said. That was his case. And by the way, that was true. Except except the Polish borders had been cut up by... Russia and Austria 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, and ferreated 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'll 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 at least a European language spoken in your country. No, I've seen no advantage to 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. benefits this country. Can you tell me how? But as I said to you, otherwise, Germany would eventually have invaded us. So you, Germany... But we've had 80 years to assess. Tell me the benefits. Now sitting 80 years later as the grandson of, 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, and my father was too young. So we sort of missed a generation. I'm saying, now that we've had, and as a lover of history, why don't you tell me the ways in which Britain benefited from, 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. 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? 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 NATO together. Call them whatever you want, but there's still foreigners on your soil. Yeah, they're very welcome here. I know. 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 think, 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 if the nation state has no sovereignty.

This nation state has sovereignty. How can it have sovereignty when it has foreign troops on it? We were able to pull out of the European Union. That showed us an exercise in sovereignty. Well, that's all 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 that you may need to prepare for a war 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 a military to protect your own borders? Oh, look, I'm not going to disagree with you on that. We should definitely be much more... But you're not calling for conscription or a defense build-up or 3% of GDP

to go 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 Britain's to defending Ukraine, Why not coming to 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? It was 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.

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 would 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 disabilities.

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 of illegal immigration, and we need to be deporting. 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 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 grading because really the choices

between a Ukraine controlled by the East, Russia, or the West of 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 that direction, and the U.S. government just kind of overthrew the government. Well, you've 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 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. 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 on... 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 in a way the best supranational

organization because it is a voluntary grouping with no ability to compel. So the nation state retains its nation state capability within NATO. It's not like the European Union or the International Criminal Court, 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.

Yeah, I mean, 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 I would have to speak. 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. 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 always depended upon peace. So we... So is this a richer country than it was in 1940s? Much richer. Materially, much richer. Really? Oh, yeah, GDP growth per capita.

GDP growth from 1945. What was the unemployment rate in 1945? Well, of course. You're an end of the war. 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? 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. Okay, 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, 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, not why, no. I'm out on that question. You want to come over to Rome. Well, I certainly believe in Rome's position on murdering innocence. 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 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 leave here. So I'll leave it. I also, I don't think you mentioned touched on India. I think it was very unlike. 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 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, to protect Belgium, it was worth destroying all of Europe and losing 1.5 million Britons? You don't always listen if I did say, Mr. Tucker. What I said was that the enemy felt free to invade 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.

Well, we went to help the French. If we... You attacked them. We had a treaty with Belgium, but we went to help the French who were falling back remarkably quickly in August 90s. You attacked the Germans. They did not attack you.

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 which refuse 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 weak, then you find you get into war by accident. If you'll 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 repeatedly said, I do not want to go to war with the UK. We acknowledge that? As we'd done nothing about Czechoslovakia, he thought we'd do nothing about Poland. We acknowledge that Hitler said repeatedly in public and through diplomacy. I do not want more with the UK. You seem to be putting more trust in Hitler than I would. He said all sorts of things.

He signed an agreement with Nobel- Did he say that? I really don't care what he said, because he signed a piece of paper with Neville-Chamblein saying he would not invade. 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. 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 you're missing. The cost of the First Rural War is going unacknowledged by you. So the high school you went to is called Eaton.

No. Eaton lost 1,100. This is a high school. 1100 students from, just from one school. I think it was 1,200. Was it 1,200? Okay. Well, then...

We effectively lost a full five-year period. If you ever gave me... We lost the entire nation in all of Christian Europe. You want to go and speak at Eaton. I don't think I would be welcome at Eaton. I'm sure. I doubt it. I think you would.

But here's a... 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 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, it was always worth reminding the Belgians that. And Queen Victoria's uncle got making... 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 lesson. I think the difficulty... I can draw many lines in the sand. It matters at what point I do that, right? If you appear strong, Both sides during 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 in the First World War, because he thought it was meaningless. But why do you care? Why was the First World War necessary in traditional British War? 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'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 on... Did you see a connection between the wars? This is the question really of the Treaty of Versailles. The real really interesting thing on the Treaty of Versailles is we make the terrible mistake of letting the French lead the negotiations. If you go back to the Congress of Vienna, which was led by Castleray, Castle Ray's peace treaty with France, Napoleon said, these are the terms I would have given Britain, had I defeated Britain. We were so generous that Napoleon himself said these were as generous as terms as he would have given had he won. And that led to 100 years of peace.

So I don't think we make a catastrophic mistake in Versailles. Yes, of course we did. 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're

got into those two world wars because we are weak and we do not have the defense expenditure that we need. And I just, 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. You had no cultural history with you, had 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.

That there was a very large cost, but I think you need to go back, go back to the Napoleonic Wars with a 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 business, man, right? So you don't just 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 right and have had 80 years of peace since pretty much. The wars that have taken place within Europe have been side shows. 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 labor advisor whose name I can't remember, but more on the other side of British politics from you. And you're both on agreement that we need to confront Russia, we can't. It's the most important thing to restrain this monster Putin.

I don'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. 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. 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 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 story. 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. Now, I gathered to his fathers, who was rounded up in 1939 when the order was declared, was put in an enemy aliens camp, and in Shropshire. And he was German, Jewish, and all German. Germans were rounded up. He was a fighting age. The day he left the camp, he joined the bridge army, and he ended the war as a brigadier. Amazing. Yeah, because 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 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 with the Mosleys, but also everyone who worked with the Mosleys, all the whole leadership and their wives. And no one's ever apologized for that. And 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 were American citizens. And 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. 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 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's a foreign agent. George is a very brilliant orator and an interesting political figure. Yes. So 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, it's okay. I'm sure he thinks out 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 by the way, I... He's charming when you meet you. He's so charming. But the point is the British government... Very good Catholic as well. He is.

Great support of the Old Right Mars. A pro-life left us. Rather wonderfully, he met Pope Francis and told him, I heard this on the Great Vine. I hope it's true. He told him that he shouldn't be so mean about the Latin Mass. So I'm rather pro-Gellowe, though. I am too. But the point is, George Galloway.

he can't live in the nation of his birth because he opposed... George should be free to say what he says, what he wants. I'm very worried as a 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. 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 Hawhor in the Second World War, Germany calling, Germany calling, he was a source of ridicule. And actually, the more people

listen 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. If we had RT coming through all the time, we'd be giggling at it, thinking, that's rummel 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 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 and prohibiting people and ideas it doesn't like, Russia is not doing that. So how is... What?

You can't say... But in Russia, it's doing it in... spades, it's beating people up, it's restering them, it's merging 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 has. They just accidentally fall out of windows in Russia. And nobody dares say it's really in Russia because they get bullied in there. If you're a Britain, 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 favor 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 have tried to say. But I think... Wait a second.

It's not how free speech works. No, no, I'm aware of that. But I need to continue. they are applying laws to my mind much too rigorously on people who are saying things that are unpleasant but not dangerous.

So, I'm not saying anything that is bordering on that. I'm not justifying acts of violence. I'm not pointing towards violence. Not 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 aliding 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. We're 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 hate 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? Because the limits that there are at the moment are, to my mind, wrong and should not be allowed,

but they are 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? 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. If you put that on your Twitter account.

Elderly women have been arrested? I don't think they pose a... Well, I happen to think this has been completely stupid. They've banned whatever the organization is called. Palestine action, I think. And then they've arrested elderly people who belong to it, which has made the government look stupid. But what about the elderly people? What about them? Who cares about the government? Look at the government is stupid.

I mean, who cares, right? The reason this matters is that governments have power to stop terrorist organizations. Quite right. They need to have that power. But what they've done with Palestine action is confused 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, 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.

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 up 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 questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Rees-Mogg, thank you.

And thank you, truly for your gracious. It's pleasure. Pleasure. Thank you.